Posted on 03/18/2012 2:23:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
For the first time in a generation, Republicans are preparing for the possibility that their presidential nomination could be decided at their national convention rather than on the campaign trail, a prospect that would upend one of the rituals of modern politics.
.....as Romney struggles to win the hearts of conservative voters and hold off a challenge from Rick Santorum, party leaders, activists and the campaigns are for the first time taking seriously the possibility that neither he nor anyone else will get to that total.
In that case, the nomination would be decided by the more than 2,200 delegates -- from obscure local officials and activists to national figures...
..campaign and party lawyers are dusting off their party rulebooks, running through decades-old procedural arcana,....
Party officials also are bracing for the possibility of a prenomination clash between the party's establishment and members of the Tea Party movement,...
"It's more likely than anything since '76, there's no question," ....
[snip]
..Gingrich's team is expected to hold...-- if only to keep Romney from reaching a majority.
...RepublicanNationalCommittee has alerted the Committee on Contests to be ready for action, preparing for the possibility of courtroom-like hearings run by lawyers who could decide whether the nomination is settled before party members take their seats in the Tampa Bay Times Forum.
Yet the question of whether the race spills over into the convention has opened a new battleground among campaigns in the complicated system of allocating delegates in state and county party gatherings that follow the primaries and caucuses.
....The burden of avoiding a convention fight largely rests on whether Romney can overcome his rivals in the pending contests.
[snip]
..."They may be planning on a contested convention, but it's irrelevant because we're going to get to 1,144," said the Romney campaign's chief counsel,..
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
WFTR,
Some good things happened during that time, but Newt Gingrich doesn’t deserve as much credit as he sometimes claims.
************************************************************
Really? Name one of those “good things” that was not proposed in the Contract with America, a Gringrich design, and was not pushed through by the majorities Gingrich was responsible for getting elected.
On the other side, can you cite ONE conservative advance proposed and supported by Romney?
Newt has continued to work through his American Solutions project to identify other conservative ideals that poll in the 70% support and above range from ALL voters. That is the way to move the ball forward toward reversing decades of constitutional encroachment. That is the mark of a leader.
He does have lots of ideas, and some not so good. To me, that’s a much better approach than no ideas maintenance of the status quo. Take his latest energy observations. Has anyone else pointed out the reduction in the national debt possible from the royalties that would be realized if domestic energy production by the private sector was unleashed? When coupled with the jobs and the reduction in oil prices, these are the types of practical solutions that catch the imagination of the average voter and propel them to the voting booth.
************************************************************
Newt Gingrich was forced from his leadership position by his own bad character.
Surely you know that is a meda/lib/progressive talking point and is patently untrue. As I said previously, he was “Palinized” before Palin made a splash on the national scene. I think that’s why she supports him. He was cleared of ALL charges, which were simply used to smear his name by the MSM/Liberal/Progressive cabal because they wanted to stop him. As usual, the mushy moderate GOP-E would NOT engage to defend one of our own. He resigned of his own volition because the repubs lost seats in the mid-term elections of 1998, the GOP-E was tired of the negative MSM onslaught against him, and he felt they would no longer support him, based on their non-support in the ethics slander against him. If that’s resigning in disgrace, we need a lot more politicians that act that way. Please do not continue making such a historically inaccurate slanderous charge. Support whomever you choose, but do it based on honesty and ideas, not falsehoods, please.
Once elected, to be effective in implementing conservative principles, we will need either a conservative majority in both houses, or a conservative POTUS that can go over the head of the MSM/Lib/progressive misrepresentation of those ideas a la Reagan. I do not see either Romney or Santorum capable of pulling off either of those requirements.
I fear for our future, and the time for half-measures is long past.
You conveniently failed to mention the part about Newt describing Ryan’s plan as “radical right-wing social engineering” Oh and if being opposed to Newt’s plan to put giant mirrors in space to combat non-existent global warming or being opposed to spending trillions on a moon base at a time when almost 1/2 of every dollar the government spends is borrowed, makes me “no friend of economic or national security” then your support of those things makes you no friend of sanity.
