Two GOP Leaders Reportedly Plot Strategy to Slow Down Trump

[rangerrebew]

Two GOP Leaders Reportedly Plot Strategy to Slow Down Trump

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ow-down-trump/

    GOP leaders from two states reportedly plot strategy to slow down Trump

    Published August 24, 2015FoxNews.com

    Republican leaders in two states reportedly are plotting to make presidential candidate Donald Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination a lot harder.

    Party leaders in Virginia and North Carolina told Politico.com that they are considering a push to require candidates entering their respective Republican primaries to pledge their support for the eventual nominee and not run a third-party candidacy — a pledge Trump, the current frontrunner, would not make when asked to during the Fox News debate earlier this month in Cleveland.

    “Anybody who wants to seek the Republican nomination should have to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee,” Virginia’s former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told Politico. “I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

    Republican party officials in North Carolina announced a similar proposal, and told Politico they already are in talks with lawyers to draft language for a provision that asks each candidate to support the GOP nominee.

    “Everything is on the table,” an official told Politico.

    Party leaders in North Carolina and Virginia say they hope their ballot proposals will help convince the billionaire businessman to fully commit to the Republican Party.

    The primary requirements must be submitted to the Republican National Committee by Oct. 1, Politico reports.

    “Ballot access usually is regarded as a party function,” former RNC Chief Counsel Tom Josefiak told the website. “It definitely would be left up to the state party to decide how it’s going to operate.”



    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ow-down-trump/

    GOP leaders from two states reportedly plot strategy to slow down Trump

    Published August 24, 2015FoxNews.com

    Republican leaders in two states reportedly are plotting to make presidential candidate Donald Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination a lot harder.

    Party leaders in Virginia and North Carolina told Politico.com that they are considering a push to require candidates entering their respective Republican primaries to pledge their support for the eventual nominee and not run a third-party candidacy — a pledge Trump, the current frontrunner, would not make when asked to during the Fox News debate earlier this month in Cleveland.

    “Anybody who wants to seek the Republican nomination should have to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee,” Virginia’s former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told Politico. “I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

    Republican party officials in North Carolina announced a similar proposal, and told Politico they already are in talks with lawyers to draft language for a provision that asks each candidate to support the GOP nominee.

    “Everything is on the table,” an official told Politico.

    Party leaders in North Carolina and Virginia say they hope their ballot proposals will help convince the billionaire businessman to fully commit to the Republican Party.

    The primary requirements must be submitted to the Republican National Committee by Oct. 1, Politico reports.

    “Ballot access usually is regarded as a party function,” former RNC Chief Counsel Tom Josefiak told the website. “It definitely would be left up to the state party to decide how it’s going to operate.”

[Formerly Once-Ler]

    “Anybody who wants to seek the Republican nomination should have to commit to supporting the ultimate Republican nominee,” Virginia’s former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told Politico. “I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

[EdinVA]

Party First, screw the nation.....

[massadvj]

This is ridiculous.  What the hell are these "party leaders" thinking?  In order to try to stop the momentum of a candidate who does not meet their establishment requirements, they change the rules to try to stack the deck against Trump, denying him access to the ballot and (more importantly) denying Republicans in their states the right to choose from the full array of candidates available.  Screw them.  This is exactly the sort of thing that will backfire big time, once it sees the light of day.

It smacks of Oliver Cromwell requiring Thomas Moore to sign a pledge to the Church of England or face beheading.  I hope these establishment morons are castigated thoroughly, not just by Trump supporters, but by all good Republicans who do not wish to be marginalized by institutional game rigging.

[EdinVA]

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is ridiculous.  What the hell are these "party leaders" thinking?  In order to try to stop the momentum of a candidate who does not meet their establishment requirements, they change the rules to try to stack the deck against Trump, denying him access to the ballot and (more importantly) denying Republicans in their states the right to choose from the full array of candidates available.  Screw them.  This is exactly the sort of thing that will backfire big time, once it sees the light of day.

It smacks of Oliver Cromwell requiring Thomas Moore to sign a pledge to the Church of England or face beheading.  I hope these establishment morons are castigated thoroughly, not just by Trump supporters, but by all good Republicans who do not wish to be marginalized by institutional game rigging.

Maybe they just don't like the idea that if Trump wins the nomination, come General Election time there will be two Democrats running for the Presidency.

[aligncare]

Be careful, Ed. Did you know that quote was made by a man who was was once, shhhh ....a democrat. Of course, now he's no longer one.

[EdinVA]

Be careful, Ed. Did you know that quote was made by a man who was was once, shhhh ....a democrat. Of course, now he's no longer one.

Yes, but he turned out to be the right guy at the right time.
Was not perfect but but was really good at the important stuff.

[massadvj]

Maybe they just don't like the idea that if Trump wins the nomination, come General Election time there will be two Democrats running for the Presidency.

