Sunday, April 1, 2012

Will Ron Paul Become the 2012 Version of Candidate Warren Harding?

Will Republicans meet at their convention without a confirmed nominee with the needed 1,144 delegates needed? A Gingrich state campaign director thinks so.  A brokered convention is all for the good for Ron Paul. It means that Dr. Paul will have a stronger position than Warren Harding did in the 1920's brokered convention. Read on for NyPo's reports:
With Newt Gingrich unlikely to pick up many delegates in the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, his state campaign director, Robert Lorge, said his mission after that vote will be to help the former House speaker persuade what he calls "soft delegates" to support him.

Those "soft delegates" amount to Wisconsin's three Republican National Committee delegates, plus the three delegates from each of the eight congressional districts who could become unbound at the convention. 
"Newt is going to be focusing on soft delegates, unbound delegates, and of course all of the delegates are unbound after the second ballot," Lorge told FOX News.

Gingrich has said he will remain in the race until Mitt Romney wins the 1,144 delegates that would secure him the Republican nomination. Lorge believes Romney will not reach that threshold, leading to a contested Republican National Convention this August.

"This election is going to be very much like 1920's Warren Harding Republican Convention," he said. "General Leonard Wood went in there with 30 percent of the delegates and thought he had it made. Warren Harding went in with six percent of the delegates. After ten ballots, Harding had 70 percent. 
And get a load of this from Wikipedia:
 [Harding's] conservativism, affable manner, and "make no enemies" campaign strategy made Harding the compromise choice at the 1920 Republican National Convention. During his presidential campaign, in the aftermath of World War I, he promised a return of the nation to "normalcy". This "America first" campaign encouraged industrialization and a strong economy independent of foreign influence.  Harding departed from the progressive movement that had dominated Congress since President Theodore Roosevelt.
Who does that remind you of?

Harding went on to defeat Democrat James M. Cox in the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history (60.36% to 34.19%) since popular votes were recorded in 1824.


  1. THAT WHAT WE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEED AS THE THEME OR GOAL TO GET BACK TO REALITY. conservativism, affable manner, and "make no enemies" campaign A return of the nation to "normalcy"is what is needed. "America first" campaign encouraged.Industrialization and a strong economy independent of foreign influence. NO WORLD GOVERNMENT .!!!!! NO ONE EVERY GAVE ANYONE PERSON THE AUTHORITY TO ANY PRESIDENT TO CONSIDER THAT.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT NEEDS TO PUT TO A COUNTRY WIDE VOTE. THIS IS THE U.S.A AND WE NEED TO THROW THE UNITED NATIONS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.. THEY ARE TRYING TO OVER THROW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...

  2. Remember, the Paul campaign has been telling Paul caucus goers since Iowa to volunteer to become state delegates for any of the nominees. So all the delegates so far are heavily salted with Paul supporters.

    If it's a brokered convention, and the party has to go for more than one ballot, all those delegates are released from their pledge after the first ballot, so and they can vote for whomever they want. And since the campaign has been planning this since last fall, Paul could see a huge surge on the second ballot. And that will be enough momentum to get him to the 1142 delegates by ballot number three.

    Sneaky, sneaky...I like it! -VA voter and RP supporter

  3. Fascinating! Thanks for the on-point history lesson.

    There is hope!

  4. Wow, you've sunk incredibly low if you're hoping your candidate or his campaign in any way resembles Warren Harding, the worst president in history. This site is great for a laugh, like watching Fox News or listening to RP say anything.

    1. Out from under your rock much? We're talking about similarities in process here. Not necessarily person. Let's see: Obey the Constitution; No need to travel around the world to kill brown skinned people, just because you can; balance the federal budget; resurrect the country before it fades off into oblivion. Yep, those are really weird ideas. Let's just keep doing the Bush/Obama thing. That is working out so well for us.