Come on...
If we can’t have an honest debate on FR, we are in bad shape.
The response Newt made about “right wing social engineering” was not a critique of Ryan’s plan. He had previously complimented Ryan on his plan on not one, but two national MSM appearances. On a third (or fourth) appearance, he was asked how a mandate by Republicans was different from a mandate by the libs/progressives. Ryan’s plan, as I understand it was NOT a mandate. Gingrich’s response was that “right wing social engineering is just as bad as left wing social engineering” (think Romney care).
As usual, the lib/progressive media cabal took his comment out of context, and claimed it was a direct critique of Ryan’s plan. It wasn’t. Same “Palinization” template the media has consistently applied to Newt throughout his career.
Proving once again that “a lie can go ‘round the world before the truth can get it’s pants on.”
Get a accurate argument, please.
Not so. Joe Miller sunk his own battleship with Sarah Palin when he said in a Fox interview that he didn't know if Sarah was qualified to be President. Within hours Joe Miller received a rather scathing email from Todd Palin. From that point on, the Palins had nothing to do with supporting Joe's campaign.
So when Paul Ryan told Mark Levin that Newt had called him and apologized, what was Newt apologizing for.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265390/gingrich-distances-himself-ryan-plan-katrina-trinko
The NE liberal Reagan selected as his running mate in 1976 was Richard Schweiker.
Newt was apologizing for not being more specific, which allowed the liberal/progressive media to take his words completely out of context, and run with the lie that he was criticizing both Ryan and Ryan’s plan.
Surely most of us are now familiar with the template the liberal/progressive/media uses to smear conservatives.
Wise up, please.
You took one line from my post out of context and have created a straw man argument. I clearly said that Newt Gingrich deserved a great deal of credit, but he's claiming more than he deserves.
Welfare reform had huge popular support. If I remember correctly, welfare reform had about 80% popular support. While this legislation was good, pushing through a bill with 80% support should not be that hard to do. In the mood of the country at that time, refusing welfare reform was considered the one thing that Democrats could have done to repeat their losses of 1994.
Dr. Gingrich also claims credit for balancing the budget. He should receive credit for creating the GOP majority that made balancing the budget possible, but his handling of the whole process as speaker was not that strong. He lost the shutdown battles and had to give in to Clinton. Much of the spending cuts at that time came from cutting the military. He did some good things, but for him to claim that he engineered everything good that happened in the mid-90's is untrue.
On the other side, can you cite ONE conservative advance proposed and supported by Romney?
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney looked at student performance as a function of class size and found that the popular idea of smaller classes producing better performance is false. The teachers' unions wanted to tie all education improvements to more government spending and spending on initiatives that would lead to more teaching jobs and union dues instead of better student performance. That kind of focus on finding the real issues and working on them to reduce spending or get better benefit per dollar spent is what I consider a conservative step forward.
Mitt Romney faced an 85% Democrat legislature in Massachusetts. He wasn't in a position to propose major conservative reforms, particularly on social issues. He made the best of the situation that he was given and made small but real progress in some areas. For instance, he changed the procedures for gun owners to receive their licenses in a way that benefited the gun owners. I would prefer that the Second Amendment be our only license, but that wasn't going to happen in Massachusetts. I admire someone who can stand against the odds and accomplish anything as much as I admire someone who coasts on the currents and makes pretty speeches. Many of our so-called conservatives today have spend much of their careers coasting on the currents.
As I said previously, he was “Palinized” before Palin made a splash on the national scene.
When I referred to Newt Gingrich being forced from leadership by his own bad character, I was not referring to the ethics charges. His own affair with Callista became public in the run-up to the 1998 election. That affair in light of the steps taken against Bill Clinton gave the Democrats another talking point and another chance to distract people from the issues. That distraction is part of why the GOP lost seats that year. His problems were not just with Democrats. Many Republican House members wanted him to step aside as Speaker because he made too many issues about him and created more distractions. Newt Gingrich has never shown that he has the right stuff to be in charge of anything.
