Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged The Presumptive Nominee

The Missing Link

Redefining How We Approach Politics

People are Flocking to Old Articles

This website, originally established to present a Catholic/conservative perspective to those who might be interested, seems to have recently become popular as an historical/political information resource.
Not my choice, but that of visitors, who are targeting very specific articles.

Increased-Traffic1Visitors are flocking to articles written as long as two years ago, on topics such as the 2011 Madison Capitol Teacher’s protests, the 2012 Presidential election, the old Catholic Church abuse scandals, and articles on the subject of freedom OF religion versus freedom FROM religion. (Most visited articles listed below.)

Traffic continues to visit my website even during my attempted vacation (now), despite the noticeable reduction in new articles posted.

The website is also getting significant negative attention in the form of hacking attempts.  We just survived a sophisticated Denial of Service (DoS) attack launched from computers in Europe.
(DoS attacks are usually reserved for much bigger potatoes than me, and they usually target large corporations and businesses.  They are highly illegal,  carry penalties of 10 years computer-hackerimprisonment, and are strictly forbidden by most nations.)  So somebody seems to be pretty motivated to take this website down.

The Question

So the question becomes– in a world with no shortage of political pundits or religion experts, why are people reading articles written by me, Mrs. small potato, with no political or religious credentials, for information on politics and on religion?  And why are those who disagree with me prepared to risk 10 years imprisonment to take me down?

Common Denominator

The common denominator among the most visited articles seems to be analysis of current political and cultural events from a religious and ethical perspective.

Yes, this blog violates the modern mandate of Separation of Church  and State.
in-god-we-trust-coin
Here, the interconnection between God and the events of this modern world are analyzed and examined in a matter-of-fact and straightforward way.  Our focus includes some common sense and some outside-the-box thinking– not surprising, because God always makes sense and God is always outside the box.

Apparently some readers are hungry for this approach.
Other readers want to shut the approach down.

In fact, the world makes much more sense when you add its Creator into the analysis.
And if including the Creator in political analysis makes sense, it makes even more sense to include the Creator in formulating political strategy.

How To Redefine Conservative Political Strategy after the November 2012 Fiasco?

There is little doubt that in 2013 conservative political strategy needs redefining; the Republican party seems on the verge of splitting, a split which could prove lethal to Republicans in the next election, and a split which did contribute to the Republican defeat in November 2012.Slide1

The Republican split is between the Party establishment, which has drifted increasingly over time toward compromise with the left and toward courting the “moderate” vote, and true conservatives, who adhere to conservative Judeo-Christian principles and to conservative fiscal strategy.  True conservatives are pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-balanced budget, and pro-lots of common sense.  The Establishment fears that such “extreme” (i.e., common sense) views may cause the party to lose votes.

Which way to go?  How can we avoid a split?  These are the questions being asked and this is why some seem to be returning to my brand of political analysis, which predicted, before November 2012, the chaos that would result from too much compromise with the left.

The Missing Link in Political Analysis and Strategy

linkPolitical strategists who steer local, national and global power games typically vie for support from every possible source.  They court money, fame, popular culture, the support of organizations, churches, business and media, Hollywood, and the favor of groups, of women, of minorities, and of immigrants.

Rarely does it occur to politicians, and even to some religious politicians, to court the support of the Almighty.

Politicians Courting the Almighty

Therein lies the key to political success- courting assistance from the Almighty.  Dubious as some may be about God’s involvement in human history, His involvement is quite apparent to those who remain open-minded.

When history is viewed from a perspective  that does not automatically exclude the existence of God, God’s action in human history becomes obvious.  The hand of God in human events is most obvious in those events which defy the laws of probability, in those events which accomplish far-reaching, perhaps even global results, where human effort seems to play little or small part in accomplishing the result, and in those events where politicians and battles play no significant role.  Nobody anticipates the result, everyone is surprised by the result, the result is truly remarkable, and no fingerprints are left behind.
That is God’s style and His trademark.

2 God the FatherExamples of such significant events which have shaped the course of human history, yet were not orchestrated by politicians, armies, or missionaries, include the Christianization (actually Catholicization) of  Europe at the time of Constantine, the dismantling of the Soviet Union without battle at the time of President Regan and Pope John Paul the Great, and most recently, the commencement of the the self-destruction of what has sometimes been called the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama.  In recent months, in the absence of any action on the part of Barack Obama’s political opponents, scandal upon scandal has broken, and President Obama’s reputation and popularity are collapsing swiftly.

Including God in the Plan

There is, indeed, a God Who watches over us and participates in human activity, usually in very surprising and unexpected ways.  So ignoring God, failing to court His support and ignoring His wishes should constitute a pretty big tactical error for political strategists, if God does exist.  It would also be a pretty big tactical error for the 80% of America that prays not to pray for God’s help in restoring justice to our nation and to our world.

