The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Republicans Against a Brokered Convention

By on 2.21.12 @ 10:29AM

Yesterday Michigan GOP Rep. Thaddeus McCotter spoke out against having Republican leaders choose the presidential nominee at a brokered convention:

Having unsuccessfully competed against all of the candidates for our party’s nomination for President of the United States, I attest to the mettle of the remaining contenders; and aver that at the end of this brutal primary process - potentially including a convention fight - our GOP nominee must be Mitt, Rick, Newt or Ron.

McCotter concludes, “A GOP that distrusts its primary voters will be distrusted by general election voters - and rightly so.” A Gallup/USA Today poll of Republican and GOP-leaning independent voters found that 66 percent oppose a brokered convention.

View all comments (38) |

Jack in Wi.| 2.21.12 @ 11:26AM

A brokered convention is where we are headed. The party is far too divided to win this year, at least in my opinion.

Simon Templar| 2.21.12 @ 5:59PM

The base is not divided but united in not electing the GOP establishment candidate. The only ones calling for a brokered convention is the RINO's of the establishment and Paulbots like yourself. The establishment does not want to respect the primary process and its eventual outcome. You mistakenly think that Paul has a real chance in a brokered convention. This is not a straw poll. You would like to ignore the will of the majority as well.

SpiralArchitect| 2.21.12 @ 6:33PM

+1

Jack in Wi.| 2.21.12 @ 7:21PM

You have me wrong: The party is divided because it hasn't had a decent debate. Most of the country wqnts nothing to do with more of these wars, or banksters, or flim flam artists. Ron Paul in a poll last week was by far and away the most likeable Republican. He also last week was in second place behind a fading Romney. Most of us Paul supporters are not going to vote for more of the same. I am never going to vote for Sheldon Adelson's boy and more endless war. I am not going to vote for Goldman Sach's boy Mitt. Santorum and his Bible thumping is the latest stopgap soon to join Cain, Bachman,Gingrich, Perry etc. As I stated the party, in my opinion, is far too divided to win. We are not going to go along with more of the same. We gain nothing but more disaster by backing any of the 3 stooges, Mutt, Nutt and Sant. Obama can't be much worse then these guys. They are brain dead warmongers, who will only make thingss worse.

Clint| 2.21.12 @ 7:44PM

The Israel Firster Smear Bund Agendists a Are Scared Of A Brokered Convention.

"A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate".

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

spike59| 2.22.12 @ 6:42AM

and leaves RonPaul on the oustide, crying

RJ| 2.21.12 @ 12:43PM

While legally, the delegates could nominate someone else, I would view that as illegitimate. To win the nomination, the candidate needs to run the race. The prize shouldn't go to someone who watched the race from the bleachers. Last thing I want is the infamous GOP Establishment to tell us who our nominee is. It is time to pick the best of the candidates: Paul, Gingrich, Romney or Santorum. They answered the call and are prepared for the campaign, not someone like Mitch Daniels who decided not to run.

Al Adab| 2.21.12 @ 12:47PM

Disagree RJ;
The quality of the candidates was better when Conventions rather than primaries selected the nominee. In fact, as we have seen, primary elections deliver convention votes to plurality winners rather than to those who may be more competitive and reflect better the platform and values of the party.

RJ| 2.21.12 @ 1:57PM

Interesting point, Al. I can think of Lincoln as one example from the past. I guess the preliminary question is when did primaries replace the old style convention. If I recall correctly, there weren't many primaries in 1968 and that it has grown from there. I believe that 1952 was the last traditional convention fight (Eisenhower v Taft), if we don't count 1976 (Ford v Reagan).

I have been embarrassed by our choices over the last several years (McCain, GW Bush, Dole), which leads credence to your position, but I think their selection is more due to the GOP Establishment's influence rather than the electorate.

In any event, I would like to think more about your position. Who were some of the convention candidates that you view as better than the primary selected ones? And who do you think the convention would give us this time?

WL| 2.21.12 @ 2:38PM

Debating which method is better for selecting a candidate is appropriate for next year.

If the delegates go around what the respective states voted for in order to scuttle the nomination of someone "the party elders" don't approve of...then we have no voice in the republican party, and I will sit back and hope we survive another Obama term.

Obama didn't lie to me...He told me he is a dangerous radical that would split the country. It's too bad that others did not listen to him and voted for him anyway...but if the Republicans keep up their crap...THEY have lied to me, and I will leave the Republican party...where I'll go, I don't know...but I won't vote for someone just because they are supposed to be a more decent liar, than the current president.

Al Adab| 2.21.12 @ 2:56PM

RJ:
Thanks for your reply. The question can be argued either way.

Granted that the convention system gave us Tom Dewey and Wendle Wilke, it did also raise up as you note Eisenhower, who - thought he defeated Taft - still administered perhaps the last Constitutional Presidency. Sadly the FDR era damaged the GOP to such an extent that little of note has happened since. Acceptance of the legitimacy of the social welfare state is actually the underlying cause of GOP failure over the last couple generations.