I don't believe that the translation is perfect either. The job that most resembles the presidency is being the governor of a state. We're down to only one GOP candidate who has been a governor. If Newt Gingrich had run for governor of Georgia and had even one successful term, the race would have been completely different.
Mr. Romney has the executive experience in business, as CEO of the Olympics, and as governor of Massachusetts. He has been successful in all three. Those successes show that he's most qualified for the basic duties of being president. Obviously, you don't like him on ideological or maybe religious grounds, but he has shown that he understands the job better than any other candidate does.
The accusation of being "vicious" and "without regard for the truth" is just more mudslinging. His opponents have attacked him viciously and inaccurately. Maybe you don't see that because you believe all of the accusations against him and won't see any of the flaws in other candidates. I think they all have flaws and at times have hit one another harder than I would have liked.
I also wish that you shared my view of Mr. Romney. I wouldn't care whether you preferred another candidate as long as you let go the ridiculous anti-Romney lies that so many are trying to spread. I don't like Rick Santorum, but with a good GOP Congress behind him, he wouldn't be that bad a president. I like Newt Gingrich, but I don't think he has the right stuff to be president. I don't look at either of them with the blind hatred that so many feel towards Mr. Romney.
Newt tried to backpeddle pretty fast, but his original intent was clear, but maybe, Paul Ryan, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Forbes Magazine and NRO all just misunderstood Newt, because they are all idiots and assumed Newt actually meant what he said.
I suggest that you take the blinders off and wise up yourself.
31 posted on Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:46:45 AM by God-fear-republican: “Romney is finished.”
I wish I could agree.
I’m afraid he’s going to be the nominee unless something changes quickly.
He is damaged, foolish to nominate him, Santorum now has to deal with natural born US citizen question, otherwise he is liar as he promises to uphold Consttution.
I still believe our delegates will wise up to pick a good leader who might be Newt.
Let’s pray.
You took one line from my post out of context and have created a straw man argument. I clearly said that Newt Gingrich deserved a great deal of credit, but he’s claiming more than he deserves.
Welfare reform had huge popular support. If I remember correctly, welfare reform had about 80% popular support. While this legislation was good, pushing through a bill with 80% support should not be that hard to do
****************************************************
My point was not a straw man argument. My point was that Newt’s attraction is that he is capable of identifying those common sense issues with that range of support, “nationalizing” those issues, and getting them implemented.
Do you think developing our own national energy resources does not have a similar level of support?
Who’s pushing for implementing them? Newt & Sarah.
What about reigning in the liberal judiciary? Is that not at a 70-80% level of support?
Lots of common sense issues have that level of support, but relatively few are acted upon in D.C., and even fewer are implemented.
You need a DRIVER that will not let go of the issue in face of the dem/progressive/media onslaught to get even an 80% support issue implemented.
I don’t see Romney as that guy.
********************************************
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney looked at student performance as a function of class size and found that the popular idea of smaller classes producing better performance is false. The teachers’ unions wanted to tie all education improvements to more government spending and spending on initiatives that would lead to more teaching jobs and union dues instead of better student performance. That kind of focus on finding the real issues and working on them to reduce spending or get better benefit per dollar spent is what I consider a conservative step forward.
*****************************************************
Thanks for making my point.
Do you think these sorts of small potatoes issue will put our nation back on the path of fiscal sanity?
Or put us back on the path to constitutionally limited government?
The biggest problem Mitt has in the nomination process is exactly his dearth of elucidating ANY big conservative idea he would push for if elected. He simply promises to manage the government more efficiently. We need the government pulled out by its roots in many areas, not managed.
It’s all about Romney’s resume. His resume is impressive, but most of us are not convinced he has core conservative prinicples for which he would fight.
Romneycare takes a huge personal liberty issue off the table in any debate he would have with Obama.
Romneycare is bankrupting Massachusetts as Obamacare will do to an ALREADY bankrupt USA.
Herbert Hoover was an accomplished private sector executive, and I don’t think you can say his administration turned out to have handled the great depression so well.
