Archive for the ‘Brokered Convention’ Category

Delegate Drama: Brokered Convention Still Feasible

Saturday, May 5th, 2012

Brokered Convention Still Possible?

I just received this video via email, and I thought I should share this with readers because it provides an interesting report on the matter of delegate counts, and whether this primary is really over after all.  More, it provides some interesting tidbits on the activities of the RNC.  As you know, Ron Paul is still in the race, as is Mitt Romney, and the reason that’s important is because RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has directed staff to “open up channels of communications” between Romney’s campaign and the RNC. That would most definitely seem to violate the RNC’s rules while there are more than one contestant in the race.  We’ve known the RNC was in the tank for Romney for some time, but once again, this serves as further evidence of how they will do anything to advance their chosen candidate.  Here’s the video report from Ben Swann on Cincinnati’s WXIX News:


As you can see from this report, if the “unit rule” isn’t applied, then Mitt Romney may be looking at an open convention after all.  Look out!  “It ain’t over ’til it’s over…”

Swann also provided the link to in the course of his report.  At present, the count shows 697 delegates for Romney, but he needs 1144.  It would provide the irony of ironies if Ron Paul actually wound up forcing a brokered convention.

Will the Establishment Ever Learn? Will We?

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

The Best We Can Do?

I’ve watched with some interest as the media has all but coronated Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee, and it’s fascinating to see all of the RINO-types emerge briefly from the shadows long enough to tell us to jump on the Romney bandwagon, but frankly, I don’t give a damn about the establishment except inasmuch as they are another faction of anti-American sentiment that must be defeated.  I really wonder if the Republican establishment thinks conservatives are aboard for all of this, and to watch a news outlet like Fox News, you might have formed that impression, but for my part, I’m not interested in Romney, and I don’t believe this race is over.  My state, Texas, has yet to hold its primary, scheduled for the last Tuesday in May, and I’m not voting for Romney in that primary.  Bank on it.

When May 29th comes around, I will be voting for Newt Gingrich as the only alternative we conservatives now have, but also because Mitt Romney remains unpalatable to me.  His latter-day conversion to something approximating conservative views simply is not convincing, and I refuse to support the Massachusetts liberal.  What the establishment of the Republican party should begin to ask itself is if it gets its preferred candidate, what will have been the cost?

How many conservatives will now abandon them? It’s not fair to say I am unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney.  The notion of a lack of “enthusiasm” does the concept no justice.  I am stridently opposed to Mitt Romney, and I would like to help my conservative friends understand my reasoning.  For decades, I have watched the establishment of the GOP act as a fifth column for the Marxists on the left, always undermining conservatism, and always cutting deals with the left.  For a time, I believed they were merely misguided people who foolishly believed in a Chamberlain-like appeasement policy, but as time has gone on, I’ve realized they are much worse than that.  It’s not a matter of incompetence, but instead, a matter of malevolence.  The GOP Establishment doesn’t like conservatives, and if the truth is told, they prefer the company of their leftist friends.  In too many instances, even during the short lifetime of this blog, we have seen a number of sell-outs by the establishment of the Republican party, particularly in the legislative temperament of Speaker Boehner, who has undercut the conservatives in his own party with deals on critical issues imperiling the nation’s future.

All of us on the conservative end of the spectrum knew what would happen if Boehner cut a deal on the Debt Ceiling increase last summer, and despite our warnings, and in spite of our attempts to get them to reconsider, they went along with the insane lunacy that provided Obama trillions more in borrowed money, a piggy-bank he is already breaking in order to help his own re-election.   We knew it.  We urged Boehner and the House Republicans to stand strong.  Boehner made a deal with Reid even before the ink was dry on Cut, Cap & Balance, leaving us dangling in the breeze.  This form of surrender, whereby we find that we have no support for the most critically important items on our agenda is simply a continuance of the same old thing:  Conservatives fight for a conservative agenda, and the establishment, that gives lip service to conservatism, walks it all back at the first opportunity.  The problem with Mitt Romney is that he is a perfect example of this kind of Republican, and to date, everything he has said that claims a conservative inclination, I fully expect him to walk back.

I don’t need another president like that.  Moderate establishment types assure us that Mitt Romney is at least somebody we can hope to control, but I don’t want a President who needs to be led or controlled by conservatives in order to govern in a conservative fashion.  What’s the point in that?  If we need to spend four years of a Romney administration preventing him from surrendering to the left on a whole range of issues, I’d just as soon not have a Romney presidency.  Try, if you will, to see it from my point of view:  I’m one of those guys who pays attention to what lame-duck sessions of Congress may be doing.  Most people go back to their daily lives, post-election, hoping things will work out.  What I know is that they seldom do work out.  Instead, the permanent DC political class continues its agenda full-time, and when most Americans stop paying attention, they’re working their worst at our expense.  If Mitt Romney is President, you will do what?  How closely will you pay attention once the election is over?  Most Americans go back to their ordinary daily grind, and their usual diversions.  It’s the nature of things that the greater body of the electorate pays attention for roughly ten weeks before an election, and roughly one week afterwards, the rest of the time ignoring it unless something big happens that cannot be dismissed.  It is this that gives me pause about the notion of another President with an “R” next to his name that we conservatives would be forced to battle in order to prevent Chamberlain-like appeasements of the left.

