Second look at a brokered convention?

posted at 3:00 pm on December 9, 2011 by Karl

That’s been a running gag on Allahpundit’s Twitter feed throughout the GOP presidential debate season. But RedState’s Erick Erickson seemed to be serious about it yesterday:

[T]wo stories — the failure of the political press to get the stories right and the failure of the political consultant class to get the candidates right — are not written about enough. And both impact the horserace for 2012. And the muddied stories of both these problems may interweave directly to a brokered convention. I think it is time to move beyond wishful thinking and take seriously the idea of having a brokered convention with someone other than the current crop of candidates becoming the nominee. And that, for the first time, adds a new candidate to this week’s horserace, *** None of the Above.

I think the Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost would be onboard with it, too: ” Our nomination process is a joke. The more I’ve studied the history of nominations, the more convinced I am of its gross inferiority to the past way of doing business. I could go on and on…” Looking at the polls, Nate Silver observes: “Republicans are dangerously close to having none of their candidates be acceptable to both rank-and-file voters and the party establishment. It’s not quite clear what happens when this is the case; there is no particularly good precedent for it…”

Count me as skeptical, especially given the current populist bent of the grassroots GOP. However, since caucuses and primaries came to supplant smoke-filled backrooms of party insiders, the GOP has still continued to nominate establishment candidates. Reagan was arguably an exception, but after Ford declined to enter the race, Reagan was the consensus candidate in public opinion polling and “next in line” after nearly beating Ford for the nomination in 1976. The only question is how much worse the establishment candidates would be if not checked by grassroots sentiment.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

..midgit strapped to a lumbering hulk screaming “WHO RUN BARTER-TOWN?!”
SilverDeth

LOL

Not explicitly but I inferred it from you writing style. I hope I wasn’t being racist and don’t resent. I stand corrected.

BoxHead1 on December 9, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Quote: “Worth winning the battle just to lose the war?”

From my perspective, tis better to die or be defeated with one’s principles intact, than to surrender them, and for all intents and purposes, become your enemy. I believe defeat is preferable to some Pyrrhic victory in which we transform ourselves into that which we battle.

Huntsman is the only guy out there that is possibly an even Bigger Statist than Romeny in my opinion.

I want less government in my life, fewer moral nannys wiggling their fascist fingers in my face, and I want less entitlements forced on me and stripped from my paycheck – hell I will even give up the things I have paid for my entire life just to be rid of the monstrous sucking parasite we as Americans have allowed our federal government to become.

And sadly, I do hold us accountable – ultimately, it was we the people that settled for the “lesser of all evils” time after time and now, we have finally hit the edge of the cliff.

I was as guilty of this as anyone. I turned up my nose, swallowed the vomit in my mouth, and voted for Bush I. Then I grimaced and chocked down “Bob Dole.” Then I gagged on Bush’s kid, the second time it was hard. McWeenie… I’ll be honest… I pulled that lever for Palin.

The real last straw has been watching the RePubics in the house and senate roll over an play dead. They told us all they would stop Obama’s agenda… yeah that’s worked real well.

All the empty promises… all the oaths to de-fund the amok federal agencies… to strip the abomination that is Obamcare of cash… to use the “power of the purse” to reign in the excesses of the Czars…

You can only give me Armour Potted meat product for so long, while telling me it’s “Prime Rib” before I loose faith in your word.

My family and I are “there.”

SilverDeth on December 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Hey I could still go for Mitch Daniels. I’m not against a brokered convention. Just no Jeb Bush, I’m done with that family for now.

Daemonocracy on December 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM

IIRC, JFK was the result of a brokered DNC convention back in 1960 — prior to the event, nobody figured the nominee would be the junior Senator from MA. Turned out he had some unknown mad-skilz in front of a TV-cam & mic, but before that convention, he was a virtual unknown outside the NE corridor…

“Cogito, ergo TEA Party!” ~ DeepWheat

DeepWheat on December 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM

From my perspective, tis better to die or be defeated with one’s principles intact, than to surrender them, and for all intents and purposes, become your enemy.

We vote to decide who to give power, not to express our principles (that is what campaigns and blog comments are for). Our principles are only related to that vote in terms of how well that vote defends those principles. If the best, though imperfect, way to defend your principles is to stop the greater evil, then that is the best defense of your principles and is thus the most principled vote.

It is the only principled vote.

