Limbaugh: Brokered Vs. Contested GOP Convention.

Listening to Rush about 50% of the time when I tired of Seahawk sports stations, Limbaugh has made it very clear, if one can read between the lines in his statements, that he knows the names of the "handful of party elites" that are pushing for a brokered convention or even an Establishment independent candidate.

That he 'wont name them' and goes on to state that he is about defeating the Democrats and feels a brokered convention/independent candidate will ensure a Democrat victory. That implies he would(?) name them if things evolve in that direction?

Limbaugh generally has more good things to say about Cruz than Trump and seems enamored with Cruz-religious reasons?- more than Trump. He does state he will support any candidate nominated in order to defeat the Democrats.

Personally, I feel it's a mistake on Limbaugh's part not naming the culprits immediately. At the least, they would now be on the defensive, being directly attacked, and perhaps, once exposed they'd back off on their agenda. He prefers Cruz, but would support Trump, if nominated from what I can get out of it. (He definitely doesn't like the Republican Establishment but is mitigated by Corporate moves to reduce his radio station base.)

So is it possible there's been enough exposure and potentially further exposure that would ensure no manipulation? Could the party hunker down and let the process evolve on it's own?

"Everybody" say a brokered process is almost a given. Given that this whole mess nobody foresaw happening means that it's possible "everybody' is wrong??

I don't see any chance of the Republican Party surviving this any other way than letting Trump win the convention. All the alternatives to that leads to an independent run or third party formation down the line of which will be previous Republican members. The GOP is in a no-win situation, IMO.

Thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Limbaugh has been walking the tightrope, much like I have. If you pay attention, you might be able to give an educated guess as to which candidate he prefers, but if you listen to most of his callers, most of them are clueless and get ticked at him for being either in the Trump camp or the Cruz camp.

I think the reason he doesn't name anyone is because he can't. He knows a lot of people, rubs shoulders with a lot of people, and if he spills the beans or makes reckless speculation in a very public way, he damages that access and then he wouldn't be able to give us the hints he does.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nwtrucker

Limbaugh has been walking the tightrope, much like I have. If you pay attention, you might be able to give an educated guess as to which candidate he prefers, but if you listen to most of his callers, most of them are clueless and get ticked at him for being either in the Trump camp or the Cruz camp.

I think the reason he doesn't name anyone is because he can't. He knows a lot of people, rubs shoulders with a lot of people, and if he spills the beans or makes reckless speculation in a very public way, he damages that access and then he wouldn't be able to give us the hints he does.

Hmmm, maybe he'd suffer socially, though I believe the day is long past for his access to information that he used to get.

Look at the guest callers he had in the day. Not any more. That 'split' has long past occurred.

I'm betting he has his options already set, as far as independent station or even moving to the Net. He has implied his options, drawn the lines and I don't think there's much wiggle room left for him not to act. (Unless, like the rest of them, he's too content in his nice comfort zone of affluence that seems to seduce so many.)

He still is the biggest leverage out there uncommitted, as far as the right goes. An endorsement from him is a two-edged sword as far as candidates goes. Within the party, though? No one holds more sway.

Wait, people still listen to Rush Limbaugh?

I bet he knows where to get the good poppers.

i think Limbaugh and the rest of the radio right wing have been trying very hard to keep the party together, but they have to see what the establishment republicans are doing. Their destroying themselves in a piss poor bid to hold onto power. Cruz, I'm sorry but people don't trust him. They may not like Trump, but its time they set their ego aside and let the people pick who they want, not attempt to force the vote by shady delegate tactics. They do not rule this country, the people do and its damn well time they learn that. they are not gods.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think Rush has made it pretty clear he's talking about Romney. The anti-establishment vote has some real legs and it all goes "bye-bye" if Romney comes out of Cleveland as the nominee. I don't agree with much of Rush's politics, but he is a remarkable talent. Stern has an entire staff, Rush has snerdly (sp?). He is the GOAT of radio broadcast. By a country mile.

Sidebar: My boss grew up in the same town as Rush - I heeded his advice and listened and have be hooked ever since.

a reply to: roaland


I'd say there are more Establishment supporting stations and so-called conservative local talk-show hosts than anti-Establishment.

Maybe Rush and a few others, but the Nedveds and smaller local hosts lean heavily to the corporation chain agenda, from what I can see. Of living in the Seattle region things are tilted to the left anyways.

At least, that's what I see in my region.

I don't know about that.

The two local guys: Carson and Knapp are anti-establishment. Carson is noncomittal, more or less anti-Trump but fair enough to defend him when he feels that things have gone against him unfairly (Carson defended Trump twice in the past week) and Knapp has always been establishment cynical (he has filled in for Savage on occasion just to give you an idea who he may be).

So out where I am, I don't think talk radio is just going to fall into line for a brokered convention that produces a Romney.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat


Yep, he's definitely been on the Romney possibility thing for quite a while.

The feeling I get, reading between the lines, is his stance is now broader than just Romney. Perhaps your right. It may be just the independent candidate issue he's referring to and not the brokered convention.

I'm hoping it's more than just Romney, though. A brokered convention is virtually as bad, in my books.

So much has come to light in the last few months that I have broken off of the Conservative movement. I fell my conservative views as used to ensnare me into supporting-these days- candidates that have the Republican Party's interests before the nation's. I will not brook that any longer.

I am an independent, at least until a third party results from this mess......