Many like to point to the US Supreme Court as one reason that we should accept any Republican over Barack Obama, and while at first blush, this seems true, the fact is that we suffered with David Souter as a result of the presidency of George HW Bush, and had conservatives not lashed out in vigor, George W. Bush might well have appointed Harriet Miers to the court.  You see, I don’t want a Republican president who we will need to fight on judicial appointments.  Even the record of Ronald Reagan on this matter was a bit spotty, at least on the high court.   If we’re going to have a Republican president, I’d just as soon have the sense that conservatism was the default philosophy used in making decisions, rather than having to worry that it’s not going to be observed as a guiding anchor in a new administration.  The simple fact is that with another moderate, or even liberal Republican in the oval office, too many people will again assume that the policies issuing from such an administration will be conservative, but as we have seen repeatedly since the elder Bush, that’s not the case.

Conservatives simply won’t fight a Republican president, no matter how liberal, as strongly as they would a leftist demagogue like Obama.  This is not an endorsement of Obama, but what I’m waiting to see is what conservatives will explain as the method by which they will exercise control of any sort over a Romney administration, the campaign for which has done everything conceivable to ignore conservatives and win the nomination in blue states without them.  Exactly why would Mitt answer to we conservatives?  I can’t think of a single reason.  It’s for this reason that I will continue to fight for Gingrich, and hold out for a brokered convention.  I don’t blame any conservative who evaluates the record of Mitt Romney and finds it sorely lacking.   In short, I’m right there with you.  Romney simply isn’t a conservative, and he knows it.  So does the GOP establishment, that hopes to win the nomination for him, with or without conservative support. I don’t have any interest in supporting another moderate Republican in the primaries, so when the Texas primary comes around, I’ll be voting for Newt Gingrich.  He understands conservatism, even if he has not always been its most perfect practitioner.  Romney is still unpalatable to me.

Will the GOP establishment ever learn?  I suppose the answer to that question lies in the evidence.  After all, maybe they have learned.  Maybe the real lesson for the establishment is that if we conservatives have no remaining options, we’ll ultimately surrender, and go along to get along, that we conservatives will ultimately accept their leadership if only to prevent worse under leftists like Obama.  Maybe the question shouldn’t be whether the establishment of the GOP will ever learn, but whether we conservatives will ever exhibit the determination to defeat the establishment.   After all, come mid-November, as we go back to our football and our plans for the Thanksgiving and Christmas season, who will be minding the store?  Us?  Or the GOP establishment?  I see this as the real problem.  It’s not a matter of Mitt Romney, so much as it is a question of our diligence.  The establishment we fight knows we will shut up, most of us, and go on quietly about our business while they run the country.  It’s not their fault.  It’s ours.




The Insufferable GOP Establishment Is Now Whining

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

The Establishment Fears You

An article appeared in the Tampa Bay Times that should strengthen your resolve and hearten your efforts to defeat the Romney machine.  It’s titled Analysis of Rubio-Bush-Ryan Plan to Stop Rick Santorum,  and if ever you wanted to know what it looks like when the GOP establishment crowd is made to sweat, this is it.  The author, Marc Caputo, fairly gushes over the three well-known GOP politicians Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan.  When an article starts out this way, you have to know that it’s a real sob story:

Marco Rubio sounds worried. So do Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan.

Their candidate, Mitt Romney, is losing to President Barack Obama. The GOP primary is becoming “counterproductive.”

The assumptions made here are sickening.  First, there is the entitlement mentality, that suggests these guys have some right to expect their candidate to be the nominee.  What they know is what you should already know:  Romney’s presumed nomination is in trouble, as they’ve looked at the numbers and realize that 1144 delegates could be out of reach if Rick Santorum can make it through the month of April and into May.  The article acknowledges what I’ve been reporting about a potential brokered convention too:

“They are saying the only way they can win this race is by having a floor fight in Tampa in August,” Sen. Rubio said Wednesday of the “recipe for disaster” on Fox News. “I think that’s a recipe to deliver four more years to Barack Obama. And our country — forget about the Republican Party — our country cannot afford that.”

Senator Rubio is simply wrong. A floor fight isn’t a recipe for disaster unless you’re a Romney supporter.  They way the establishment has controlled, manipulated, and rigged this process is a disaster for the country.  A real recipe for disaster in November would be for Mitt Romney to lose the election because he is incapable of positioning himself to defeat Barack Obama in any argument in a general election.