People can be so illogical.
90% of Americans believe in God, and they believe daily what CNN reporters report in the news, yet they forget that by definition the God they believe in would be powerful, good and involved with the world, and that it makes little sense to believe Anderson Cooper’s reports on events in Benghazi, while denying historical reports in a chronicle of God’s interaction with humanity, the BibleBible.  So the lessons to be learned from biblical stories like the parting of the Red Sea, or David’s slaying of Goliath, are illustrations of God’s power and of the assistance He provides to those who, like Moses, or like David, have faith in God’s promises and act with great confidence on that faith.  The same God, wielding the same power, is available to us today.  If we were to act with the faith of Moses or of David (or of Constantine, Pope John Paul the Great and Ronald Regan), we can expect monumental results that defy all odds.

We might note that God’s mind rarely works the way ours do. In all the cases cited above, Moses, Goliath, the Christianization of Europe, the defeat of the Soviet Union, and the demise of Barack Obama’s reputation, human expectations did not line up at all with the surprises God provided.

So the missing key to dealing with politics includes remembering to put God into the plan, and then having the faith and the patience to watch Him work in His own time.

Planning Without God

In the absence of a God, if we were reliant solely on our own devices, it would become tempting to fight adversaries with their own tools.  It would become tempting to sling mud back at our opponents, to court voters with promises of lollipops, to court moderate votes with continual compromise of our moral standards, and even to consider introducing a few lying and cheating Alinsky tactics of our own, when dealing with modern “progressive” opponents such as the Obama administration.  How else can we win against the tactics presently being used against us?

Quite a few modern conservatives have fallen into this temptation, and have started compromising with the opposition.  They fall for the fallacious argument that says compromising values will attract moderate voters.  They fall for the fallacious argument that hand-outs will buy votes.  They begin to walk away from their values, they compromise more-and-more, and they foolishly shift never-endingly toward the left.

The nomination of Mitt Romney was an example of such compromise, in which the Republican party split became very apparent, and in which frightened old school Republicans even violated their own convention rules.  They forced through the nomination of Mitt Romney, instead of playing by the rules, instead of negotiating their way through a brokered convention, and instead of considering more than one nominee at the Republican Convention.  They failed to realize that some greats like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan were chosen under similar conditions, and that these conservative but previously unknown candidates had principles that were better able to defeat the incumbent Democrat President.

What does including God in politics look like?

When you remember to include God in the plan, you follow His rules, even in the face of overwhelming opposition and of Alinsky tactics, you pray, and you wait.
It takes a lot of faith, but it works.
God always comes through.

Your opposition would LOVE you to divorce politics from principled faith.
Divorcing politics from faith would have paralyzed Moses, David, Constantine, John Paul the Great, Regan, and now in 2013, divorcing politics from faith will paralyze us if we go in that direction.
Why do  you think Lenin worked hard to exterminate religion and why do you think Obama is working so hard to paralyze the Catholic Church through the HHS Mandate?

Because that is how they paralyze their opposition.

Dumping Judeo-Christian Values (or Adopting Alinsky Tactics) Will Boomerang on You

When we succumb to the threats progressives make and we fall for their demands to violate God’s law, we compromise our values.  To fight the devil with his own tools doesn’t work anyway, it boomerangs on us.

In nominating Mitt Romney, conservative and pro-life values were compromised, and Republican Convention rules were broken.  Mitt Romney may be a very nice man.  But he was not elected democratically at the Republican convention, and he does not personify the values of conservative America. Mitt Romney was a compromise with the left, a compromise some claimed was very similar to Barack Obama.   The result was the alienation of true conservatives, and the alienation of numerous Tea Party activists.  This alienation among conservatives was so pronounced that 3 million REGISTERED REPUBLICANS did not go to the polls in November of 2012.

Three million registered Republicans stayed home rather than vote for Mitt Romney, the man who refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony pro-life pledge, who had supported abortion and embryonic stem cell research in the past, and who now supports gay boy scout leaders and gay adoption.  The man who created the blueprint for ObamaCare. The man whose nomination was pushed through by brute force at the Republican convention by the Party Establishment, against the wishes of numerous true conservatives. The man who did not represent the wishes of the people, and so 3 million people did not go to the polls in protest.

Three million votes added to the November 2012 totals would have won the election for Republicans.  If the REGISTERED Republican voters whom the Republican establishment aliented with it’s shenanigans had gone to the polls on November 6, 2012, Barack Obama would no longer be President!

Selling out our values sure does boomerang on us.

What About Those of Us Who Prayed, Who Worked, Who Participated in Freedom of Religion rallies?