I shy from primaries as they select based on plurality as evidenced by Dole, McCain and today Romney. They "won" primary elections but mostly without majority votes. In 1976, the delegates wanted Reagan but were bound to Ford who was further supported by the GOP "establishment" which included the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld (which shows just where Bush went wrong) backing Ford.

I would ask whether the primary system has produced, aside from Reagan, anything other than a moderate, accomodationist nominee.

RJ| 2.22.12 @ 2:30AM

Al Adab,

Coincidentally, I just got back from the Reagan Library, seeing a George Washington exhibit from Mount Vernon.

Certainly, Reagan and, if we can include 1964 as part of the primary era, Goldwater, are the only true conservatives who have been nominated since, probably Coolidge. I agree with you that the FDR era seriously weakened the GOP for decades. Perhaps it wasn't until Reagan that the GOP got back to health.

On the other hand, how many of the nominees since 1964 have beaten a more conservative, major candidate? (I say major because there are candidates, such as John Ashbrook in 1972 who never had a chance.) Nixon was viewed as the more conservative choice over Rockefeller and Romney. While Reagan entered the race it was too late to think he would make it. In 1988, we had a choice between Bush and Dole. I don't recall much of an ideological difference between the two. In 1996, I was all for Steve Forbes, but with no prior political office, it looked like a stretch. I am not sure there was any significant ideological difference between Dole and Alexander. 2000 - Bush versus McCain; no good choice there either and 2008 was also a collection of disappointing candidates. It seems to me that our greatest problem is getting a major conservative candidate to on the ballot.

You are right that the primary system has a poor record in yielding a conservative nominee. However, I don't trust the party elders in the convention to do anything but give us more Doles, Bushs and McCain. At least with the primary system, we have a shot. We just haven't done the job very well.

Marco2| 2.21.12 @ 3:59PM

Paul who? I thought Ryan was sitting this one out, too.

Marty Y| 2.21.12 @ 2:41PM

i disagree with Rep.McCotter. The delegates to a convention are elected. We picked nominees at conventions many times in the past.

JP| 2.21.12 @ 3:18PM

A Convention brokered by Establishment Republicans? What's not to like? Imagine Karl Rove and W making deals in smoke-filled backrooms (sans cigar smoke).

The GOP is becoming less divided by the week, and Mitt is steadily being rejected. Despite, Mitt's money, organization, and Beltway connections he is blowing it.

Marco2| 2.21.12 @ 4:04PM

BTW, whose polling are you looking at, anyway? Two more Romney wins next Tuesday, it appears.

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 4:08PM

I really don't want to have to flip a coin as to who I am going to vote for.

If there is a 3rd party on the ballot, I'm voting for the 3rd party.

I honestly think Obamney is more damaging to the country than Obama, because having Obamney in the WH continuing Obama's policies, would destroy all of our credibility.

spike59| 2.22.12 @ 6:42AM

ObaMao thanks you for your support.

dolt.

Mike 3/505| 2.22.12 @ 12:56AM

If there is no cigar smoke, then it don't count. :-)

Marty Y| 2.21.12 @ 4:25PM

JP-the delegations would pick a nominee. Honestly,a brokered convention is the only way to stop Romney.

Drek| 2.21.12 @ 5:00PM

The GOP establishment itself is beginning to understand, GENUINELY understand that Romney isn't going to win anything, even if he does win the nomination.

So they're already looking for a back door.

Occam's Tool| 2.21.12 @ 4:31PM

A brokered convention to stop---Mitt Romney, the Establishmentarian favorite? The Ronulans really think that their guy, opposed by 80% of the Republican electorate is going to win? They think that Romney is going to stomp all over Ryan and Boehnor and McConnell and DeMint? Really?

Myself, I'm happy with the remaining three and will cheerfully vote for Newt or Mitt should either one beat my Ricky. Any of the remaining three serious delegates is vastly superior to an idiot like Obama. Jack's opinion is useless, as usual.

Clint| 2.21.12 @ 8:00PM

The Screwball RINO-CINO Israel Firster Smear Bund Maniac,Tool Job Is Scared Of A Brokered Convention.

RINO-CINO Took Job Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CIBO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

"A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate".

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

RJ| 2.22.12 @ 2:33AM

Hi Clint,

What would you expect (or like) to see in a brokered convention?

Drek| 2.21.12 @ 4:58PM

If we got Jeb instead of Romney then I'd be all for whatever "brokering" that would be required.

And as for Santorum, -------- just let that jerk Drudge keep running banners like he has all this afternoon, and you'll see more and more of the rank and file turning a blind eye to whatever needs to be done to get to someone like Jeb.

One more thing too.

Our selection process, which has saddled us with losers too damn frequently, is not something dictated for us in Holy Writ. It's not etched in granite, nor are any of us sworn by blood oath to protect and preserve it.

The idea for our process should be to get the most capable, the most persuasive, the most conservative candidate available. If we don't like the current set up ---------- then change it.

And if that change happens to be midsream? So be it.

If man wasn't made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man, why then should any of us Republicans deem ourselves obligated to a present flawed system?