Predictably, this is where the article turns its attacks on Santorum, prefacing the assault this way:

“It’s as if Obama’s campaign is writing Santorum’s attack lines about how Romney is virtually indistinguishable from the president.”

Really? It’s as if a DNC ad-man wrote the article.  Media bias is what it is, but I have tired of people purporting to be part of News organizations, posing as journalists of some sort who make statements like this:

“If Romney loses Florida, he probably loses the election. If Santorum stays in and wins the huge Texas primary May 29, it’ll continue to make Romney look uninspiring and like the weakest of frontrunners.”

Note to Mr. Caputo:  Mitt Romney is uninspiring.  He is the weakest of front-runners. He won’t win Texas.  Of course, the absolutely most laughable part of this whining, pathetic plea is this:

“Santorum and Gingrich bear some responsibility for Romney’s problems. So does gaffe-prone Romney. Also, this poll and others indicate that the GOP’s stances on contraception and abortion have hurt the party’s brand among women and independent voters. The improving economy has worked against Romney and in Obama’s favor as well.”

It’s Santorum and Gingrich who are to blame for Romney’s inadequacies?  Mitt Romney has spent tens of millions of dollars on ads absolutely hammering his opponents, and we should blame his opponents for his unpopularity and his continuing inability to sew up the nomination?  Caputo’s article concludes with a plea that should embarrass anybody who is actually in the news business:

“Will Santorum give Romney the chance to make that case in time?”

Mr. Caputo should understand, as should the whining GOP establishment: Conservatives have no obligation to cede the race to Mitt Romney, or make it easier for him, or in any way enable his candidacy.  He hasn’t shown any inclination to get out of their way either, and I want to know only one thing from Mr. Caputo and those like him:

“Will Romney give Santorum and Gingrich the chance to make the case against Barack Obama in time?”

No? Then shut up and fight.

You’ll notice how the idiotic questions they pose for conservatives are never offered to the establishment.  They hope sincerely that we will not notice the fact that every question of this sort that they throw at conservatives could be turned around and thrown right back.  For instance, they are always demanding:  “But you will support Romney if nominated, right?”  I have yet to hear anybody in the big media ask Romney: “But you will support Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul, if nominated, right?”  Of course we won’t hear that question, because it would imply Romney could lose.  Newsflash:  He could lose.  Caputo’s article is proof of that fact.



Why a Brokered Convention Offers Conservatives Real Hope

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

Should We Fear It?

At this point, it doesn’t much matter if you favor Newt Gingrich, as I do, or whether you like Rick Santorum, but if you’ve come to see Mitt Romney as being nearly as bad in some respects as the President we all hope to replace, you might wish to consider getting excited about a “brokered” or “open” convention.  The mathematical realities are hard to ignore.  Of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney has a substantial delegate lead, but he still needs to get to 1144, and for the rest of us, the question isn’t merely how to get our own preferred candidate into the top slot, but how to prevent Romney from managing to steal away with it.  The key to doing so will be to get out the vote in favor of Gingrich or Santorum, but how do we do that?  Many conservatives have given up, and in the face of the endless waves of well-funded Romney attack campaigns against the other two, many voters are turned off.  This is Romney’s plan:  Disparage, divide, depress and conquer.  When you consider what he faces, it’s easy to understand why he must follow this approach:  If conservative turn-out swelled at the polls, he’d be done and gone quickly.

Members of the GOP establishment like to say that a brokered convention is too disorderly, and that it puts the party into chaos, but what they really fear is that on the floor of the convention, conservatives might well find their voice and unite behind a non-establishment candidate.  As some have pointed out, in 1920, Warren G. Harding came from single-digit obscurity to capture the nomination in a brokered convention.  In 1860, on the third vote, we got Abraham Lincoln in a brokered convention.  In 1976, we came within a whisker of a true brokered convention and nearly got Ronald Reagan four years earlier.  Imagine all the pain the country would have avoided, but then again, had we not gotten Carter, we’d have absolutely nobody to whom we could compare Barack Obama’s miserable record as president.  The fact is that brokered conventions often serve to set things right in the Republican party, and I don’t think there’s any reason to fear it.  Instead, I believe conservatives should view a brokered convention as the last chance for a “do-over” when it’s clear the party establishment is pushing a flawed, uninspiring candidate like Mitt Romney.

For the rest of us to have a shot, whether you  like Newt or Rick, the answer must be that we should rise in both camps to do battle against the establishment.  I realize that we’ve been trained to compete with one another as rivals, and I understand why the Gingrich camp wants the Santorum camp to give over, and why the inverse is also true.  It makes sense.  We’re Americans.  We naturally seek the advantage in order to win.  We’re good at competition, but I think this year that our competitive tendencies are being used against us.  Every time something comes over the transom that is devastating to Mitt Romney, suddenly we’re faced with a story of lesser import aimed at one of the others, and what always gets lost in the shuffle is Romney.  You don’t need special insight to observe it in action.  After the disaster of “Etch-a-Sketch,” the Romney camp had to find some way to blunt it, so they cooked up narratives about Santorum’s remarks twice in four days, and packaged them so as to give an impression that was a misrepresentation of what Santorum said, even if  we admit he said it clumsily, or with a lack of precision.