The prayers, the work, the Freedom of Religion rallies of 2011 and 2012 in which many true conservatives participated were not wasted.  Americans have been wakng up in recent years both politically and religiously, and are fighting back against the Imperial Obama administration.
God did not ignore those prayers or those efforts.

Mitt Romney would not have been the answer to those prayers.
A true conservative would have been the answer to those prayers, but the Republican establishment made sure, compromising even the rules of the Republican Convention,  that a true conservative was not nominated.

If the Republican Party establishment was prepared to sell out our values and to (undemocratically) ram through  their favored “presumptive nominee,”  we might actually be better off with 4 more years of Barack Obama, rather than with an unknown, opportunistic Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney would have, at best, treaded water for us.  Conservative policy was not likely to be implemented any time soon.

But, four more years of Obama Administration offers the potential for Americans to experience  firsthand the results of the disastrous Obama policy.

Pain and economic hardship can have a sobering effect on people, forcing them to realize that liberalism is a luxury they can no longer afford.  The poor, by definition, cannot be liberal with money and must conserve.  Goodby liberalism, hello conservatism!  God’s balance beam at work!

This principle holds true not only for economic liberalism, but for moral liberalism and for all forms of liberalism.  Society, like individuals, makes mistakes, learns from them, and frequently make corrections, when truth becomes obvious.

Back to the Most Popular Articles

The articles to which my readers have been flocking include those analyzing the Alinsky tactics in use by teacher’s unions in Madison, by progressives in the Democrat party, and by the Obama administration.  They include comparisons between Alinsky tactics and the Ten Commandments.  They include quoting Alinsky’s  dedication of his book to Lucifer, or to Satan.  They also include warnings to Republicans on surrendering moral ground in the face of Alinsky tactics.  They include pointing out that a conservative candidate, contrary to some opinions, would have made a much stronger candidate in the 2012 Presidential election.  They include reminders that America is not a Godless country, that the Constitution is not a Godless constitution, and that it is worth our while to stick to Judeo-Christian morality and to the Constitution of the United States, despite the fear of many that elections can only be won by continual compromise and by erosion of moral ground.

What Insurmountable Problems Do We Face Today?

How, in a nation that appears to be divided 50/50 on moral, cultural and political issues,  do you defeat a Santa Claus administration which is handing out lollipops and favors in exchange for votes, while demonizing hard working Americans with Alinsky tactic lies and with smear tactics?

Does the solution lie in joining the Santa Claus band wagon, and compromising moral absolutes such as abortion, in order to win over a percentage of the “moderate votes,” in an attempt to tip the balance in our favor?

The Solution

Or does the solution lie in bold moral leadership inspired by devotion to God, such as that provided by Presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan, who took strong moral stances and inspired voters to support good men and to follow their lead?

When we give up speaking of God, we fail to use our most powerful resource.

Modern political correctness insists that we deny the truth, that we pretend the Emperor (e.g. Obama) is wearing clothes, and that we admire his fabulous non-existent clothes.
When, in actual fact, he is quite naked. The Emperor has no clothes.

Church and State – The Intimate Connection

It is presumed by most, particularly in the United States, that our laws are based on morality. And that law is based on what is right and not wrong, and on what is just and not unjust.

It is a given fact that morality is reasoned out and embodied in religious belief that there is a God, and that He has set down some inviolable laws that even governments cannot violate.
History shows that without limits, in the absence of a higher authority, governments, like individuals, tend toward becoming tyrannical.

It is therefore logical, particularly in a nation that is religious (as is the United States), that at least on some level, there must be a connection between Church and State.  And that government is accountable to God, the maker of the universe.

Christian Principles Fundamental in the Constitution of the United States

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 referred to US citizens being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and the Founders of this nation included Christian principles in the Constitution.  Even the First Amendment, which forbade any law establishing an official national religion, also forbade prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The religious intent of the First Amendment was further clarified by a 1799 court ruling, which indicated that the Founders intended the US to follow Christian principles, without allowing one religious group to control government:

Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.  By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing. 1799 – Runkel vs. Winemiller

To this day, the vast majority of the population of the United States (80%) are still Christian.  These Christians vote, and these Christians contribute towards shaping the law.

Further history describing the role of religion in US government and on the origin of “Separation of Church and State” can be found at   Separation of Church and State, NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE, by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA.

Keeping Your Beliefs Under Your Hat

In the present culture, we are told to keep our religion under our hats, and not to discuss it publicly.
This has been hammered into us so effectively, that most conservatives are intimidated into silence regarding their beliefs.  The likes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation ardently and publicly attack anyone who dares to demonstrate their belief in God visibly.

Just recently, my husband and I had dinner at a great Madison Middle Eastern Restaurant.  Seated at a table not far from us was a group of academics, a professor and graduate student hosting an invited speaker who had obviously just given a lecture at UW Madison on LGBT issues.  Their conversation was focused on LGBT issues, was loud and lively, and tended to dominate the small room we were in.  It was not an exceptional situation in Madison.

