Why the 'Strategists' Are Wrong About a Brokered Convention

Why the 'Strategists' Are Wrong About a Brokered Convention

To listen to the so-called “political strategists” on any number of Conservative-leaning news outlets, you would think that moving beyond June without a locked-in Republican presidential nominee would be tantamount to inaugurating Barack Obama to a second term. “It would be a catastrophe,” they scream, while insisting t hat one candidate or another drop out of the race in order to make it a “traditional” two-candidate race going into the heart of the primary cycle. And each time one of these “strategists” makes this “sky-is-falling” claim, the television show hosts nod their heads like bobble-head dolls on so many car dashboards and the radio show hosts initiate a string of “um-hmms'” that sounds like the clucking of hyper-active chickens. But what are they so afraid of?

Most “strategists” sign-on to Dick Morris’s theory (and Dick Morris actually is a bona fide political strategist by virtue of the fact that he has actually run a national campaign) that should the Republican Primary contest go down to the RNC Convention, there won’t be enough time to mount a cohesive and potent message to counter the mainstream media enabled, billion-dollar political bully pulpit possessed by President Obama’s re-election campaign. Truth be told, if the Republican candidates continue to employ a strategy of “win-at-all-cost,” slash-and-burn politics, a strategy they all have employed all too willingly so far, Mr. Morris has a fifty-fifty chance of being correct.

But this is a very different election cycle from any that we have experienced in our lifetime.

First, we have a President who has exposed himself, through his rhetoric, policies and actions, as a committed Progressive ideologue who will do and say anything to maintain the mantle of power. I have been explaining since before the electorate made the incredibly naive mistake of electing a Chicago politician to the Oval Office, that once a Chicago politician achieves elected office, his number one goal – above that of executing his position, above that of serving his constituents, and above that of paying back his political cronies – is to position for re-election. Nothing is more important to a Chicago politician than re-election…nothing.

This is the primary reason Mr. Obama has never – never – stopped campaigning throughout his term as President. It’s like the performer in the circus who tries to keep all the plates spinning…if you are going to be all things to all people – and Mr. Obama is fairly good at the mouth in portraying himself as such – then you have to keep up the illusion that you are all things to all people all the time.

But constantly positioning for re-election is a double-edged sword.  That is, if the opposition knows how to combat it. To combat the Chicago politician’s constant pandering, the opposition must not only chronicle everything that the Chicago politician says and does (as his promises and deeds mount he will contradict himself increasingly providing a host of campaign ammunition), but they must get ahead of the message so as to define the issues in the media.

Granted, the national Republican Party hierarchy couldn’t get ahead of a message if they were flying it on a banner behind a beach plane, but that’s another problem all together.  The fact remains that gathering the long list of promises the Chicago politician makes with his constant pandering provides more than enough campaign fodder to doom his election.

Second, Conservatives, fresh off the birth of a movement they identify with, and armed with a convincing 2010 Mid-Term Election “shellacking” of their Progressive and Democrat opponents, have finally come to understand that if Republicans run Conservative candidates those candidates can – and will – win. But it’s the task of getting those candidates to ballot that is proving to be the trick.

Along with the realization that Conservatives can win in a Conservative-leaning country, comes the ugly truth that the “establishment” Republican apparatus is – just like the Chicago politician – more concerned with maintaining power and “selecting” candidates than doing the hard work of administering to a bottom-up organization – such as the Republican Party was chartered to be.

Today’s Republican establishment is, for all practical purposes, a mirror (or converse) image of the Democrat Party; an organization structured from the top-down. This power-hoarding of the hierarchy is evidenced by the ridiculous move to award convention delegates proportionately, a move more in line with the abolition of the Electoral College than with the preservation of the Republic.

So, we have a Chicago politician and a well-financed Progressive apparatus, facilitated by an enabling Progressive mainstream media, running against an eventual Republican candidate and an apparatus that knows how to win but is being dragged kicking and screaming to that point by a determined rank-and-file. Like I said before, if this status quo is allowed to stand, Mr. Morris has a fifty-fifty chance of being correct about there not being enough time to foment a narrative and execute a potent campaign.

But, this scenario doesn’t have to be the reality, and the reasons are three-fold.

First, with no certain Republican candidate, the Obama campaign and its Progressive Chicago political machine will have to do opposition research and prepare to run against all four (realistically three, but for our purposes we will go with the official number four) Republican candidates running in the GOP Primary Elections. Only a fool would “roll the dice” on one candidate beating the others at this point, because, as any good student of American politics can tell you, anything can happen. And that anything most likely will happen, if it can happen at all. Given that the Obama team is far from stupid, they would never bank on one candidate over the others at this point, although they will advance that illusion to lull a clueless national Republican Party leadership into forcing a single candidate onto the electorate prematurely.

So, the benefit of the first point is two-fold. First, it requires that the focus of the Obama campaign, and the whole of the Progressive Left, be split four ways where opposition research is concerned. That means that instead of having 1,000 people digging up dirt on one candidate (1000:1), they have to use the same manpower to cover four candidates (250:1). Second, and more importantly, by virtue of the fact that there isn’t one target to focus on, that billion-dollar campaign war chest would have to be employed to prepare for each of the GOP candidates, thus, diluting the potency of that billion-dollar war chest.

In essence, the Obama campaign would have to prepare for political battle on four fronts instead of one, thus, leveling the playing field in a manner titrated to “the clock.”

The second reason is this; if the GOP field would simply cease “shooting” at each other in an effort to destroy one of our own – and strictly for narcissistic political gain; if they would desist from what can only be described as a poor attempt at employing the negative campaign tactics of the Progressive Chicago Left – tactics that only serve to infuriate the base while providing talking points for the opposition, and, instead, focused on advancing their positive differences; educating the public on the subtle differences in their policies and platforms, they could then allow us – the electorate – to choose our candidate, even as they presented a cohesive front in taking it to Barack Obama, his policies, his apparatus, his broken promises and his ideological agenda; an agenda that is harming our country.

Basically, this would see a GOP primary field cohesive in their opposition to Barack Obama and the Progressive Left; a field already campaigning against Barack Obama, and a field that respected the intellect of the electorate enough to trust them in picking their own candidate; devoid of the destructive manipulation.

And, lastly, the third reason is this: with no clear winner and the need for a brokered convention, not only do the rank-and-file Republicans and Conservatives achieve a larger and stronger voice in who we want to be our candidate (after the first round of voting the floor is open to nominations), we create fear amongst the political Left for the fact that all the work they have done – all the research, all the preparation and all the costs associated with both – could very well be for naught. Suddenly, that billion-dollar campaign war chest and the behemoth political organization…well, it’s not so much, because time is the great equalizer. Tell me that doesn’t put a grin on your face.

So, if we could just get our candidates to stop beating the tar out of each other and, instead, be the candidates we want them to be; the candidates we know they can be; if we could convince the “strategists” to understand the benefits of a brokered convention and get them to stop fear-mongering the issue, we would see: a) Barack Obama’s campaign apparatus split into four redundant efforts as its war chest is depleted, b) an Obama campaign without advanced research and preparation about the GOP candidate, and c) a GOP primary slate that acts like they actually believe Progressivism and Barack Obama are the opponents and not their fellow Republicans.

Now, tell, me, what the hell is wrong with that? Mr. Morris, I respectfully await your reply.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.