I listen to Rush a few times a week but it's just bits and pieces. He clearly supports someone but he won't say who. It's not like it is with Hannity and his secret support for Cruz, Rush is a bit tougher to decipher.

Regardless, I think the primary attacks were too damaging, the Republicans left themselves with a situation where no one is left standing. Trump hasn't gained a single additional voter despite all his challengers leaving. Cruz is the exact type of person people are sick of. Kasich despite still being in the race is a complete unknown and even more of an insider than Cruz. All 16-17 candidates took each other out this time around, not one has been left standing.

The only solution is to bring someone in that was able to completely skip the primary season. That's someone fresh who has no campaign debt, no promises made, no backers to appease for small town state BS. Bring in someone new, get them on the national stage, and let them run.

Paul Ryan's name has been floated a lot, I don't know if he's the right one but a fiscal conservative is definitely the choice to contrast both Hillary and Sanders. Ideally they find one whose also a social moderate and has some foreign policy success such as Ron Johnson who sits on the Senate Committee on the Budget and on Foreign Affairs, and is as close as you're ever going to find to a moderate TP person.

a reply to: ketsuko


Oh these guys are slick. They will defend Trump on certain points. After all....they pride themselves on being 'fair'....

Bottom line look at who owns
the stations. Our local conservative station is 770 AM in Seattle. A Fox 'station'....yet it's affiliate is 710 an ESPN owned station....about as left as it gets.

Not unlike Rush, few Trump supporters actually get on the air. It's the Cruz people who get through Snerdly's screening...if Rush even picks the calls on hold, that is.

He has made it clear, in my mind, he'd support Trump if Cruz lost though.


What a freaking mess....

Text

a reply to: ketsuko


Hmmm, a Savage fill-in. I see your point.

a reply to: Aazadan

For a real AM treat, I like to listen to Mark Levin and the Savage Nation.

I've had enough of Rush's girly lisp to last a life time. Beck has his moments....

I pray to God I never come in contact with Hannity....I don't need another felony!!

Watching the GOP eat their children is orgasmic...almost.

a reply to: Aazadan

See that would be the ONE thing that could completely turn me off.

Think about it. In a cycle where the electorate is rebelling against the party and its insiders and establishment so much so that the top two candidates are the guy from completely out of left field (in more ways than one) and the one who might be from Washington but everyone in Washington loathes, the very last thing they should do is take hold at the convention, declare the entire primary invalid, and deliver a candidate of their choosing whom no one has even had any chance to vote on.

All those record turnouts? Yeah, those would be toast and they'd be putting another Democrat in the White House, but I think the party establishment would be fine with that so long as they get to keep theirs. Who cares about us? And that's really been the problem all along.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You're kidding right? I hear about equal numbers of Trumpists as I do Cruzers on Rush. I don't listen a whole lot to Levin or Savage and I really only hear Rush because he happens to be one when I am on my way home from work. Otherwise, it's the local guys I pick up on the drive in.

a reply to: Aazadan



Rush doesn't endorse anyone.
His endorsement bring as much, if not more negatives as positives, so he 'implies' by pushing the positives he perceives.

He is clearly a Cruz supporter, at this stage, and has called Cruz the closest thing to Reagan, since Reagan. I disagree. I don't follow Hannity much but what I have heard is similar to Rush-always has been- likes Cruz but thinks Trump is being honest.

As far as the names and options you mention, and the logic of it for that matter, is exactly why I no longer support this party. None of those you name is nominated of chosen by the party members. "Vote for our guy or else a Democrat will win".

Not any more , thank you very much. I'm done. They let the media smear our choices and the leadership of the party follow in lockstep, as apparently you do, as well, and select 'none of the above'. Hillary and Obama swiped at each other pretty well and it didn't have much affect on them, did it?

Hell, I wouldn't put it past the establishment to be behind starting the wife slur campaign causing Trump and Cruz to lock horns...they has to be laughing their head off at that....

a reply to: ketsuko


Well said! My sentiments exactly. A pox on them....LOL.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Aazadan

For a real AM treat, I like to listen to Mark Levin and the Savage Nation.

I've had enough of Rush's girly lisp to last a life time. Beck has his moments....

I pray to God I never come in contact with Hannity....I don't need another felony!!

Watching the GOP eat their children is orgasmic...almost.

Yep, we're not quite in the lockstep the left is...it's called self-determined integrity. Remember that?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Rush is a Conservative 100%, but he has zero Republican GOP weight on things for 30 years now.
He will vote Republican...but only out of necessity to defeat Dems.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

See that would be the ONE thing that could completely turn me off.

Think about it. In a cycle where the electorate is rebelling against the party and its insiders and establishment so much so that the top two candidates are the guy from completely out of left field (in more ways than one) and the one who might be from Washington but everyone in Washington loathes, the very last thing they should do is take hold at the convention, declare the entire primary invalid, and deliver a candidate of their choosing whom no one has even had any chance to vote on.

All those record turnouts? Yeah, those would be toast and they'd be putting another Democrat in the White House, but I think the party establishment would be fine with that so long as they get to keep theirs. Who cares about us? And that's really been the problem all along.

GOP establishment wants a brokered convention. They know deep down a brokered convention basically means they lose the election. However, I believe the GOP establishment rather lose to Hillary than have Trump win. A loss for the GOP establishment is actually a win in terms of being able to keep thing status quo. Trump winning upsets the apple cart and their larger agendas.