My thoughts drifted to the fact that my husband and I were NOT discussing our very conservative views, were NOT discussing them at high volume, and were NOT dominating the room.  I started wondering what would happen to us in Madison, WI, or in most American towns, if we did start doing that.  I realized that many of us have been shushed into silence.

Selective Silence Enables Minority Rule

The silence on morality and on religious beliefs demanded by modern political correctness is not an equitable mandate to which all are subject.  Liberals and progressives remain free push their values publicly and brazenly, and they clamor violation of rights when anyone tries to prevent them from doing so.

Yet conservatives have no such parallel rights, either to speech or to action. When conservatives follow legally prescribed channels and vote their values into law, progressive judges (not elected, but appointed) are found to cancel the democratic majority’s moral resolution.

One prime example of this the the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), voted into law in 1996, yet now challenged by progressives, who hope to use the Supreme Court of the United States to get their way when majority rule does not help them. A Supreme Court, incidentally, to which two progressive radicals have recently been appointed, by progressive President Obama, who does not stand with the American public on most major issues, including gay marriage, federal funding of abortion, and privacy and transparency issues. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down certain aspects of DOMA, ruling that now the federal government has to accept the redefinition of marriage when the states redefine marriage.

Separation of Church and State – Very Important to Define Separation

Separation of Church and State.
Yes, Church and State must be separate in government.
If I had the power to enforce my religious belief system on the United States, I would not do so.
No government can force any one religion, and citizens must be free to choose their beliefs (or non-beliefs).

But that is where the separation ends.
The individual must exercise their religious beliefs, their God-inspired knowledge of what is right and wrong, in the voting booth and in their public stance on issues.
How can any Christian shelve the morality of murder, of theft, or of any moral issue when delegating power to those who govern us?
Those who advocate any such notion are short-sighted; do they have no idea that our independence as a nation and our government  are based on certain inalienable rights?
That even the Imperial Obama administration cannot violate our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

Future Directions

The answers are pretty simple, and are available to anyone.

I view all of life, including American politics, from a educated religious perspective, and thus I refuse to separate Church and State.
Any shreds of wisdom that may find their way into my material are not my own.
I Quote from the Liturgy of the Hours, a set of daily prayers based on Holy Scripture and available to all:

If the Lord had not been on our side….
Then would the waters have engulfed us,
the torrent gone over us;
over our head would have swept
the raging waters.
……………………………………...-Psalm 123 (124)

It’s very simple: stick strictly to God’s law, pray, and wait.
So cool to watch as it works!

Related Post: What Happens When You Take Character Out of Politics

 

Appendix

Articles generating most interest include:

The Presumptive Nominee

0r

The Secret Insurrection

Mitt Romney, Presumptive Nominee

Presumptive: based on presumption or probability; affording reasonable ground for belief.

Presume: take for granted, assume, or suppose; assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary; undertake with unwarrantable boldness; undertake without right or permission; take something for granted; act or proceed with unwarrantable or impertinent boldness; go too far in acting unwarrantably or in taking liberties.

The Point: Presumptive  is a pretty loaded word.

Mitt Romney is the Republican party’s Presumptive Nominee for President of the United States.

 

Romney as Presumptive Nominee: Reasonable Status or Unwarranted Supposition?

The questions must be asked: is Romney the clear front-runner?  Does Romney have a sufficient lead to gain the nomination at the Republican Convention at the end of August?

On the surface, Romney does appear to be a pretty clear front-runner.  He does, after all, have 52% of the popular vote from State primaries at this point, according to Wikipedia’s count, which is based primarily on the Associated Press count.    And the Republican Party “establishment” has recognized Romney as the Presumptive Nominee.

Finally, the mass media, with a few exceptions, certainly seems to be on board with calling Romney the presumptive nominee.
Doesn’t that make Romney a clear winner?
The fact that the conservative Wall Street Journal and Drudge Report did not jump to presume Romney to be the nominee gives us a clue that there may be some doubt about the security of Romney’s position.

Problems with Counting Chickens Before They Are Hatched

There are a number of reasons why Romney should not count his chickens before they are hatched, particularly in this 2012 election:

  • In 2012, a huge conflict is going on within the Republican Party between moderate “establishment” Republicans and the new more conservative “tea party” members, and has motivated a number of conservative groups to attempt unseating Romney, who is way too liberal for their taste.  There is a secret insurrection going on.
  • In 2012, there seem to be new strategies emerging that involve changing delegates’ minds after the primaries, effectively nullifying the results of the primaries and challenging the concept of “bound” candidates.
  • Probability tells us that presumptive candidates are often displaced during the Republican convention– about 43% of the time.  Romney is not immune to this possibility.
  • History also shows us that whenever the presumptive nominee was displaced in the past, the replacement nominee was more likely to be successful in defeating the Democrats in the general election.
  • Delegate votes at the Republican Convention do not reflect the popular vote directly, so delegate votes at the convention may surprise us despite Romney’s 52% of the popular vote.
  • Delegate counts such as AP’s are only estimates, and these have been challenged, the media has been accused of misrepresenting them, and the numbers are under constant change, particularly in 2012.

