RUSH: BROKERED CONVENTION Chatter on Rise

www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | January 20, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise
January 20, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me tell you, I mentioned this yesterday, I mentioned this some time ago.
There are rumblings in the Republican establishment of a brokered convention now.
There is unsettledness and disquietedness in the conservative establishment, quote, unquote, in the Republican establishment, quote, unquote.

Both camps have prominent people who are unhappy with the way all of this is shaking out.
And they talked about it on Scarborough's show today on PMSNBC.
For the conservative establishment it's Newt.
"Oh, no, we don't want Newt. We gotta do something about Newt."
For the Republican establishment, they're getting a little queasy about Romney.
I think the term is brittle.
That's the term Scarborough used, that the establishment is concerned about what a brittle candidate Romney is proving to be.
It's said to be scaring the Republican establishment.
It's something I said back on January 11th, the day before my birthday.
There was a Jonah Goldberg columnz in which he mentioned the possibility of a brokered convention,
but according to Scarborough, top conservative leaders, the Republican establishment, want to keep Newt in the race
so they can get a brokered convention where they can pick the nominee.



Now, the Republican elite is notZ conservatives.
There are two different establishments that we're dealing with here, I think, the conservative establishment, the Republican establishment.
There is some overlap.
But the scuttlebutt is -- and it was on the "Morning Joke" show today -- the scuttlebutt is keep Newt in this.
Keep everybody in this.
Don't let this nomination get decided in Florida.
Keep it going 'cause nobody's happy right now.
I wonder how many of you, "Yeah, yeah," agree with that premise, "Yeah, yeah."
This is something unsettled, something not quite right here.
So there's that scuttlebutt.

Then we had the Marianne Gingrich interview last night on Nightline, and what a thud.
It was a dud. And I asked a lot of people to watch this and share with me their feedback, and beyond the clip that ABC aired yesterday...

this is why they didn't air any more clips than what they gave is there wasn't anything.
I think it was kind of pathetic. I actually felt a little sorry for her.
She's being exploited, I think probably willingly, if there's such a thing.
But there wasn't any bombshells.
There was nothing new that came out of this thing last night.
So the fallout, the damage, no news.
I don't think there's gonna be anything any more damaging to Newt than there was yesterday when it all happened, when it all came out.

Right-Click on the photo below and open in a new window to watch the Fox News video, or go to RushLimbaugh.com's Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise and watch it at the bottom of his article.

Reagan's 1976 Republican Convention Speech
Jan 31, 2011 - 7:25 - Ronald Reagan addresses crowd after narrowly losing nomination to Gerald Ford

Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford for the 1976 Republican Presidential nomination, and lost a close race.
At the close of the convention, President Ford asked Governor Reagan to make some impromptu remarks.
Transcript of Reagan's 1976 Republican Convention Center Remarks, August 19, 1976

Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President to be,
the distinguished guests here, and you, ladies and gentlemen:

I am going to say fellow Republicans here, but also those who are watching from a distance,
all of those millions of Democrats and Independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally
and which I believe we can give them.

Mr. President, before you arrived tonight, these wonderful people here, when we came in, gave Nancy and myself a welcome.
That, plus this, and plus your kindness and generosity in honoring us by bringing us down here
will give us a memory that will live in our hearts forever.

Watching on television these last few nights,
and I have seen you also with the warmth that you greeted Nancy,
and you also filled my heart with joy when you did that.

May I just say some words.
There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read
and it doesn't very often amount to much.

Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before,
I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.

We have just heard a call to arms based on that platform,
and a call to us to really be successful in communicating
and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party,
which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a running of a late, late show
of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.

If I could just take a moment; I had an assignment the other day.
Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to be opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now,
on our Tricentennial.

It sounded like an easy assignment.
They suggested I write something about the problems and the issues today.
I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other,
and I couldn't help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now
as it was on that summer day.

Then, as I tried to write -- let your own minds turn to that task.
You are going to write for people a hundred years from now, who know all about us.
We know nothing about them.
We don't know what kind of a world they will be living in.

And suddenly I thought to myself,
if I write of the problems, they will be the domestic problems the President spoke of here tonight;
the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country,
the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy.
These are our challenges that we must meet.

And then again, there is that challenge of which he spoke,
that we live in a world in which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction,
nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other's country
and destroy, virtually, the civilized world we live in.

And suddenly it dawned on me,
those who would read this letter a hundred years from now
will know whether those missiles were fired.
They will know whether we met our challenge.
Whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now
will depend on what we do here.

Will they look back with appreciation and say,
"Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom,
who kept us now 100 years later free,
who kept our world from nuclear destruction"?

And if we failed,
they probably won't get to read the letter at all
because it spoke of individual freedom,
and they won't be allowed to talk of that or read of it.

This is our challenge;
and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before,
we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other
and go out and communicate to the world
that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been,
but we carry the message they are waiting for.

We must go forth from here united,
determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true:
There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.

[C210N]

I don’t think a brokered convention is possible under the rules in effect since about 1972. Nobody controls delegates, and they are free to vote however they want after a cettain number of ballots have resulted in no nomination...

Are there two types? There is the smoke-filled back room of establishment GOP types picking the RINO for us. Then, there is the brokering that would go on between the freed-up delegates, as it dawns on them that vote after vote, no candidate is getting to a majority. Isn't that a "brokered" convention as well, and if stalemated, a newcomer could result?

[muawiyah]

Not to sound cynical, but Daniels knows how to stick to a budget ~ as well as to create one ~ and enforce it on the bureaucrats under him.

Reagan failed to get Congress to do that.

A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE has got to love Daniels. A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE might well consider he took back his unfaithful wife (a serious act of Christian love).

I doubt Ronaldus Magnus would have taken back Jane Wyman on a bet.