The most unprincipled vote is the one that throws away any defense of your principles by allowing the greater enemy of them to get the power.

fadetogray on December 9, 2011 at 7:29 PM

From my perspective, tis better to die or be defeated with one’s principles intact, than to surrender them

SilverDeth

So you think that if your preferred nominee doesn’t get the nod to be the Candidate then the country will be better off under Obama for another 4 years rather than a less than perfect Republican?

Huntsman is the only guy out there that is possibly an even Bigger Statist than Romeny in my opinion.

SilverDeth

Granted you qualify this as your opinion, but now I’m asking you to justify it. He is a Statist based off of what? All the mandates that he DIDN’T force on Utah as Governor? He expanded access to private schools, how is that a statist action?

Albert T. Tappman on December 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Huntsman is the only guy out there that is possibly an even Bigger Statist than Romeny in my opinion.

SilverDeth

Huntsman is certainly a smug, self absorbed, AGW pandering jerk, but both his record and current economic proposals make him far more conservative than either front runner right now. His tax plan is the best out of any in the field.

Daemonocracy on December 9, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Huntsman is certainly a smug, self absorbed, AGW pandering jerk, but both his record and current economic proposals make him far more conservative than either front runner right now. His tax plan is the best out of any in the field.

Daemonocracy

I’m glad someone else is finally saying this out loud too. Thank you.

Albert T. Tappman on December 9, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Quote: “So you think that if your preferred nominee doesn’t get the nod to be the Candidate then the country will be better off under Obama for another 4 years rather than a less than perfect Republican?”

Strawman.

Double-face-palm-mega-Fail. Why must you fabricate arguments and attribute them to me? Are you unable to deal with what I am actually saying, and thus must resort to fallacy? Do try not to confuse your words with mine – as I will happily roll up a newspaper and spank you like a bad little doggie for your trouble. I see this so often in modern political debate that it makes me ill. For example… every time a DemonRat opens their mouth… but I digress…

I never stated that the nation would be “better off with the Marxist Obama for another 4 years.” I said that my loved ones and myself are in a position where we will punish the RePubics for not even REMOTELY acceptable candidates. We are finished being used. As done as Dickens. They want our votes? Then Earn them. No more freebies because they have an “R” after their names – we are CONSERVATIVES not REPUBLICANS.

Less than perfect? From my position that’s being far too gracious, and stretches the phrase “less than perfect” to the point that it becomes something of an insult to the words “less,” “than,” and especially “perfect.” Practically farcical.

No dice – if these effete big-wigs and self anointed “beta-males” stuff a Statist chump/chumpette down our throat then they can go beg the liberals for votes. (And as a quick aside, thanks for not only throwing a strawman as predicted… but throwing a similar the exact red-herring I predicted someone would.)

So let me correct this fabrication – as I said only a few posts ago, we are not setting impossibly high standards for conservatism. We are demanding that the person be conservative enough that we can vote for him while not choking back down our breakfast. Pro-gun, Fiscally conservative, willing to hack up social spending with a machete, supporting the constitution, and showing a willingness to slay sacred cows in the name of fiscal propriety. Unleashing business, unleashing the private sector. Denouncing snake-oil like global warming and it’s associated hog-wash. These are not impossibly high standards, and I will get more into those points when I answer your second reply RE: Huntsman.

To focus posts back more on target…

We won’t tow the line anymore – “accepting” these wart-covered buffoons like Romney, Newt, and yes, especially Huntsman, is not going to happen any longer. The Republicans have spent the last quarter centuryeroding the trust we once placed in them with one big spending big government statist after another, and they no longer DESERVE the benefit of the doubt – from our way of thinking at least.

Would these impotent RINOS be “better than another 4 years of Obamanation?” Yes – I freely concede this, and it was NEVER for one confederate minute a position I was espousing. But right now, where we are as a BROKE nation, I don’t think being the “best syphilitic tramp in a room full of diseases tramps” cuts it. Not enough to stop the train wreck.

Ergo, if the destination is virtually the same, (only the speed seems vary), as both myself and my family believe is the case, then why drag the pain out? Why should we deal with the angst and impotent anger as the people we voted for to FIX the mess seem to help ENABLE the very agenda we put them in place to stop?

The big talk during election cycles does not match the callow gyrations of a week-kneed Republican congress, who won’t even use the meager instrumentalites at their finger-tips, to pull the break lever – even a little bit… what lesson are we to take from that?

