Posted on 05/28/2012 9:15:30 PM PDT by AmonAmarth
Mitt Romney will officially clinch the Republican nomination for President when he secures the 1,144 delegates required to become the party's nominee in the Texas primary later tonight. Romney will also campaign today in two western battleground states, Colorado and Nevada.
The former Governor will begin the day in the northwest Colorado town of Craig where he will hold a rally at Alice Pleasant Park and is scheduled to talk about the economy and energy policy.
According to the Craig Daily Press, the owner of Deer Park Inn sent the Romney campaign a video called ”The Perfect Storm Over Craig, Colorado” and an invitation to the town. The video highlights the community’s dependence on the energy industry and how regulations have caused economic hardships.
A few hours later, Romney will attend two events in Las Vegas. He'll first hold a campaign rally at Somers Furniture store where he'll also talk about the economy. Debbi Somers, the company's owner, is a founding board member of the Women Visionaries and a member of the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council’s western region affiliate.
His final campaign stop will be at Trump International Tower where he'll attend a fundraiser with Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich. Tickets cost $2,500 per person. Romney was last in Nevada prior to his victory in the state's February 4th
Its a political party...
You can get away with doing things “for the benefit of the party” at the convention.
It would be rather easy to “convince” enough of the delegates to ABSTAIN from voting in the first round, if there was a coordinated effort to do so, which is why a blame the GOP if this happens.
Say what you want... ANY party that nominates a socialist is worthy of NOTHING but my CONTEMPT!
Feeling strong emotions is a very different thing than having coherent ideas.
What is NOT coherent about using the rules to avoid nominating a socialist?
F’ing di—
“Our problems this year were caused by not having an attractive, solidly-conservative candidate who got in and stayed in and ran well. “
So what? We have a convention that has rules. One of those rules is that the delegates cannot vote for anyone other than who they were “assigned” to vote for in the firat round. However... They CAN abstain from voting in the first round. If enough abstain then NO ONE gets the required number of delegates to become the nominee. If that happens they proceed to vote 2 - (however many it takes) but now, all delegates are free to vote for WHOMEVER they please... ANYONE.... Not just who ran in the primary...
Im pretty sure the conservatives will group around a candidate before its done. (without the interference of the media and “progressives”)
In that case, there is no way Romney walks out with the nomination.
Newt was handing Mitt his rear end in the national polls back in December.
Then along came Santorum and look what happened.
There were a couple that I would rather have had as the GOP nominee than Romney, but that isn't the real issue.
The real issue is that, taken alone, none of them was particularly attractive. This is what kept the primary electorate from coalescing around any one of them.
There are delegates who are pledged to vote for Romney.
These individuals were chosen as delegates because of this pledge. Romney got the votes and so his delegates were chosen.
Why should these delegates renege on their pledges and abstain from voting? They gave their word. Why should they go back on this now?
There is just no reason to what you suggest.
You want a different result so you are sitting there stating that someone should somehow order the delegates to do what you want.
This is nothing but narcissism on your part.
National polls choose neither nominees nor Presidents.
Herman Cain had some good polling numbers too, briefly.
Some want to claim that Santorum sank Newt. Others claim that Newt blocked Santorum.
Both Santorum and Newt were deeply flawed as candidates and both got beat.
That’s how it goes.
No ordering...
Most of these delegates are interested in the health of the party and country. If they were convinced that the health of the party and country would be in danger if romney were nominated, then convincing them to abstain wouldn’t be a hard task. It would be even easier if a contingent of well known and respected GOP “leaders” were the ones doing the convincing.
Talk all you want.... The ONLY legitimate outcome in your mind at this point is nominating a socialist as the GOP candidate...
I simply cant even begin to reconcile that... It doesn’t F’ing COMPUTE!!!!
ANYTHING we do to change that outcome is JUSTIFIED! The fact there are folks who are NOT willing to do WHATEVER it takes to stop a socialist from being nominated by the GOP makes me wonder about their sanity and or their intentions...
If these people didn't think Romney would make a good GOP nominee then they wouldn't have become pledged Romney delegates in the first place.
It would be even easier if a contingent of well known and respected GOP “leaders” were the ones doing the convincing.
Dude. Name three "well known and respected GOP leaders” who haven't already endorsed Romney.