[xzins]

I agree. A brokered convention could only be kept from the establishment if the delegates themselves rebelled against the leadership and refused to put a rino stool-pigeon in place.

I want no Chris Rino Cristie.

I want no Mitch Rino Daniels.

I want a bold, forceful, proud American-exceptionalism conservative.

And I will NEVER support any candidate whose pro-life record is NOT bold, clear, and absolutely without doubt.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Rush is wrong. There are a SURFEIT of brokers. Every state has its congressmen and representatives, its party leaders, its factions, etc. And every one of them are more than willing to haggle for the nomination.

Almost guaranteed: Whoever the nominee would be would be far more conservative than either Romney or Gingrich.

I have seen a list of probably the TOP 10 conservatives in office right now, most ANY of which would get the votes of the conservative delegates.

And this is very important: delegates are only limited in their vote to the FIRST ballot. If no nominee wins outright, ALL delegates become FREE AGENTS, and can vote for whoever they choose!

Out of the 2,286 delegates to the convention, what percentage would you guess are conservatives? Maybe 60% or more? And a nominee needs 1,144 votes, or 50% +1 to get the nomination.

Which means that Romney is toast. The best he could probably muster after a failed first vote would be 10-15%, almost all from New England. Gingrich would do better, with maybe 20-25%. Santorum could pull, again my guess, 15-25%.

Palin could probably waltz in and claim 40%+, maybe more.

Of the other conservative possibilities, they would form their own blocs. Some of them would bow out, not wanting the job. Palin could be a “kingmaker” with the snap of her fingers for any of them.

All told, it would be an extraordinary, and oddly enough, most (real) democratic event than what most people have seen in their lives.

The Beltway bandits, Hill Rats, insiders and lobbyists, and the RNC leadership would be dashing madly about, for once totally out of control, while the party rank and file ruled. RINOs and leftist media spin doctors, and people like Karl Rove would be in an utter panic as all the castles they have built were torn down, and a candidate they didn’t own was suddenly the nominee.

A candidate who would win, and lead a solidly Republican congress on a resurrection of America.

A president who would likely nominate two solid conservative Supreme Court justices and insure the court was a conservative and constitutionalist body for the next decade or two.

A president who would strip America of decades of welfare state leftism, craft a balanced budget, end the Obama recession/depression, break the big media oligopoly, and turn the Democrats into a minority party for decades.

[Daveinyork]

I think the nominee still needs to get a majority of the delegate votes.

[muawiyah]

A specialist in standard regulatory process as well as how you stick regulations together would be more valuable than any medical guy.

Remember, this whole thing was put together by the now quite insane Tony Wiener. He's not a doctor ~ but he was undoubtedly in the top couple of dozen legal text writers in town. It will take some just like him to undo this garbage.

[muawiyah]

One of the reasons the top Republican dogs in Virginia were wiling to make a deal with Romney is that one of their own would like to be VP.

As it turns out two of the three four finalists are Virginia residents. That makes it impossible for any Virginia Republican to run as VP.

Which means Republicans, like Democrats, are willing to sell the public down the river and send their mothers into the street for a shot at higher political office!

[muawiyah]

Hmm, so you want a pro-life absolutist. So do I. We have THREE of them currently available to vote for. BTW, Daniels is also a pro-life absolutist.

[Yosemitest]

"Now, the Republican elite ZOTS conservatives."

That's what they're trying to do now.

[xzins]

Gingrich and Santorum are the only pro-life republican candidates currently remaining.

Paul has a dismal 55% rating by right to life and a 75% rating by the national abortion rights action league. FWIW, there is no such thing as “states rights” abortion. Homicide is homicide.

Romney’s record is radical pro-abortion until he began to seek the presidency in the middle of his term as Massachusetts governor, a term he won on the basis of a promise that he is unalterably pro-abortion.

[muawiyah]

I don’t particularly care how some organization with political agendas rates someone’s moral standing ~ Paul is a RTL absolutist.

[Yosemitest]

"anyone getting in in August 2012 has no chance."

I beg to differ.
By August, the general public will be so sick of what the LAME Stream Media does to our candidates, they'll be happy to get a fresh, new face.
Let's just hope the conservative establishment pick a real winner, maybe Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin.
Let's review 1976 Republican Convention 1976 ElectionWallDotOrg.flv.

[xzins]

Sorry, muawiyah, when BOTH organizations, pro-life and pro-abortion, who hate each other rate Paul the same way, then Paul’s record is pro-choice.

And pro-choice is the libertarian position, and we both know it is.

Paul does not accidentally get rated by the pro-abortion lobby, NARAL, as voting 75% of the time favorably toward legislation important to them. I would suggest that you are missing a nuance someplace.

[Yosemitest]

"I’m simply responding to replies directed at me from a previous reply of mine."

Roger. Out.

[Yosemitest]

"I’m simply responding to replies directed at me from a previous reply of mine."

Roger. Out.

[Joe the Pimpernel]

I hope that this time the RINOs get the short end of the stick, but they never do.

[cornfedcowboy]

You need to look atthe situation through the prism of running against BO. Newt will carry midwestern states and some eastern states when going against Obama.

[muawiyah]

Seriously now, when you have organizations that rate the way you vote on certain types of legislation, and you have a candidate come along who thinks all of that legislation should NOT involve the federal government, you get an anomaly.

Failure to recognize that is a sign of a narrow mind.

I don't let organizational political ratings guide my thinking about any of these people.

Dr. Paul is a nut case ~ Romney isn't. He cold-bloodedly synthesized whatever policy positions he thought might trick the broad masses. That makes him a sociopath.

[scbison]

Your right, you don’t listen to Rush much.. He goes after Romney just as much as other when they are WRONG.. Makes me sick for people to comment when they don’t listen to somebody every day...