Paul Ryan Emerging Out of Ted Cruz-Created Contested Convention as Nominee Dominate Wisconsin

Breitbart ^ | April 02, 2016 | JULIA HAHN

[Hojczyk]

As Capitol Hill aides have explained, amongst Washington’s GOP political class Ryan is regarded as the “Republican Jesus.”

Indeed, National Review, which helped put the third world migration enthusiast Paul Ryan into the Speaker’s office, seemed to embrace the idea of nudging him into the Oval Office. National Review’s deputy managing editor penned a piece entitled,

“Paul Ryan for President!” writing: “One can imagine a case where Trump and Cruz control 60 to 70 percent of the vote between them, and neither one will budge, and no other candidate or boss will consider helping either one. Then it will be time for a respected and inoffensive candidate to offer a contrast to all the strong personalities in the Republican race, and Ryan is nothing if not Mr. Acceptable.”

“Speaker Paul Ryan is emerging as the Republican’s biggest counterweight to Donald Trump,” The Hill wrote in January.

Since Trump’s philosophy is so opposite of Ryan’s, if Trump were to win Wisconsin, it would be seen as a wholesale rejection of Ryan Republicanism. Losing Wisconsin would be politically devastating for Ryan and would make it exceedingly difficult for him to emerge out of the contested convention. As such, Wisconsin is a must-win for Ryan via a proxy of his policy viewpoints, Ted Cruz.

Paul Ryan and corporate media have sought to frame the GOP Civil War of voters versus donors and donor proxies (i.e. Fox News, Republican publications, and various corporate-owned radio networks) as a battle waged over something as frivolous as candidates’ “tone” rather than the substantive policy divisions between the electorate and the Party’s corporate funders.

[dsc]

“sought to frame the GOP Civil War of voters versus donors and donor proxies as a battle waged over ...[the] candidates’ “tone””

When somebody brings up “tone,” he is trying to flim-flam his way out of a losing position.

[Nita Nupress]

Pick a side, all of you Republican politicians who like being in office. We’re watching.

[ModelBreaker]

You know most libertarians believe in open borders, don’t you?

[GOPJ]

Fine. OK, I agree. But let's TELL the fools who elect these crooks the truth.

Ryan and the rest of the lowlifes should run on what they believe... They should say, "We lied to you citizens and played you for fools for OUR benefit. AND if you think we're JUST ripping you off on Social Security - think again. We're ripping you off on trade, on the borders, on the infrastructure...on everything.

We steal your money and use it to swap favors with the people who BUY our speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars... That's why YOU have nothing, AND the country is broke AND why the ZIP Codes around DC are among the richest in the nation. Political elites of both parties do VERY WELL.... "

ON YOUR DIME, suckers...

If Ryan and the rest of the crooks run on the truth, I have NO problem with that. If he or any of 'em can get elected President running on who they really are... great. More power to 'em. Just RUN on it... don't steal the election from the person the people elected. Go TRUMP...

[WildHighlander57]

Bookmarking....

[LaybackLenny]

#TeddytheTool

[timestax]

[jobim]

There is no discussion with Cruz supporters, at least in my experience.

I don't raise Trump on a pedestal, but believe that he is the only one standing
against the globalists. Were it someone else, I don't care, I'd support that person.

But Cruz has the GOPe aligned with him; it's just that simple.

[Windflier]

The American people have gone for it time and time again. Its the rule, rather than the exception.

What on earth are you talking about?

When is the last time the party chose a nominee who didn't get most of the people's votes in a primary?
When's the last time the party chose a nominee who never appeared on a single state's ballot in the primary?
When is the last time the American people rallied around such a nominee in a general election?

How 'bout before you and I were even born?

For an 'editor', you seem to have a great deal of trouble comprehending simple English. Maybe you just enjoy being a drop of oil in a sea of water. Dunno.

[Windflier]

"The American people still retain an innate sense of fair play and right vs wrong."

Which includes an understanding that a nomination is won when a candidate receives the votes of a majority of the delegates.

American voters understand no such thing.

Do you really believe that Republican voters are going to come out in sufficient numbers to beat the Dem in the general, if the convention delegates choose as our nominee, a candidate who actually lost the primary election?

Keep dreaming.

[Windflier]

Do you consider George Bush, who failed to win a plurality or majority an illegitimate President?

Which Republican candidate won either a plurality or a majority of delegates at the 2000 RNC nominating convention? If that candidate received more delegate votes at the convention, how did George Bush become the nominee?

You're making no sense.

[SJackson]

I never suggested George Bush wasn't a legitimate candidate, he won the majority of delegates, as you agree. You also stated

In a contest where the rules dictate that a simple first place finish isn’t enough, and that a candidate must reach some arbitrary number of delegates to clinch the nomination, a second place candidate can act as a spoiler, by taking just enough votes to keep the clear winner from achieving the magic number.

Gore Lieberman won the "simple first place finish", George Bush became President because in your words he was able to successfully "reach some arbitrary number of delegates to clinch the nomination".

The rule requiring a majority of delegates for nomination is no different than the requirement of a majority of the electoral college to win the Presidency. Reject the one, consistency requires you reject the other. Else be considered a political hack willing to bend the law to your candidates advantage.

[conservative98]

[VerySadAmerican]

Ryan/Cruz 2016
Romney/Cruz 2016
McCarthy/Cruz 2016
RINO/Cruz 2016

First of all, the vice president basically lives in the basement so it keeps him out of the limelight and stops him from being a burr in the gop’s saddle.

And win or lose, his political career is over because he’s proven he’s a part of the gopE and the ultimate insider.

Don’t be surprised if this happens.

If it does happen how many of you Cruz supporters will vote for the ticket?

[StAnDeliver]

"Losing Wisconsin would be politically devastating for Ryan and would make it exceedingly difficult for him to emerge out of the contested convention."

Yeah, but the incipient problem is, to beat Ryan in Wisconsin 1d, you have to have better candidates than Ted Odom, a supposedly viable Tea Partier who -- after initially supporting #LusTed -- later wrote a convincing capitulation to Trump entitled "Yes, Ted Cruz is Badly Wounded After South Carolina", then promptly erased the screed and his thoughts on Tedlim's brutal South Carolina loss:

"I’m a Cruz guy. I’ve not hidden that fact. So please know this update is not a hit piece on Cruz. This is simply reality from my perspective. Ted Cruz finished third in South Carolina and let’s be honest… it was a devastating loss. No, I will not raise my political pom poms and pretend..."

Yet another typical Tedlim, autoflaming ("let’s be honest… it was a devastating loss") themselves out of future political viability...

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I’ll be brief: NO!

[Dick Vomer]

Ryan, will never get to the White House. He’s just Romney, McCain regurgitation. Same sh#t, different day.

[VerySadAmerican]

The gop does NOT want to win. Running Ryan guarantees that. And putting Cruz on the ticket gets him some Cruz votes but NO Trump votes. But it exposes Cruz showing that he’ll sell out to anyone and that destroys his political career.

[WENDLE]

Paul RINO has no chance to even be nominated. You have to have won the majority of delegates in eight states. He has ZERO.