Scott Walker shows fire in Iowa

Yes, narrowly. But that didn’t much matter, and the fact that Santorum was not equipped (as a second-tier candidate) to be able to go the distance.

The entire method by which the party selects a nominee must be changed, and most importantly, we must end the practice of allowing a candidate to merely “declare” for the office. Candidates should be drafted. Weeding out the prima donnas and the anti-Conservatives/unpopular types before any primary takes place. That would halt the McCains, Willards, et al.

:’)

The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary. Some states, such as Virginia, don't register by party, but generally, open primaries should not be allowed.

I don't agree that candidates should get drafted - that is grossly undemocratic.

The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary. Some states, such as Virginia, don't register by party, but generally, open primaries should not be allowed.

I don't agree that candidates should get drafted - that is grossly undemocratic.

Yes, closed primaries are a must (though that should extend beyond simply Presidential to all partisan offices). We’ve had problems in my state (TN) with Democrats voting in the open primaries and no runoffs (hence, we’re often saddled with the most left-leaning RINO carrying races with pluralities).

Yet one more problem is having non-Republican (Presidentially) states deciding early on whom the party nominees should be whittled down to. New Hampshire ceased to be a GOP state after 1988, it has voted exactly one time for a GOP Presidential candidate (in 2000, and that only because Ralph Nader took enough votes from Gore). Iowa as well, has also voted just once (2004, flipping with NH) since after 1984. Although both states can technically claim to be “competitive”, in reality, they’re generally reliably Democrat.

It would be as ridiculous for, say, Utah or Oklahoma determining the Democrat nominee. States that lean the most one way or the other should have more of a say in the selection. South Carolina has more credibility for the GOP, but it alone should not be a deciding factor as an early state.

To explain what I mean by drafting a candidate, we would hold a pre-convention of sorts where the potential applicants are thoroughly vetted. Anyone attending could potentially submit a name. Applicants appear and can be thoroughly questioned about their records and anything applicable to them. At that point, they can be whittled down to, say, 5 candidates (I’m throwing out a number, it could be more, could be less).

From there, those pre-approved candidates can then proceed with the actual primary process.

I’ll add as well that the primaries themselves have moved too far back. I think that primaries should begin in the Spring (not the Winter) and carry through the Summer. States should rotate their primaries/caucii (if IA & NH don’t like it, tough - it’s not designated in the Constitution that they get to pick the nominees, after all).

To address your point about the drafting issue being “grossly undemocratic”, I will say this: Given the importance of the office of Presidency, it is not one to be taken lightly or one that should continue to be selected via the current corrupted process. It should be done under a more “exclusive” environment with an engaged electorate (not the LIV’s) and thoroughly vetted candidates. The President himself is not elected democratically as it is (with the Electoral College being the method).

I’d also go so far as to say that we probably should change the method to per Congressional District. It is outrageous that in some states where you have a single major urban area (or one urban county) can outvote the preference of the vast overwhelming majority of a given state (especially when said counties are cesspools of electoral fraud).

Do you understand that there are millions and millions of registered Republicans in this country who really like candidates such as Mitt Romney?

They aren't really being controlled by brain wave rays emanating from Karl Rove's garage, you know.

This idea that there is a tiny core of moderates in the GOP who repeatedly force moderate candidates upon an overwhelming majority of hardcore conservative voters is not helpful. It encourages complacency and then paranoia.

I think it would be far more productive to ask "Why don't conservative candidates win 90% or more of registered Republican primary votes??" and then get to work from there.

This idea that there is a tiny core of moderates in the GOP who repeatedly force moderate candidates upon an overwhelming majority of hardcore conservative voters is not helpful. It encourages complacency and then paranoia.

I do not think this is true at all and a combination of factors makes it look like you describe. First the MSM promotes moderate Republicans and only gives them air time on the talk shows. Why are Linda Graham and John McCain the darlings of Sunday morning? Who selected them as Party spokesmen?

The first primaries are held in questionable places like NH and IA, I think this is the biggest problem we face. Flyover country is VERY conservative and their voices are stifled.

I do not know where Croydon is but you need to get out more.

It would be as ridiculous for, say, Utah or Oklahoma determining the Democrat nominee. States that lean the most one way or the other should have more of a say in the selection. South Carolina has more credibility for the GOP, but it alone should not be a deciding factor as an early state.

Bingo, the heart of the problem, a rigged game.

The state with the highest percentage going for the Republican Candidate should be the first primary the next election. And so on.

"Do you understand that there are millions and millions of registered Republicans in this country who really like candidates such as Mitt Romney?"

The problem is that said "millions" have virtually no choices to pick from. Whether you believe it or not, Mr. Pode, the establishment is at war with the base. They hate Conservatives, and they hate them with the ferocity of their Democrat buddies. They hate the pro-lifers, they hate the secure-the-borders folks, they hate the cut-the-government types. Many people who don't spend a huge amount of their lives paying close attention to what's going on (instead spending it on their careers, their families, just living) are ones easily fooled into believing people like Willard are "the good guys" and stand up for them (based on a lot of talk and slick commercials).

"They aren't really being controlled by brain wave rays emanating from Karl Rove's garage, you know."

Mr. Pode, it seems readily apparent you don't particularly consider frauds like Willard or Rove to even be a part of the problem with today's GOP. Rove has largely spent most of the past 2 decades waging war against Conservatives in the party. He's the one who went out of his way to champion or recruit big-government liberals to run for office while badmouthing Conservatives.

"This idea that there is a tiny core of moderates in the GOP who repeatedly force moderate candidates upon an overwhelming majority of hardcore conservative voters is not helpful. It encourages complacency and then paranoia."

These are not moderates, Mr. Pode. These are corrupt big-government leftist statists. I don't care about their deceptive talk pretending not to be, it's their ACTIONS that tell me what they're all about. I had enough experience with Democrats coming home from DC to shine on the electorate before election time that they weren't the left-wingers painted by mean-spirited Conservatives, and now I'm seeing the exact same dog and pony show by their GOP successors. It's not paranoia they are actively working to undermine Conservatives, it is a fact, and their actions bear that out.

"I think it would be far more productive to ask "Why don't conservative candidates win 90% or more of registered Republican primary votes??" and then get to work from there."

When you have an active (and well-funded) group of folks that will lie and cheat and misrepresent and go the extra mile to sabotage said "Conservative candidates" by any means necessary, especially because they threaten their power, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why it's very hard to regularly get the right candidates nominated, elected, or even to get them to run.

Many people who don't spend a huge amount of their lives paying close attention to what's going on (instead spending it on their careers, their families, just living) are ones easily fooled into believing people like Willard are "the good guys" and stand up for them

Tell ya this - I agree with you here, one hundred percent.

There are millions of Republican voters out there who just love them a dignified, grandfatherly, polite candidate with executive-style hair, who doesn't say boat-rocking things. And those millions get a primary vote, just like every freeper does.

The key thing is getting to those voters, one by one, and explaining to them why the Romneys and Bushes and Christies are not going to get our country back on the right path.

I know, that's a lot more effort than indulging in discussion-thread fantasies about a small cadre of conservatives "storming the convention". But it's really the only thing that will work.

The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary.

Needs to be repeated over and over.....

The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary. The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary. The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary. The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary. The main thing that should be done is to allow only republicans to vote in a republican primary........