So, give us some ideas Romney will support, get behind, and not mush out when the media comes down on him for supporting those issues.
He certainly ridiculed Newt’s suggestion that the judiciary has to be brought back into constitutional compliance. If you don’t believe, with Newt, THAT is a problem worth addressing, you are no conservative, and are not paying attention. This is a price example of where Newt is out front leading on a 70-80% level of support issue, and is basically alone taking the slings & arrows of the liberal/progressive/media/GOP-E mushes for pushing it, and where’s Mitt? On the wrong side.
****************************************************
When I referred to Newt Gingrich being forced from leadership by his own bad character, I was not referring to the ethics charges. His own affair with Callista became public in the run-up to the 1998 election. That affair in light of the steps taken against Bill Clinton gave the Democrats another talking point and another chance to distract people from the issues. That distraction is part of why the GOP lost seats that year. His problems were not just with Democrats. Many Republican House members wanted him to step aside as Speaker because he made too many issues about him and created more distractions. Newt Gingrich has never shown that he has the right stuff to be in charge of anything.
**************************************************
I will concede there is some validity to your point.
However, again, if you look at what he did accomplish, Romney & Santorum are distant runners-up in accomplishments.
Plus Newt, I believe, has learned from those past mistakes.
I do not think you are giving enough credence to the media onslaught against him at the time, equating his marital infidelities to Bill Clinton’s perjury, and the scalp-hunting he was undergoing at at the hands from the liberal/progressive/medial cabal at the time (remember the Time magazine cover of the Grinch that Stole Christmas? 80 something ethics charges that were later dismissed? the “starving welfare children” because of the welfare reforms?).
At least Newt has proven he will fight the media mischaracterizations, and get the job done. I see no evidence Mitt will take the media on and stick to his guns.
I would like to believe Mitt or Rick would lead a conservative revolution.
I KNOW Newt will, because he has led one since he first came on the national scene. Newt has never stopped identifying those 80-90% issues that would bring the general voters over to our side, trying to get those ideas on center stage, using them to win “nationalized” elections, so that we can get them implemented.
I wish we had a candidate with a spotless conservative AND personal record. We do not.
I’ll take the pitt bull, if I can get him, please.
The. Only. Way. For a non-Romney to get the nomination is the Hail Mary, only possible NOW, of Santorum somehow getting enough delegates. Or getting damn close.
Only possible if from NOW ON, including Tuesday in IL, if people do not vote for Newt. Mathematically this is the only way to beat mitt and Obama. Please understand that no matter how great Gingrich is, he doesn't help stop Romney. He helps Romney win more delegates than Santorum.
True about Sarah Palin. She is not popular among non conservatives. She will not be huge at the convention either, and she is now so deeply thrown in with newt that I don’t know what good she will do. The delegates are not all going to go for Gingrich. I am a huge Palin f an, but for some reason she has decided to pen herself in. And she won’t be on the ticket either.
Miller? Only God Himself could have delivered Alaska for Joe Miller, he had more baggage than the Queen Mary. And she never attempted to deliver Alaska for Newt, endorsing him tepidly the day before the caucus.
I believe it was 1968 when Gingrich was the Nelson Rockefeller advocate against Nixon and presumably George W. Romney too.
I think there is some truth in this claim, but there are also Mormon-friendly states like AZ, NV, ID, WY, and possibly IL and to a lesser extent OR, HI, NM, MT, CO, and CA.
“This is a critical skill needed to win independent and moderates over to our side.”
While I appreciate your argument for Newt, the only sentence that really matters is above, his electability. The moderates & indy’s will run the other way (from Newt). The remaining no-nothings will vote Obama. That is what we have, and that is why we can’t count on a large enough “conservative” vote to remove him from office.
We’re not going to agree on this issue, and with our primary coming up this weekend, I need to spend more time on GOTV efforts for Mr. Romney. I appreciate that you made your arguments respectfully. We still disagree on the relative merits of these candidates, but that’s how things happen sometimes.
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.