It’s not like the Gingrich camp hasn’t experienced this several times before.  If any should be able to see when the mud-slinging is about to commence in earnest, it should be the Gingrich supporters because they’ve had more dirt shoveled in their direction than any Republican candidate for any office since Sarah Palin was the VP pick in 2008.  The phony narrative about Newt’s ex-wife, and the whole week of ginned-up nonsense leading up to Florida should remind Gingrich supporters how conveniently the dirt is heaped in our direction in order to help Romney escape his own latest troubles.  This has happened so often and with such predictable regularity that when I see Romney has managed to step in “it,” I begin immediately to watch instead for where the attack against one of the others will originate.

Don’t be fooled by this, and don’t let yourselves become discouraged. As Speaker Gingrich has pointed out, if we get through the last primaries in June without a clear nominee, this really does become something of an etch-a-sketch in terms of the race.  We’ll have two months of an intense pre-convention run-up during which there will finally be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  My view is that any of these candidates would be more effective against Barack Obama than Mitt Romney, and while reasonable people may disagree on which particular candidate, let’s be honest:  Mitt Romney doesn’t represent we conservatives in  any measure, and his Romney-care program(among lesser indignities) makes him every bit as objectionable as Barack Obama.

I think it’s time both the camps of Gingrich and Santorum consider that for either to prevail, Mitt Romney must be stopped.  We’ll never stop fighting with one another completely, because it would be contrary to the nature of the competitive spirit that is inherent in our conservative beliefs, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be smarter about it.  At this point in the campaign, it’s all over if we let Romney obtain 1144 delegates, or anything close to that number.  We can’t stop him from outspending Newt and Rick 10:1, 20:1, or even 50:1 as has been the case thus far in Wisconsin, but we can debunk it all, whomever it’s aimed at.

My thought is that what we need to change our focus: Mitt’s the problem.  Mitt’s the obstruction.  Mitt’s the guy throwing millions upon millions at his more conservative rivals, but most astonishingly, he does so while claiming he is the real conservative.  It’s a laughable claim, but while we laugh, he’s managing to get away with it.  You might join me in preferring Gingrich, or you might be like my sibling who prefers Santorum, but we’re brothers, after all, and one thing we can agree upon is that Mitt Romney is not the guy we want to see go up against Obama this Fall.  My brother and I have made a bit of a truce on the matter.  We’ve agreed, one to the other, that we’ll not spend our time hammering back and forth, but we will focus instead on the guy who will sneak away with it all if we spend too much time fighting between us.

My brother and I talked about this at length, and what we decided is that for the good of the party, but more importantly, for the good of the country, we need a brokered convention as our only means by which to reset all of it.  Growing up as we did, we often found ourselves in situations in which one of us needed to have the other’s back.  It wasn’t that we didn’t squabble and fight between us, because in truth, few fight like brothers against one another.  The thing we always tried to remember is that that while our fights were fine and dandy when the struggles were among and between us, you didn’t let somebody else step in and divide us to his own advantage, ultimately defeating us both.  Instead, we’d team up against the interloper and deal with our own differences later.

I think that at this point, whatever our differences, they pale in comparison to our similarities.  I’m not suggesting to you that we circle ’round and sing Kumbaya, and that this will cure all differences between us, but I think we ought to deal with the interloper first.  Mitt’s not a conservative, and the truth is that a fair number of the people now voting for him will not be there for him in November, and I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of DNC mischief picking our candidates.  I’ve heard a few rumors about DNC operations trying to help Santorum, but it’s hard to find evidence, since the counties in which Santorum lost in Michigan and Ohio were really fairly strong Democrat areas.  In Florida, Newt lost in the South end of the state, but in the panhandle, Newt won.  In fact, if you look at these election maps, what you will notice very quickly is that they appear much as if  the conservative had been running against Obama:  The more urban counties went heavily for Romney.  This trend has been repeated in battle-ground states, one after the next.  You’ll remember that analysts loved to say it was about education, smearing either Newt or Rick on the basis that only dumb, hick, rednecks were supporting them.  My question has been:  Who’s supporting Romney in all of those heavily Democrat counties and districts?  Conservatives?  Hardly.