There are always going to be naysayers. Reagan had plenty of naysayers, too.
But the liberals are better at organizing their naysayers and talking them into STFUing when it’s important to do so. You didn’t hear any liberal naysayers of Romney, did you? You think that’s because they weren’t there? If you think that, you’re wrong.
It’s because liberals are better at organizing their troops than we are. We do good on some things, like congressional races. The Tea Parties did great in 2010 in state and local elections. But when it comes to national organization, we really suck.
You can blame the candidates all you want but the problem is the candidates will never be perfect. Neither will we be... but we can do a heck of a lot better than we did in 2012.
Some of them have endorsed romney out of misguided party loyalty. Others, because they are part of the GOP’s “progressive” problem.
Some THINK, we are going to roll over again and vote for their candidate when our backs are against the wall.
Honestly, I dont expect much out the the GOP any more. I dont expect that they will “wise up” before or during the convention. I fully expect for these idiots to nominate their socialist. But that doesn’t mean i quit fighting them... and AFTER the convention i will NOT “join ranks” with them... I WILL continue to fight BOTH socialist parties (or at least their socialist candidates).
There is NO backing away from this once the gop commits to it. The socialists will gain more power over the GOP and the conservatives will be forced out. The GOP WILL BE A MECHANISM OF THE SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY.
...and you are ok with this... Your either an idiot or a romney hack... Based on your sparse posting history.. Id go with “progressive” hack...
Tell that to Dick Lugar.
Based on your sparse posting history.. Id go with “progressive” hack...
I've posted over 12,000 replies and all of them are more intelligent than anything you've posted to this thread.
"Sparse" indeed!
Being “entrenched” isn’t the point. The point is that it managed to be unified. It was not a herd of cats in 2012, however lame the candidate they found unity on. And you got to grant Mitt some surface features attractive to the GOPe. An almost perfectly pliable candidate. (”Hey Mitt, we know you went for Gay Marriage in Massachusetts but that was Massachusetts; Barack and Joe have just come out of the closet and polls show that most of America hates it. Can you accommodate?” “Aye, aye, sirs! I am now against Gay Marriage!”) A wonderfully successful businessman in an economy that stinks to high heaven, and even the Mitt-era Bain Capital looks a lot more like a hero than a bulldozer.
>> when he secures the 1,144 delegates required to become the party’s nominee in the Texas primary later tonight.
*My* (early) vote went for Gingrich. It chaps my heinie that they can’t even wait for the returns to come in before anointing the bozo.
>> I am biting my nails in anticipation! [of a brokered convention]
Hey smartass — you’d be better off biting your nails over whether your elitist smarmboy Myth “Almost Obama” Romney can distinguish himself from Barack “The Real Obama” Obama enough to get himself elected.
Without that brokered convention pulling Mittens to the right, he’ll be all but indistinguishable from the marxist. “Why go “Marxist Lite” when you can have yourself a real Marxist?”, sez the electorate. Bye Bye Myth. Hello four years of darkness.
Meh, then something is amiss with your post history. Goes back to 2006 but not much there.. Maybe different account?
yup.. Tell it to Lugar... Who only wishes he could have held out only one more cycle... Then he would have had it made...
Your defending a socialist. Good luck with that. ;)
Santorum came out of nowhere and won Iowa precisely because he was the only candidate willing to take on the gay mafia. Newt's win in South Carolina was what really divided the vote and made it a three-way race.
Social issues still matter. Newt turned me, and a whole lot of other social conservatives, off with his cheap shots at Paul Ryan about right-wing social engineering.
And, yes, Newt is still the best debater in the field without question.
Unfortunately, you still need some of the feelings voters to win, Newt's biggest area of weakness.
Being quite rural we are in a mail in ballot only precinct, thus required to fill in absentee ballots to vote, or go downtown about a thirty mile round trip to vote. We choose to do the mail ballot.
Voted Newt, and all the conservative downticket. We did our part for the Conservatives of California. Let’s see what happens now.
(Yes Newt was on the ballot)
Rick Perry screwed his own campaign. Is quoting Rick Perry where he states that he supports abortion in the case of rape and incest an example of being mean and nasty.
That’s why Rick Perry fell apart.