The Republican Internal Conflict: Why Romney Might Be Challenged

Romney has struggled to inspire a passionate following among conservatives because of his liberal leanings, and much of his early success in primaries was attributed to his campaign’s prolific spending.

Romney’s early struggle in primaries

Prior to his eventual accumulation of 52% of the popular vote in the primaries, Romney struggled to compete with the conservative candidates opposing him.  Lean economic times often cause more voters to be conservative.  Most people have the common sense to realize that during a shortage one must conserve, not spend or waste. Conserving is the root of conservatism.

It has become pretty clear that now in 2012, the Republican “base” includes an increasing number of voters with conservative fiscal and social philosophies, who are not at all happy with Mitt Romney, author of RomneyCare, previous supporter of abortion, and present supporter of gay Boy Scout leaders  and gay adoption.  Some have even challenged Romney’s commitment to one set of values and have accused him of shifting his values in accordance with political advantage.

Although Romney was the front-runner during the primaries, he was also the only liberal candidate.  Since the conservative vote was split among numerous conservative candidates, Romney appeared to be leading, but in actual fact, the total number of conservative voters was outnumbering Romney supporters.  Many of these conservative supporters voted for Santorum in the primaries.  When Santorum suspended his campaign due to his daughter Bella’s illness, these voters were left with nowhere to go other than Romney or Ron Paul.  And Ron Paul’s extreme attitude towards foreign policy, defense budget, and legalization of drugs scared many voters off.  Many voted for Romney because their favorite conservative candidates had suspended their campaigns.  They voted for Romney despite their lack of enthusiasm for Romney.  Romney was the not-Obama.

Ron Paul – Mitt Romney

Things were also complicated by the fact that Ron Paul has refused all along to withdraw from the campaign, and still remains in the race, so Romney cannot claim victory officially.  According to Convention rules (and depending on who is counting or estimating the delegates), Ron Paul still has a plurality of delegates in five states, and his name can be presented for nomination at the Convention.  Romney is still taking this threat very seriously; his supporters are still attempting now in August, to unseat Maine’s Ron Paul delegates – Maine Public Broadcasting Network.  Romney supporters would not be wasting their time if no threat existed.

In fact, three candidates have enough delegates (a plurality of delegates in five states) for their names to be presented for nomination: Paul, Romney, and Santorum.   This opens the door for at least several people to challenge Romney.

What About Paul Ryan? Isn’t He Going to Save the Romney Team?

Paul Ryan joins the Romney ticket

Romney was lagging in some polls against Obama, making establishment Republicans nervous about his ability to carry the election against Obama.  A rightful concern, with so many conservatives still unhappy with the “un-Republican” Romney, who has in the past virtually admitted himself that he was Republican in name only (RINO).: “My R doesn’t stand so much for Republican as it does for reform.”

Many conservatives, particularly in the wake of Obama’s recent abysmal failures to keep his word, are very nervous about the reliability of Romney’s new promises, particularly considering Romney’s previous flip-flop or Etch-a-Sketch reputation.

Republlican Party energized

So Paul Ryan was added to the ticket.  The addition of such a bright, energetic conservative to the ticket has energized the Republican Party dramatically.  The initial reaction has been one of enthusiasm, new focus, strength, and has led to success in changing the agenda; from one of defense against Obama’s fallacious attacks on Romney, to one of challenging Obama on his policies and on his shameless dishonesty.  The addition of Paul Ryan has been very positive, very beneficial, and has been very fruitful in the fundraising department.

Paul Ryan is Too Good

However, something will eventually dawn on people- that if Paul Ryan is so noble in character, intelligent in policy and charismatic in personality that he can transform Romney’s campaign overnight, why is Romney, and not Paul Ryan at the top of the ticket?

It would be tempting for conservatives to rearrange the ticket, putting Paul Ryan at the top, if that is at all possible at the convention.  As Vice President, Paul Ryan’s position and power are not secure.   Ryan could swiftly be demoted by Etch-A-Sketch master Romney into a powerless and peripheral position immediately after the general election.  Already, Mitt Romney is distancing himself from Paul Ryan, claiming that he, Romney, has an economic plan that is “not Paul Ryan’s.”

Mitt Romney would be naïve not to realize that Paul Ryan is a threat to him; not by design, but by Ryan’s inherent likeability, charisma and character; characteristics Romney is lacking.