Make of it what you will, but I’m telling you what I see, and it looks something like this:  If conservatives permit Mitt Romney to be the nominee, I can see four more years of Obama, which may be an eternity for all intents and purposes.  Even if Romney were to some how pull off the win, I don’t see where that would advance our cause much.  He’s already got Pam Bondi working on a task force of some sort for the “replacement” of Obamacare, which is to say that we’ll get some form of Romney-care that will still run our country into the ground, and destroy the private insurance market.  In other words, I don’t see much hope for the country even if Romney wins.  He won’t fix it, and chances are that while he won’t break it quite as much, or quite as quickly, the destruction will continue.  If we’re going to prevent that, we must do so now by dragging our conservative friends to the polls to vote for Newt or Rick.  Either way, it’s a vote against Mitt, and we need all those we can get.  After we stop him, we can refocus on beating one another in a more honest competition.  After all, it’s the brotherly thing to do.




Gingrich is Right: Romney Is the Weakest Front-Runner

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

Holding Out for Overtime

Newt Gingrich is right: Mitt Romney is the weakest front-runner we’ve had since Gerald Ford in 1976.  I think it’s one of those situations where we really need to reconsider the entire narrative about the “inevitability” of Mitt Romney’s nomination.  I believe that were we to have a brokered convention, Mitt Romney would not emerge as the nominee, and I think Romney is well aware of that fact, which is why  the establishment is working so hard to kill this process now.  We can’t afford to put up another moderate, middle-of-the-road candidate who is just waiting to be roadkill in the midst of speeding traffic.  What we need is a candidate with a record of fighting for real reforms, and who knows how to get government out of the way.  Mitt Romney is not that candidate.

Here’s Newt Gingrich from CNN with Wolf Blitzed:

This is undeniably true.  The best way for us to avoid a Romney nomination at this point is through a brokered convention, and all conservatives ought to support one of the non-Romney candidates for this reason.  When the Texas primary is held in late May, I will be polling for Gingrich. I know many who will stand with either Gingrich or Santorum because it’s the one way remaining to stave off Romney.

Romney Wins Illinois; Conservatives Yawn

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Winning Another Blue State

Mitt Romney won in another deep blue state that he will never win against Obama, edging close to the 1144 delegates needed to sew up the Republican party nomination.  Romney continues to win in states where he’s likely to lose in November, while in states where he has a hope of winning, voters continue to turn away from the former Massachusetts Governor.  He had a clear victory in deep blue Illinois, but this raises a question about strategies:  It seems Romney is willing to alienate the South, generally, because he hopes in the general election this Fall, voters across the South will simply vote for him because he’s not Obama, but that’s not likely to get voters to the polls.  He can’t afford to lose in even one “battleground” state, like Ohio or Michigan, in which he had only slim margins of victory over Santorum, and in the South, where a Republican should be expected to win handily, there’s a fair chance he will have alienated so many voters that they simply won’t show up.

That would constitute catastrophe, not only for Romney’s electoral hopes, but also for the nation.  He may win the nomination battle, but lose the general election war.  It’s one more reason for conservatives to worry, and I think the worries are more than valid.  After all, the fact that he wins in blue states is slim consolation compared to the fact that these are states he cannot win in the Fall.  He may be the inevitable nominee if he and the GOP establishment have their way, but that says nothing of his campaign against Barack Obama.  The evidence may lie in the fact that this was the lowest primary turn-out in Illinois in more than seventy years, just a meager 24% in Chicago according to CBS.

If Romney doesn’t start winning some states across the South, or some of the remaining battleground states by convincing margins, he’s going to be a sitting duck.  I think the Obama campaign has known this, and they have understood his nomination strategy quite well.  It may successfully make him the GOP’s candidate, but it is unlikely to pave the way for victory in November.  Romney has a real problem, and his failure to consolidate the party around him at this date speaks to a level of dissatisfaction with his candidacy and record that is truly stunning. He cannot put the notion of a brokered convention to bed until he starts commanding the red states.

Some will surely support him in the Fall campaign if he does secure the nomination, but that’s not likely to heal all the wounds his negative campaigning has inflicted on the conservative base of the party.  There is a wider segment than most may imagine that will simply not feel inclined to cast a vote for him come November, and this would be a catastrophe, albeit one brought on by the GOP establishment.  Sure, they would blame conservatives, as per their usual talking points, but the truth is that for a change, the establishment ought to have allowed the competition to occur without its own agenda of manipulating outcomes. Blue state primary wins does not a Republican victory make, and at some point, Romney is going to need to have a moment of clarity on this matter.  He’s winning, but he’s not really winning in a fashion to invigorate anybody.  If he doesn’t, and soon, he may get the nomination but yield a second term to Barack Obama.

Why Newt Won’t (and Shouldn’t) Get Out

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

The 'Cheerful One'

Jonathan Karl has an enlightening piece up on covering Newt Gingrich and his reasoning for staying in this Republican nomination fight.  It’s a reason that makes a great deal of sense once you understand the former House Speaker’s rationale:  He wants to prevent a Romney coronation, with the GOP establishment riding herd over the rank-and-file.  There’s good reason for conservatives to want this too, because if there is an brokered convention, we’re far more likely to have a more thoroughly prepared candidate once the general election season begins.  The GOP convention is our last chance as conservatives to hold any candidate’s feet to the fire, and if we’re smart, we’ll make full use of the opportunity it presents.   It is not only true that Newt Gingrich won’t get out, but also true that he shouldn’t.