    2. Warren G. Harding is the last President to perform his duties as such with Constitutional integrity. He was the last President to downsize the federal government. He was the last President to effectively end a depression in under a foiling the newly established federal reserve at every turn. Many who claim Harding to be the worst President, and actually know anything at all, are supporters of the socialist, statist, ruling class government invisioned by Wilson and his ilk.
      Here's some free speech for you, before these neo-cons steal it...May the gods curse you with the truth so that you are ashamed of the of the lies you have promulgated.

  5. Sounds like Anonymous @ 05:08 PM is all butthurt (either that or he's doing a lame April Fool's joke :-D)

  6. Harding the worst President? A bit of hyperbole, for one thing he wasn't in office long enough to qualify for that award. Besides, he pardoned Eugene Debs and handled the 1920-21 recession properly. That at least puts him in the top 25%. Scandal? Hardly the biggest Presidential scandal. So why do you make such a claim?

    BTW if you had listened to Paul in around 2003, you would have escaped the housing bubble.


    If you took American History in high school, you would know the results of these polls before looking at them. Harding is unquestionably the worst president in history. Both liberals and conservatives agreed.

    Most polls have him at least in the bottom three. Buchanan ranks worst in certain polls, but they tend to alternate. This isn't disputed, anywhere, at all, except here. Which is why these websites are funny.

    It's also why Ron Paul supporters are among the most blindly idiotic and ideologically-driven people, even more so than the Tea Party or the anti-science crowd. He built his political career around pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I suppose they stuck around.

    You're using the worst president in history as an example for your candidate, and not just to compare the similarities in how they weaved through the political process, but to juxtapose their ideas, as though the Harding years were some beacon of libertarian justice. He was the worst president in history. He was the worst president in history, in case you missed what everyone, ever, has said.

    Obama was soft and pollyannaish(look it up) coming into office, but has done practical things to help the country. Libertarians once had legitimate ideas (de-jailing, liberalizing the prescription drug market, one of the biggest money-draining rackets in existence) but won't ever be taken seriously accept as the daft Athena that emerged from an militantly ignorant Zeus that is the Republican party

    1. How many people did Harding kill, is that in the rankings?

    2. What a bunch of unmitigated drivel (look it up). Throwing in "pollyannaish" and an absurd mythological analogy don't make you sound intelligent or help your case.

      O-Bomb-Ya's "practical things" are programs that will cost much more than he promised (gov't programs notoriously do) and will create nothing but headaches, red tape and unintended consequences.

      BTW, it's ironic when someone who can't get through 10 pages of a Mises' book thinks Mises' supporters are "the lowest commomen denominitor." That term is reserved for the parasite crowd.

    3. You actually want to say "doesn't make you sound intelligent" and you misspelled "common denominator". You also don't need the apostrophe after the first Mises.

    4. A "type o" is obvious in the mispelling. The grammar is fine! There are two things that "don't matter". Doesn't would only be correct if there was only one.
      Keep believing the government can fix everthing.
      Give your health over to it. Give your human fredoms over to it in the name of protecting them. Give your children over to it, and see then what seems practical.

  8. There have always been dissenters during revolutions. Not all people agree all the time.

  9. Harding cut taxes and spending, balanced the budget, signed a major arms control treaty and presided over peace and a return to prosperity. He deserves better than so-called 'great' Presidents like his predecessor, who got us into a wwar, curtailed civil liberties and brought Jim Crow to Washington, D.C. There is no consensus on his being a 'bad' President, by the way, as Paul Johnson ('Modern Times'), for example, knows better.

  10. Warren Clayton HardingJuly 4, 2012 at 9:13 AM

    Harding slashed government spending dramatically. It led to the roaring twenties economically. Inflation and unemployment both dropped dramatically as a result. The improvement in the economy can be seen in measurable statistics, ignore the official government statements. Careful you don't rush to believe any 'attack ad pushing leeches' when you repeat the statements that he was the worst president in history. There have been some suspicions that there might be such a thing as an 'attack pushing leech' in government.