The fact of the matter is that numerous conservatives like me, who have never committed to one political party, yet who are devoted to unseating the anti-colonialist Barak Obama, are sitting out the Republican internal insurrection to see who wins.  We will support any candidate produced by the GOP convention by virtue of his/her being not-Obama, including Mitt Romney.  But we do have our favorites, and Romney is not one of them.

Is Paul Ryan Enough to Placate the Republican Insurrection?

Many non-Republican conservatives (such as the Tea Party) are not sitting out the insurrection as I am.  They are actively trying to unseat Romney as the presumptive nominee.  (More on specific efforts below.)

Ryan has certainly energized Romney’s campaign, and will help Romney do better in polls against Obama, but Ryan may have little effect on internal Republican battles before the convention, because people realize the “demote-ability” of a Vice President.

If Romney survives convention attempts to unseat him, then Paul Ryan’s presence on the ticket will definitely help Romney against Obama in the general election.  Let’s just hope Ryan does not get demoted to a position of little power and influence after the election, as some Vice-Presidents have been in previous administrations, including George Washington’s, who did not include John Adams in cabinet meetings. The current Vice President, Joe Biden, has virtually been assigned the role of court jester.  In this case, however, his own behavior has contributed to his undignified position; presumably Paul Ryan would fare better than Joe Biden has.

The Case for Nominating Romney Versus Not Nominating Romney

The Republican Party has found its success during previous increasingly liberal decades by compromising repeatedly with liberals.  They have thus slowly drifted away from staunch conservatism.  The seasoned “establishment” Republicans want to continue this trend with the nomination of Mitt Romney, arguing that he will help to capture moderate votes, and perhaps even some liberal votes, helping Republicans to unseat Obama in the general election.

However, the tide of history can change, and has changed in the past.  The Tea Party movement is one indication of a possible change of heart in the American people, driven by economic problems and by the need to face reality.  Economic austerity often motivates philosophical corrections and a shift toward conservatism.  The Republican establishment agenda of compromise and of seeking moderate votes will not attract votes when Americans are drifting towards conservatism.  Instead, it will frustrate people who want true change. When the base gets alienated, they will not go to the polls, and the reduced voter participation will cancel out any gain that was made by compromising to get moderate votes.

Do We Court the Moderates, or Do We Go For a Bold Course-Correction?

The History of Republican primaries and conventions also indicates that the nomination of moderates or liberals (like Romney) often disappoints the Republican base, and leads to defeat in the general election.  Republican Convention historian Dr. Barbara Haney, a RNC convention delegate from Alaska herself, discusses the surprising history of Republican conventions, a history which seems to indicate that the unseating of a lukewarm presumptive nominee by a more conservative alternative during a convention actually improves the chances of winning the general election against the incumbent Democrat.

The enthusiatic rally of support observed this week for Paul Ryan indicates that America might be ready for such a course correction towards conservatism.  A moderate candidate like Romney gets half-hearted, lukewarm support, while a strong, principled conservative like Paul Ryan reenergizes the Republican party overnight.

What Hands Can True Conservatives Still Play?
Can We Learn from History?

The new energized conservatives, including evangelical Christians and the Tea Party, may play any hand available to them at this convention, to nominate a true conservative in place of Mitt Romney.  This might actually be a good idea, based on Barabara Haney’s historical analysis, which showed an 88% chance of success in unseating an incumbent Democrat following the vetting process of a brokered convention, compared with a paltry 31% chance of success in unseating the Democrat incumbent following an uneventful first-ballot nomination of a presumptive nominee like Romney.

Lincoln and Reagan, products of the “brokered convention;” NOT “presumptive nominees.”

 

Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln are examples of the 88% successes, which illustrate Barbara Haney’s historical analysis and theories, on the beneficial nature of brokered conventions.

So it boils down to: do you play chicken, compromise, court the moderate vote, and risk having only a 33% chance of defeating Obama, or do you boldly embrace the uncertainty of the brokered convention, nominate a candidate capable of energizing the general election (like Reagan or Lincoln), and go for the 88% chance of defeating Obama?  And do you put your energizing candidate in the Vice President slot, or in the President slot?

“Establishment” Republicans are making a fallacious assumption in promoting Romney; they are assuming that a conservative candidate of strong character will not attract liberal votes.  Abraham Lincoln disproved that fear, Ronald Reagan disproved that fear, and, incidentally, Paul Ryan has already disproved that fear in his home district of Janesville, Wisconsin, which is liberal, yet has elected conservative Paul Ryan for seven consecutive terms, because of his integrity, his character, and his reliably.

Jim Thorpe testimony on Paul Ryan’s character and popularity:

Incidentally, Paul Ryan is not the only Republican with the character and integrity capable of attracting liberal and moderate votes; add to that list Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Michelle Bachmann, among others.