The establishment line has been that “a brokered convention will hurt the party,” or that “Mitt Romney will win anyway,” or that “conservatives should shut up and get in line.”  None of these are true, and for now, Newt Gingrich is carrying that banner.  Also, as I observed last week, there is no guarantee that if Newt gets out, that it won’t bolster Romney rather than Santorum, as some have contended, notably GOP establishment operatives who would love to see Gingrich out so they can focus all of their venom and negative campaigning on a single target.  Gingrich seemed to confirm this, according to Karl:

1) His vote gets divided between Santorum and Romney. A larger percentage would go to Santorum, but at least some goes to Romney, allowing him to accumulate more delegates; and,

2) Romney is then able to aim all of his considerable firepower at Santorum, destroying him with negative ads the way he twice destroyed Gingrich (in Iowa and Florida).

This may sound familiar to my regular readers, although we should note that Gingrich has done the math too, and while his road to the nomination is formidable, the way to defeat Mitt Romney for either Gingrich or Santorum is in a floor fight at the convention.  Some establishment Republicans fear the spectacle, but they shouldn’t unless they’re selling a pig in a poke to conservative Republicans. On the anxiety in the party, carried forth and broadcast by the press, Gingrich told Karl:

“This thing is going to go on. You guys need to relax and cover the most interesting nominating process in your lifetime,” Gingrich told me. “Be not anxiety-ridden, this is going to be good for America. This is a good conversation to have.”

He’s absolutely right.  Nothing is supposed to be smooth or easy about this process.  This is where we’re supposed to settle the differences in the party.  This is the time for conservatives to find their voices in the battle with the party establishment.  The establishment would rather the grass-roots and conservative base of the GOP simply shut up and play along, but that’s not we’ll defeat Barack Obama. We’re conservatives, and we shouldn’t expect it to be easy, or even bloodless in a political sense. If we have the strength of our convictions, we must fight this battle too, and unflinchingly.  Newt Gingrich is right: It’s a battle worth fighting. As the Daily Caller further details, while messy, a brokered convention is an important part of the process.  We came within a whisker of getting Reagan in 1976, as the Daily Caller details, and it’s something to consider when we look at what’s going on in this primary season, and how the GOP establishment is pulling out all the stops to prevent a similar scene.


Ann Coulter Takes Another Swipe at Sarah Palin

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Attacking Like a Liberal

One of the things that I have begun to notice is how similar the GOP establishment and its shills really are to Democrats.  Ann Coulter is a Mitt Romney supporter, who endorsed the former Massachusetts Governor after her preference, Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie announced he would not seek the nomination on October 4th of last year.  Ever since then, Ann Coulter has been a non-stop verbal siren for Mitt Romney, a man she told us only a year ago would lose if nominated.  Coulter is never satisfied to let sleeping dogs lie, or to bury the hatchet and move on, but I think she actually takes her shots at Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to curry favor with the GOP establishment.  In this video clip, she was asked about the notion of a brokered convention, and possible “outlier candidates,” and she decided the moment was right to take another miserable swipe at former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It’s bad enough to be attacked by somebody in your own party, but when they resort to the same sort of cheap and nauseating tactics as the left, you know the attacker is a RINO.

Here’s the clip, H/T Sharktank:


Coulter lied.  I have never heard or read one word from Sarah Palin whereby she suggests that she should be the Republican candidate if we wind up with a brokered convention.  Many of her supporters would like to see that, but not once in all her media appearances has she ever said she would be that candidate, and she has explicitly said that the GOP establishment wouldn’t permit it.  She’s likely right, and as if to prove the point, here is Ann Coulter jabbing at Governor Palin for something she never actually said.  It makes one wonder what is next from Ann Coulter.  Will she next tell us that Tina Fey’s portrayal of Governor Palin is accurate, or that Julianne Moore’s is any better?

I realize politics can be a nasty game, complete with a bunch of ankle-biters(and some would throw me in that category) who take their shots at targets of political opportunity, but as a grass-roots activist, I wonder about Ann Coulter.  Apart from appealing to moderates and liberals with her attacks on Sarah Palin, and her unceasing, sycophantic support of Chris Christie, I am now in the position of being forced to ask what Ann Coulter has done for conservatives lately.

The truth is that when you listen to what Ann says, it no longer seems to be the speech of a firebrand conservative, but the compromising and haughty harrumph of an establishment lackey who has overestimated her worth to all concerned. Coulter apparently sees herself as part of the “in crowd,” but even if so, that won’t last the first time she questions something the GOP establishment does.  For the moment, however, she’s safe, and she’s still useful, because she stands ready to propagate their talking points with the unquestioning  obedience of a megaphone.