Let it go.

By the time that jerk Drudge gets done with Santorum, he'll be as unacceptable as Romney.

johnd2| 2.21.12 @ 5:13PM

There are serious things wrong with all four of these guys.

1. Romney is plastic. 2.Santorum is a religious fanatic. 3. Ron Paul does not know how to negotiate. 4. Gingrich is a jerk. Without a brokered convention, the Reps are toast.

Drek| 2.21.12 @ 6:45PM

Remember, WE created the system to help us to advance OUR agenda.

We are not servants of the process, but the process exists to serve us, to serve our interests, to help us to achieve our goals.

FOREMOST of which is the political obliteration of obama, and all things obama.

Simon Templar| 2.21.12 @ 6:13PM

What you all seem to want is a perfect Christ-like super man that can dodge liberal talking points and smear like bullets, leap over liberalism, and talks conservativism faster then a locomotive.
It does not exist, never did, and never will.

Gee, if we only could find someone that can not be effected by that Drudge kryptonite, someone that the MSM, the GOP progressives, and liberals could approve of...
Gee, I wonder if the Dems spent as much time pissing and moaning about their candidates and worrying how they might be acceptable to conservatives. I also wonder if they bought hook, line, and sinker everything conservatives said about their candidates?

Absolutely pathetic.

What is seriously wrong is a large segment of conservatives in this nation.

Drek| 2.21.12 @ 6:51PM

Your points are well taken; and your points are well made, ---------------- which you well know.......

But we still have this problem.

Romney doesn't deserve the chief plum of the GOP, its nomination for President.

Santorum is very likely to prove unable to resist being branded a religious lunatic.

Gingrich, although able to frame narratives, from what we hear, has what most term "baggage."

If that's all the case, ------------ then we need to start looking for a back door, and we need to find that back door fast.

Get Jeb Bush!

He immediately places firmly in our column all of Florida's Electoral College votes.

With the Bush family rolodex, he'll not be challenged to find proper financing for the campaign. The Bush name can rapidly rally to him sufficient organizational forces for all states.

There's the optics, of the guy married to an Hispanic, with George P. out with him on the campaign trail.

We don't need Christ, neither Transfigured or on the Cross!

Jeb Bush can put this thing together.

So let's go get him.

Sick Of The GOP Establishment| 2.21.12 @ 7:26PM

"We don't need Christ, neither Transfigured or on the Cross!

Jeb Bush can put this thing together.

So let's go get him."

The above three sentences are indicative of not only how lost The Stupid Party & "conservatives" have become, but also a reminder that I made the right decision when I dropped my registration with The Stupid Party. Pathetic!

aware| 2.22.12 @ 5:58AM

Ain't it so! I gave up on them in '08.

Drek| 2.21.12 @ 8:12PM

I want to win.

Anyone who has read anything I've written over the last few months knows full well I'm no fan of the Bush family.

Having said that, I'm not unaware of the strengths that Jeb Bush would have in the Fall of 2012.

Have you checked out the Drudge banner today?

I've supported Perry, then when he proved that he hadn't done the necessary work to be up to speed on the issues, I've supported Gingrich.

But I'm not about to allow a misplaced loyalty to a candidate overwhelm my understanding of my fundamental loyalty to the country.

If the three men can't win, then we need to get to a convention.

I would prefer Sarah Palin, -------- but there are issues there too.

Our choice of options is narrowing considerably, at least that's what most of us are thinking.

Who here suggests that wimp Daniels, or Governor Crispy Creme?

If we can't have Palin, and if Gingrich is deemed unacceptable by the party, -------- then we had better drag Jeb Bush into the race.

Drek| 2.21.12 @ 8:14PM

Santorum is only beginning to experience the full range of attacks upon him, upon his past, his religion, his everything.

His numbers are already falling.

martin j smith| 2.22.12 @ 7:42AM

If no candidate gets enough support and that a majority vote or very close to it--better more than a majority --then some kind of conference will have to be held including all stripes to decide on the actual candidate. Some one who gets less than 45% or even less than that stands on weak ground. Perhaps one possibility is a Republican National
Primary Run off featuring the top two candidates.
That would be one way of letting the voters decide.

Stefan Stackhouse| 2.22.12 @ 9:23AM

So who does everyone think is going to be in the running for 2016, as Obama finishes his 2nd term?

That's what the discussion will be, if someone other than the final four becomes the nominee. Nominees of brokered conventions are extremely week, and almost certainly doomed, nominees.

It is looking like it very well might be the discussion in any case. Thus, the question becomes: do you want to turn one more "bright hope" into damaged goods, or at least preserve their chances for a 2016 run?

M Bauman| 2.24.12 @ 11:16PM

Distrust has nothing to do with it.
The four remaining contenders have been running for the better part of a year or longer.
If no candidate can claim the support of a majority of the delegates it is because the primary
voters have found all these aspirants wanting.
The emergence of an alternative choice in Tampa
would be an affirmation of the electorates will.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/21/republicans-against-a-brokered

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.