They just need more votes? Repeating the same brainless activity time and time again expecting things to turn out in a different manner is the definition of insanity. I will leave the unthinking, unwavering support of a political party to the moonbats. That is their schtick and they are welcome to it.

We let the RePubics have that argument for one quarter of a century. We gave them their shot, and frankly, in the case of me and mine, feel pretty damn used, betrayed, and played.

After taking our cash, our time, and our hopes, they have done squat to reduce the burden of government in out lives, and even worse, they have stood idle while the DemonRats have co-opted RePubic pet projects like the TSA, and turned them into ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARES that do NOTHING to keep us safe and EVERYTHING to molest, harass, and violate the rights of innocent citizens.

So no.

We have zero trust in the Republican party now. To borry a phrase from “Sir Beta-Male”It has come to this.

We look at individuals. We donate money to individuals. We support individuals. The Republican establishment is PART of the problem now in our mind, and it can either help, get out of the way, or we will use our measly, ignored votes to HURT IT, and really, since we feel the end destination is a soft tyranny regardless, we really could give a damn less about the consequences of that decision.

Sometimes, one must suffer for the convictions of their belief, and that is that. That’s too bad if you disagree. Our position is unshakable, and if you want to blame someone, blame the establishment Republican hacks and cowardly weak willed RINOS that so alienated us that we don’t trust them anymore.

VG Cats Quote: “Oh… you die to… but FASTER!”

Pass.

I will start a new post to quantify my opinion on Huntsman, since this is already pushing the attention span of the readers.

SilverDeth on December 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM

So… why do I dislike Huntsman, and believe him to be a statist?

1: He was Obamas Ambassador to China. Accepting such a position points to incredibly bad judgement on his part, or that he shares many of the presidents ideals and beliefs when it comes to foreign policy. Why do I say this? If there is one consistent in King Barry’s administration, it’s that his appointees share his belief or promote his agenda. I can rattle off about dozens of supporting examples of this fact if you absolutely require it.

2: Using his daughters as viral media campaign tools. Even if the very difficult to believe position that his handlers “begged the girls not to” spout their little songs is truthful – which admittedly I have a very difficult time buying – the fact that his daughters would do this against his wishes makes me question how they were raised. My two daughters would never do something so embarrassing if I pleaded with them not to.

So, from my point of view, he either allowed his children into the horrible crossfire of th U.S. political game intentionally to score some cheap social media points, or he has raised children unable to show even a small amount of respect for their father. Neither of which sits well.

3: Global warming and the entire rent-seeking cottage industry that has sprung up around this horrible lie is something that no person I will ever cast a ballot for will subscribe to. It’s not just a lie, it’s a GOD-D**^%$ lie, and I can never trust “the button” to any rub so ignorant that he falls for such obvious snake-oil.

You know… back in the 70′s they told us we are all gonna freeze to death in a big old ice-age. And that more intrusive government taking over out lives would fix it.

I guess it didn’t take.

Huntsman has many “bold” plans, and not all of them are complete crap. But so does Rue Paul. But he gets sunk too when he starts channeling McGovern on international policy.

I can overlook a few warts. But when I see ANYONE buying to the AGW CRAP, it’s GAME OVER for that guy.

But hey, but look at it this way… Huntsman just subscribes to an idiot-belief – he didn’t force it down the throats of the people in his state like Romeny did.

Which is why “Huntsman” is us “staying home” rather than “seeking revenge.”

So he’s got that going at least.

But he’s still very much a Statist in my opinion.

SilverDeth on December 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Quote ME: Which is why “Huntsman” is us “staying home” rather than “seeking revenge.”

To clarify: That means us “voting against him.” Not anything more… you know… tar & feather-ish.

It’s a sad state of affairs, and a pathetic commentary on our society that I even need to clarify such things, but I have an aversion to club-fed, and after re-reading, I figured I’d clarify for skittish FBI goons that read this blog – hi Jeff Atwood, I will save you a second trip out to my house over “hot air.”

-_-

SilverDeth on December 9, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Jon Huntsman: ‘I put my faith and trust in science’
December 07, 2011
By Kim Geiger

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/07/news/la-pn-huntsman-warming-20111207

After delivering a vague response when asked Tuesday if he believed that humans are responsible for global warming, Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman Jr. said Wednesday that he has “faith and trust in science.”