Actual conservatives hear her real message loud and clear, and are abandoning her to her establishment friends.  I wonder how many copies of her latest literary cacophony the RINO wing of the Republican Party will buy?  It’s a relatively narrow market segment, after all. Maybe that’s the problem:  For a long while, Ann Coulter was the one of just a few highly visible Republican women, and perhaps she doesn’t like the competition?  She’s seems concerned to a state of near distraction that Sarah Palin has the FoxNews job, doesn’t she?


Palin Derangement Syndrome Part II: The Mania Continues

Saturday, February 18th, 2012

"She must be up to Something!"

I must admit that when I read the theories put forward by the PDS crowd, I always get a chuckle, because they’re like one of those bad parody movies. On the one hand, their hatred of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is maniacal, but on the other, it is just another expression of their sadly disjointed thinking.  The latest furor arises from her remarks over the last week about the possibility of a brokered convention, and all their attempts to explain it.  Of course, to a certain degree, Palin supporters  wonder about the same things, but theirs is a view with a hopeful leaning.  That’s not true of everybody who is considering the meaning of her remarks on the subject, and watching them flail is actually a bit entertaining until you remember the hatred that drives it. There’s something disturbing about the conflicted, self-contradictory theories they offer to their unsuspecting audiences, but that doesn’t deter them so much as to whip them into a frenzy. I’ll leave it to my readers to judge which is the most frighteningly insane, but the take-away is this: In leftist lunatic land, “she must be up to something.”

The first theory from the blogging space-balls is that Governor Palin is a modern day Sun Tzu, applying his maxim that “All War is deception.” In this theory the woman who they have recently demeaned as “Caribou Barbie” and other smears aimed at describing her as an airhead is instead an evil genius who has conducted a stealth campaign by which she will swoop in at the supposed brokered convention just in time to steal away with the nomination and make  her way to election day without so much as a whimper from any other would-be candidate within the Republican party.  Of course, I know many Palinistas who wish fervently that this would come to pass, but that the same liberal minds with a four-year history of portraying Palin as less than brilliant now find it suits their purposes to propose that she is instead cunning, and has been sand-bagging all along is a remarkable study in self-contradiction.  Of course, these are the same half-wits who still insist on bizarre conspiracy theories that Trig isn’t really Palin’s biological son, so logical consistency isn’t exactly their strong suit.

Yet another theory proposes that this is Governor Palin’s way of becoming relevant again, because if there was a brokered convention, she’d become a power broker in its outcome even if she wasn’t the ultimate nominee.  Of course, this manically blinded theory presupposes something that is undeniably false:  Sarah Palin is now irrelevant in this theory.  The problem with that goofy idea is that she’s not irrelevant, not now, and not recently, as her speech at CPAC demonstrated, plus her clear impact on the South Carolina primary.  We know this much:  She’s more relevant than either Nikki Haley, or Chris Christie, at least to the voters of South Carolina.  Of course, this may explain the leftists’ view of her as irrelevant, because after all, they think the voters of South Carolina are irrelevant too.  The fact that there is a legion of media that still follows in her footsteps wherever she goes offers substantial repudiation of their thesis, but that’s never enough when it comes to Sarah Palin.  No, somehow she is irrelevant against all evidence to the contrary, and she is in a constant struggle to regain it. Again, their inability to see the plain truth is more evidence of their own dubious relevance rather than telling us anything of merit about Governor Palin’s.

The last is, of course, the pièce de résistance in what can best be described as a litany of kookiness.  In this theory, Governor Palin is a stealth establishment power-broker, working to put Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or even Paul Ryan on the throne, and she’s in league with them, and maybe even Karl Rove, and this whole push for a brokered convention is simply her way of serving her masters.  Yes, that’s it.  By this theory, not only is Palin seeking to restore her relevancy, but also a closet sell-out and puppet.  In this theory, there’s no need for her to be an evil genius directing the assault from far-away Wasilla, but instead a servant actor who will play her role as directed.  Frankly, I’m just waiting for them to throw in the Koch brothers to complete the narrative.  Taking it further, the Daily Kos actually compares  Palin and Bush to Mafia types, and in typical shrill indifference to fact, goes on a complete [il]literary bender over it.  This is what the depth of the Palin-Derangement Syndrome on the left has wrought, and it’s a frightening cacophony of the most ludicrous theories and the most convoluted psychic contortions one might ever imagine, and if we weren’t talking about the craziest of the crazies, one might expect that that with a little constructive chemistry, they might find relief, if not a cure from the madness that drives them.