“I mostly recall those two aforementioned FReeper factions — Santorum and Gingrich — sniping at each other frantically through March and April.”
FR became a haven for Gingrich supporters and that was that. FR helped Romney as much as anyone else. Gingrich staying in the race allowed Romney to win in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin - states that Santorum needed to win.
Gingrich nearly let Romney win in Mississippi and Alabama! Aside from South Carolina and his homestate of Georgia, that was that.
FR has nobody to blame but itself that Romney is the nominee. They could have backed a conservative who could have beaten him, but they didn’t. So he lost, and that’s that.
That was December. Three months later, Romney and Santorum are going head to head, and people were still obsessed with December. This is why we have Romney as the nominee. Yeah, sure, Gingrich was ahead during spring training. When the actual games began, he couldn’t get it done.
“Both Santorum and Newt were deeply flawed as candidates and both got beat.”
How was Santorum ‘deeply flawed’?
Pretty difficult to agree on a candidate when they all had major flaws, and there wasn’t a candidate that stood clearly above the rest. You want to blame somebody, then blame the candidates.
Yep, that’s exactly it and why the Newt supporters were so frantic about South Carolina.
Had Newt lost there - we’d have Santorum as the nominee. Instead we got stuck with Newt, and enough people stuck with him to split the vote and hand Romney the victory.
What pissed me off about Newt was the support for global warming, the support for ‘sustainability’, the support for the lefty cause de jour, and we were all supposed to ignore it because Newt was ‘smart’.
Well I’m sorry, it doesn’t take brains to parrot Pelosi. For someone who’s perceived as brilliant, he’s sure made many boneheaded decisions.
What were Santorum’s ‘major flaws’ in your opinion?
Thank you for proving my point. The prosecution rests.
Two Santorum flaws that immediately come to mind:
1) Pro-"manufacturing" industrial policy. One either understand and trusts the free market to allocate resources or else one does not. Santorum does not.
2) Sloppy and undisciplined messaging. Santorum was quick to say things like "UC campuses don't teach American history." or "Calls for increased college enrollment are elitist,", etc. There was some truth behind both of these lines but he let himself be mischaracterized and put on the defensive by going off half-cocked.
For me it’s been 48 years. Goldwater, Reagan, Palin: the three I wanted among my votes. At least I (and the country) got one of them.
He said that himself. How is quoting Perry ‘mean’. Maybe being prolife isn’t important to you, in which case, you should be thrilled with Romney.
If there’s truth to it, then why are you criticizing him for addressing conservative issues that no one else would address. I teach history and I was thrilled to hear him calling out U of C for their terrible history courses.
I don’t see opposition to free trade as ‘deeply flawed’. I agree with you that it is a flaw, but I don’t think it’s significant enough compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s flaws.
We have Romney because of all the maligning of good conservatives by other so-called conservatives. We have Romney because of people like you.
Perry is a good conservative. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about.
Again, thank you for making my case for me.
I have to agree, much as I love her. As soon as she announced she wouldn't run, she should have endorsed Newt and started campaigning and appearing with him. I preferred Perry myself, but think Newt was the better pick. She couldn't drag McCain across the finish line in 08, because McCain had no intention of crossing it. But she could have dragged Newt - easily, I think. Oh well, just another opinion.
How is reporting Perry’s convictions wrt abortion ‘maligning’? Had he been as prolife as Santorum, he’d be the nominee today.
Looks like Perry will beat Newt in Texas - not to shabby.
You missed the point of my argument. But it’s not important. It’s all water under the bridge anyway.
Perry didn’t lose on the pro-life issue (Perry is clearly pro-life and has been endorsed by many pro-life groups) but because he appeared to be unelectable during the debates. I’m partial to the argument that he should have waited until he recovered completely from his back surgery before he took to the stage, but I don’t know if that would have helped and now will never know.
But that’s not my point anyway. I’m not going to repeat the point I was trying to make (which is lost on you and is probably irrelevant now anyway). Enough is enough. I stated it a couple of times already and now I’m moving on.
I definitely don’t want to refight the nomination wars.
“(Perry is clearly pro-life and has been endorsed by many pro-life groups)”
Then why did he say that he supported abortion in the case of rape and incest. I know many prolifers here in Texas, they went from being absolutely thrilled with Perry to feeling betrayed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.