“Let me be very clear on this: There is no change,” Huntsman told Politico’s James Hohmann after delivering a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. “I put my faith and trust in science. So you have 99 of 100 climate scientists who have come out and talked about climate change in certain terms, what is responsible for it. I tend to say this is a discussion that should not be in the political lane but should be in the scientific lane.”

Huntsman, who has struggled to gain traction in the months leading up to the GOP nominating contests, made headlines in August with this tweet: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

It was part of a larger effort at the time to cast himself as the moderate choice in a crowded GOP field.

So when he told a gathering of bloggers on Tuesday that he “would say the scientific community owes us more” and that “there’s probably more debate yet to play out” on the topic, it looked like a flip-flop in the making.

“Before we start setting goals going forward, I think we need to kind of step back and make some effort to make sure that people are on the same page, from a scientific standpoint,” he said, arguing that unilaterally reducing emissions “might debilitate economic recovery in this country, or hobble job creators.”

On Wednesday, Huntsman said he was just noting that the world has not reached a consensus on the cause of climate change, and that “there’s 1% that has a disagreement.”

“It was an additional comment about, well, is there an open question? I say: I know where I am….but there are others who clearly look at the 1% and see that there is more yet to be discussed and put forward,” he said.

kim.geiger@latimes.com
_______________________________________________________

Pass

SilverDeth on December 9, 2011 at 11:20 PM

It strikes me that a brokered convention would blunt, at least somewhat, the impact that our fair, objective and impartial media normally enjoys when “covering” Republican candidates, and most especially, conservative candidates. If several potential nominees are still in the game right up to, and even into, the convention, it *might* make it just a bit more difficult for the media to perform their special journalistic magic. I mean, it’s a bit harder to make and stick pins into, say, a half-dozen voodoo dolls rather than just one, right?

fourfifties on December 9, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Plans are only as good as the candidate’s willingness to enact them.

I prefer to look at whether the candidate has a record of pushing for similar kinds of reforms.

Huntsman’s a two-time quitter. He’ll probably just quit as soon as a better gig opens up.

(What, you think that line only works on one person? Think again.)

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Hey I could still go for Mitch Daniels. I’m not against a brokered convention.
Daemonocracy on December 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Couldn’t Ann Coulter and a bunch of burly guys just show up at the governor’s mansion and draft the guy?

AshleyTKing on December 10, 2011 at 12:49 AM

But will a brokered convention be any better for any reason……really….who will control the brokered convention?

oldroy on December 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Doesn’t matter who as long as they smoke cigars.

AshleyTKing on December 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Fred! ’08 ’12

digitalhap on December 10, 2011 at 1:24 AM

As an independent, I don’t have any faith that the Republican delegates will pick anyone I’ll be happier with than Romney or Gingrich.

Tea Willy on December 10, 2011 at 2:11 AM

There will be no brokered convention.

Malachi45 on December 10, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Only in the mind of a pundit or a suspense novelist is this a plausible idea. People need to get in the race, support someone all ready in the race or twidle their thumbs on the sidelines because we reward those that take risks and ride with the one that is chosen, warts and all, to victory.

Spirit Crusher on December 10, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Okay, so I am looking at this thread and I’m seeing one constant thing:

TheRightMan is, for all intents and purposes, a PerryKrishna and one to be ignored.

Now that that is settled, let’s look at the idea of a brokered convention and the fear that most people have here: The fear of a split party and the result being more votes going to Obama. Which, honestly, I don’t see GOP-ers, even liberal ones, doing that because of just how bad the idiot is. But, we have a more important concern.

Honestly, the current primary process that we have is utterly and completely buttporked. Having this process on the floor of the convention may be exactly what we need. Get a trial by fire going of the useless hack delegates that are sent to the floor.

Right now, the endless debates and the early start to the campaigns are nothing more than making potential voters like myself to tune out from the media, INCLUDING places like HotAir.

A majority of those who actually give a flying meatball about things are saying one thing: “WE DEMAND BETTER”. People like me ain’t gonna settle for Magic Underwear Mitt, Bush Retread Perry, or Newt “The Skin Flute” Gingrich. We want better. And the way that will happen is with a brokered convention.

UODuckMan on December 11, 2011 at 10:49 AM

test

29Victor on December 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2