This is the state of Palin Derangement Syndrome today.  It’s no less deranged, and in fact may be seeking new heights, but I’ll be damned if I can guess what their small minds will concoct next as they imagine possible motives for everything Palin has done, will do, never did, and would never do.  The truth is that this bunch doesn’t need an excuse to see Sarah Palin as the devil, the dumb-bell, the diva, and the drag-queen.  They believe she is all of these and more.  Given a little time, they will concoct some evidence to support it, too, as they look for new ways to remain relevant themselves.  One would have thought that after her October 5th announcement, they’d have concluded “our work here is done,” but apparently, they will leave no stone unturned in search of evermore deranged reasons to manufacture new anti-Palin smears. PDS is alive and well in lunatic-lefty-land, and they’re not even slightly embarrassed.

Not once, in all of their bizarre speculating do they ever consider that Governor Palin has simply said what she believes.  Instead, their malevolent small minds must imbue her with some ulterior motive, and it must be altogether crazy, evil, and/or stupid.  For me, that speaks to the questionable state of their sanity, but it also offers a clue as to their own character.

Brokered Convention Talk and Sarah Palin Create a Stir

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

So It Began

Eric Bolling’s hand was stretching across to Governor Palin to thank her for the interview at its conclusion, when my phone rang.  I answered, and the first words I heard were: “How do we have a brokered convention?” I explained it in broad terms to my friend, who was ready now to go to war with the GOP, Democrats, or anybody who might stand in his way. I heard the call-waiting beep, and I excused myself, and fielded the next call. “Did you see that?  How do we make sure that if there is a brokered convention, she’s picked, and not somebody else like Jeb?” I asked only: “Who’s speaking?”  My hearing is failing as I get older, and sometimes I can’t differentiate particular voices over the phone. Nevertheless, once I knew to whom I was speaking, we discussed the matter at hand. Everybody who called wanted to know how a brokered convention could be forced, or how it would work, and if it could really work at all.

This went on from the moment of the conclusion of the Bolling-Palin interview until late into the night.  Friends, associates, activists, and many others called me, and all of them wanted to know how to go about making sure of two things, and precisely two things:  How can we make sure there is a brokered convention, and how can we make certain that Sarah Palin is the choice?

I will tell you now what I told them in simplified terms, as I’m sure over the next twenty-four hours, we’ll see people with more facts on the specifics: It still all comes down to delegates, but not merely numbers of them, but instead also who will be those delegates.  To accomplish the reality of a brokered convention isn’t all that difficult in terms of the mechanics.  Simply put, you just need to deny 1144 delegates to any of the candidates, and the best way for that to happen is to spread them around.  If Santorum wins one, and then Romney wins one, and Gingrich wins one, and maybe eventually Ron Paul wins one, and this cycles around long enough to deny any that magic number of delegates, what you will have is a brokered convention.  That’s a fact.

The infinitely more difficult part is seeing to the outcome of a brokered convention.  If any of them are too strong, they will be in a position to wheel and deal for the support of another candidate’s delegates, but more than this, the GOP establishment will have a strong hand with at-large delegates and also because the number of at-large delegates will swell this year due to the early states holding their contests earlier than the rules permit.  Those states  automatically have yielded half of their delegates to the party, to be made at-large delegates.

There is also the question of who the delegates will be.  Having a bunch of Santorum delegates who would lean toward Mitt Romney in Santorum’s absence would be bad.  Of course, this is where we get into the weeds of process, because delegates are selected differently in the various states.  I would therefore refer you to those within your state who can explain it to you in the context in which your state’s rules apply.   The point is that a brokered convention becomes difficult in several ways, including the manner in which a nominee is eventually selected.

The real messy part is the inevitable floor fight, that is one of the reasons the parties try to avoid this spectacle before television cameras at all costs.  Here’s an article from the Washington Post that discusses some of the possibilities.  I point all of this out not to dampen anybody’s spirits, but instead to make sure you understand what the pursuit of this will entail.  For those of you motivated enough to carry it out, there will be pitfalls, and dangers, and no shortage of potential heartbreaks.  Is it possible? Yes. Will it be a snap?  Not a chance.

Of course, all of those who phoned me on Wednesday evening don’t seem to be the sort who will be easily deterred.  They have a goal in mind, and have had this one in mind for some time as one possible way to see their preferred candidate lead the party into the general election.  I can’t fault them, as I have harbored that same hope ever since Governor Palin made her announcement of October 5th.  Of course, in all of this, we should recognize we are a long way from a brokered convention, and while I would like to see it, as would many others, there’s no certainty that we will get one, or that even having gotten one, it will have the outcome we envision.  There hasn’t been a brokered convention in the GOP since 1948, and Dewey was the result.  It came close to happening in 1976, when Ronald Reagan almost upset Gerald Ford.  What you must know is that such an avenue is tricky at best, and dangerous at its worst, because much of it will come down to the delegates, and the character they possess.  If they’re interested in currying favor with party bosses, it could be trouble, but if they’re ordinary Americans interested in victory as the path to restoring the country, it just might work out.