The UK Guardian offers the following analysis:

The Romney campaign chose him (Paul Ryan) to deliver the Republican base vote amid fears that die-hard conservatives could cost him the White House by staying at home on election day rather than turning out for a candidate they are ambivalent about….

But that strategy was not working. The US is so polarised that there are, according to the polls, few undecided voters left. Compared with 2008, when about 25% of the electorate had still to make up their minds at this stage in the election, only about 5% are undecided. Both the Democratic and Republican strategists have concluded that the winner on 6 November will be the campaign that fires up its own supporters, that gets its base out, rather than the one that wins over the independent swing voters….

Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, said: “It is base v base. There are hardly any independents.” At the cost of winning over a percentage of that small group in the centre, the campaigns risked alienating their core support, he said.

This analysis supports my arguments and the historical findings of Barbara Haney; that a conservative candidate may secure more votes than a moderate at certain times in history.  2012 is one of those times.

Is It Too Late To Change Our Minds?
Aren’t Delegates Committed to Voting for Romney?

Apparently, it’s not too late to change our minds, and Republican historian Barbara Haney indicates that in the last 21 Republican conventions where the nominee, like Romney, was not an incumbent President, 43% of presumptive nominees were unseated at the convention.  Romney, too, can be unseated.  There is historically a 43% probability of that.

How Can Somebody Who Has Over 51% of the Delegates be Unseated?

Here comes the next surprise:  RNC convention rules contain some surprises.

Whether it is by the wisdom of our predecessors or by fluke, RNC convention rules appear to allow for delegates to change their minds about candidates between the primaries and the convention.  Although there has been some dispute over this, the 2008 convention raised this issue for a delegate from Utah, and the RNC Legal Counsel Jennifer Sheehan  upheld the freedom of delegates to change their minds, writing:

The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.
and
The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.

More details on this controversy on Rule 38 at Rule 38.

Why would the architects of democracy allow such uncertainty and reversibility in RNC primary and convention rules?  Presumably they assumed that delegates will be honorable and will not to change their minds frivolously; that they will make a serious effort to vote (in the first ballot) for the candidate they were “bound” to by the primaries. But ultimately, they are allowed to consider events and developments prior to the Republican Convention, and are allowed to change their votes, or to abstain from voting, if they feel it is in the best interests of their constituents.  It could be argued in 2012 that the majority of primary voters wanted a solid conservative to represent them, and Mitt Romney is not that solid conservative. We have the unusual case where delegates could honestly believe that they will be more faithful to the wishes of the people if they abandon Mitt Romney.  It is such an eventuality that would motivate the architects to include some flexibility into the system.  After all, our elected Representatives and Senators are not bound to vote the party line after their election either, and are allowed to use their best judgment in response to developing events.

What Could Motivate a “Bound” Delegate to Change Their Vote or to Abstain?

Internal tension within the Republican Party is undermining the security of Romney’s projected victory.

Ben Swann, a Fox News anchor from Cincinnati, Ohio, produced a segment of Reality Check, explaining why he believes that internal tension within the Republican Party may be undermining the security of Romney’s projected victory. According to Ben Swann’s Reality Check, The Liberty Movement (conservatives who support Ron Paul) is taking over the GOP. Reality Check suggests that the Republican Party might be winning the Texas battle at the moment, but could actually be losing the primary war to conservatives. Some claim that Ron Paul may have recruited as many as 1,000 delegates going into the Tampa convention, reducing the support Romney thinks that he has:
Ron Paul’s not-so-secret plot for the GOP convention
– ABC News

Fox Reality Check is not alone in their suspicions.  Newt Gingrich also acknowledged that Ron Paul is the “biggest danger” for Romney in Tampa.  As Ron Paul wins over delegates Romney thought he had, it becomes difficult to make any projections about the convention at all.  For example, 1,144 delegates become only 144 delegates if somebody wins over 1,000 of them.  Extreme example, but illustrates the point.

Very recently, a conservative movement has surfaced issuing an appeal to 20,000 RNC members and delegates at the Convention called DumpRomney.   They propose that dumping Romney would be accomplished by “bound” delegates conscientiously abstaining from voting in the first ballot.  When Romney does not get the required 1144 votes in the first ballot, then all delegates are released to vote their conscience in subsequent ballots, and new candidates can be added to the list of contenders.  Not only can previous contenders like Santorum, Gingrich, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann be added, but new names can also be added.  Sarah Palin? Scott Walker? Paul Ryan?  Anybody’s guess.  DumpRomney does not advocate any particular candidate; they simply advocate the dumping of Romney at the RNC convention.

Ron Paul’s campaign has claimed to have won over 500-1,000 delegates. The DumpRomney folks may or may not have success in persuading delegates to abstain in the first ballot.  This split in the Republican Party makes Romney’s nomination in the first ballot very uncertain.

The Battle Is Still On

The present battle for delegates is (not surprisingly) not covered by the mainstream media, who would love to see liberal Romney as the Republican nominee.

The Republican Party is also not advertising the conflict.  Public show of division is rarely wise.

But the battle rages on:

Battle of Gettysburg by Currier & Ives

 

Why Haven’t We Heard This in the Media?

  • Most of the Media is liberal and would love to run against Mitt Romney, who would be challenged to offer anything different from what Obama has offered.
  • “Establishment” Republicans are not in a rush to advertise disunity to their opposition.
  • Conservatives hoping to make a course correction in the Republican Party are not in a rush to advertise their plans and their tactics.

But now, for those of us who are rooting for a brokered convention, for a replacement of Mitt Romney with a true conservative, for the election of the next Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln, this, 1 week before the Republican Convention, when the plans have been laid and the agenda is set, is a good time to remind everyone to have an open mind and a positive attitude toward the possibility of a brokered convention.

This Convention is Bound to Be Very Exciting

There is no question that this Republican Convention is bound to be very exciting.
It also holds the potential to alter the course of history dramatically.
Let’s presume little: historically speaking, Mitt’s odds are 57:43.
Much is going on behind the scenes that the media is not telling us about.
However, if Mitt does get the nomination, our chances of beating Obama are reduced by a factor of about three.

Can Romney Still Redeem Himself?

Can Mitt Romney convince Republican conservatives that he is capable of the kind of leadership that the fiscal and moral challenges of 2012 demand?

Mitt Romney has already pledged to repeal ObamaCare (which 2/3 of America opposes) and to oppose abortion.  He claims that he will balance the budget, something that is high on American list of priorities.

Romney could also pledge to uphold the values that close to 2/3 of Americans hold:

 

Mitt Romney could sign the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Pledge. He is one of the few Republican candidates who have refused to sign the pledge so far.

Mitt could promise to uphold religious freedom, a freedom that is under threat for the 25% of Americans who are Catholics.

Would Promises Be Believed?

There was a time when political promises carried more weight.   But a new era of political dishonesty has been inaugurated with Obama’s demonstrated ability to about face, and to thumb his nose at his own previous promises.

The lies, reversals, security leaks, and imperial mandates characterizing the Obama administration have led many into shock and disbelief that so much could transpire in less than four years.  Obama rules by issuing mandates each time Congress and the Senate fail to approve the legislation he wants.  No FBI, police, or security force has materialized to challenge Barack Obama on his actions, to label him a traitor, or to drag him off in chains.

The head of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, panders to Obama’s wishes, fails to protect and enforce the Constitution of the U.S. and it’s laws.  He has been held in contempt of Congress, yet the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute him.

The Department of Homeland Security similarly neglects it’s duties, and seems to be headed by a “liberal sisterhood of plundering hacks” who are consumed in an Animal-House style sexual harassment scandal.

In the past, the news media would also have kept presidents and politicians accountable for their promises.  In 2012, they don’t.  The media clearly has a political agenda, an extremely liberal one not shared by the majority of Americans,  an agenda which 2/3 of America opposes, and the media misuses their profession to misinform the public, attempting to steer them towards liberalism.  Liberal Presidents and politicians get away with more and more lying.  No behavior on the part of liberals shocks the media; neither lies (Obama) nor incompetence (Biden) shock anyone.  Media now actively covers for the liberal politicians whom they favor. They excuse any behavior by candidates who continue to advocate lower and lower standards of morality and accountability in our society.

In this atmosphere, it will be difficult for Romney to acquire the credibility to energize the Republican base and to get them to the polls.  His recent statements in support of gay adoption and gay Boy Scout leaders do little to improve his credibility as a conservative or as a Republican.

Previous to 2012, Romney might have had a better chance to redeem himself.

But today, an alternate, more principled nominee with a history of strong character is more likely to be believed, and would serve both the Republican Party and our nation much better in 2012.

May God Bless, Help, and Direct America!

May God bless, help, and direct America… starting with the Republican Convention on August 27- 30, 2012.
Numerous moral and ethical leaders have indicated that this election is the most important election of a lifetime, an election which will determine the future character of America; strong, responsible and autonomous nation, or bankrupt dissolute welfare state.  The movie 2016 predicts disaster for America if Barack Obama is re-elected on November 6th.

What’s at Stake: Can the People (2/3 of America) Be Highjacked by Media and Politicians (Democrat and Republican), or Does Our Democratic System Still Work?

Related Subsequent Articles:

The Missing Link – Redefining How We Approach Politics  

AND

Elections 2016 or Taming the Black Swan or Selling Out vs Sticking to Principles


 

 

 

 

All Posts