C'mon, Luis.  You are not now so desperate that you are willing to prevent Republicans from getting access to a full ballot, are you?  It is not as if we are going into the ballot booth without full disclosure as to Trump's unwillingness to pledge his support to the eventual nominee.  If he wins the primary on that basis, it is perfectly fair. 

How about we require that any candidate who wants to be on the ballot sign a pledge in opposition to common core?

[libertybele]

Yes, but he turned out to be the right guy at the right time.
Was not perfect but but was really good at the important stuff.

Oh no, you couldn't possibly be implying that it is important to vote for the person most qualified for the presidency and the best person for the job and not just for party?

[EC]

C'mon, Luis.  You are not now so desperate that you are willing to prevent Republicans from getting access to a full ballot, are you?  It is not as if we are going into the ballot booth without full disclosure as to Trump's unwillingness to pledge his support to the eventual nominee.  If he wins the primary on that basis, it is perfectly fair. 

How about we require that any candidate who wants to be on the ballot sign a pledge in opposition to common core?

I disagree. If he wins the ballot in those states, he will expect the state party to back him in the actual election, right? So why can't the state parties require a commitment the other way in return?

[aligncare]

Oh no, you couldn't possibly be implying that it is important to vote for the person most qualified for the presidency and the best person for the job and not just for party?

No, no, no, it's party, party, party. Even if "party" has been feckless for the last seven years!

[EdinVA]

I disagree. If he wins the ballot in those states, he will expect the state party to back him in the actual election, right? So why can't the state parties require a commitment the other way in return?

EC, it is called ballot manipulation.
The rules were established to be a candidate long ago and now the party wants to change the rules because the PARTY does not like how the rules worked out.
The "republican" leaders in Virginia are GOP party loyalists and will do anything to protect their own.

[massadvj]

I disagree. If he wins the ballot in those states, he will expect the state party to back him in the actual election, right? So why can't the state parties require a commitment the other way in return?

They can.  But for the reasons I enumerated they SHOULDN'T.  If they try it, the voters are going to be royally pissed off that their freedom to choose has been severely limited by petty party bosses who feared a free and open process.  Many more people who were disinclined toward Trump will support him out of antipathy toward the establishment, as we have already seen. 

If I was Trump, I'd get on this right now and make a big, big stink in the media.  It should be worth at least 2 or 3 more points in the polls.

[famousdayandyear]

They can.  But for the reasons I enumerated they SHOULDN'T.  If they try it, the voters are going to be royally pissed off that their freedom to choose has been severely limited by petty party bosses who feared a free and open process.  Many more people who were disinclined toward Trump will support him out of antipathy toward the establishment, as we have already seen. 

If I was Trump, I'd get on this right now and make a big, big stink in the media.  It should be worth at least 2 or 3 more points in the polls.

You are absolutely right on.  I live in NC and our Republican leadership is a collection of feckless, power grabbing losers.  I am beside myself reading this news today, and I do hope some people in my state raise holy, rebel hell about the craziness of such a proposal.  I'm done with the Republicans when the Senate sold us out beginning last fall, post election.  In my view, they are sleazier than the Dems, who at least will tell you up front what they intend to do.  The Reps lie to you, then do the opposite when elected.
Thank you for your posts.

[Bigun]

Here's my strategy to deal with Trump!

Let Trump be Trump and he will eventually take care of the problem for us!  He's doing a good job of that presently!

[DCPatriot]

C'mon, Luis.  You are not now so desperate that you are willing to prevent Republicans from getting access to a full ballot, are you?  It is not as if we are going into the ballot booth without full disclosure as to Trump's unwillingness to pledge his support to the eventual nominee.  If he wins the primary on that basis, it is perfectly fair. 

How about we require that any candidate who wants to be on the ballot sign a pledge in opposition to common core?

   (at 9 AM, it's Cappuccino.) 

[Luis Gonzalez]

C'mon, Luis.  You are not now so desperate that you are willing to prevent Republicans from getting access to a full ballot, are you?  It is not as if we are going into the ballot booth without full disclosure as to Trump's unwillingness to pledge his support to the eventual nominee.  If he wins the primary on that basis, it is perfectly fair. 

How about we require that any candidate who wants to be on the ballot sign a pledge in opposition to common core?

For years I've been participating in forums with "conservatives" objecting to this or that Republican nominee to this or that post because they were "no different than a Democrat", or because (as in the case of Mitch Romney) once held positions that were unacceptable and irreconcilable with conservative tenets, even if since then, the candidate had "evolved" on the issue. Conservatives justified their objections and their unwillingness to vote for the subject of their on "principles". They called those of us who would support those candidates RINOs.

Now we have a front runner for the nomination who was an actual registered Democrat during the GWB presidency who has stated support for abortion, gun control, higher taxation, single payer health care, affirmative action, tariffs... the list goes on, and he is the darling of the conservative wing of the GOP because he's going to do "something" about those illegals!

I'm not desperate. I am sad that the polity has deteriorated to the degree that it has.

Common Core?

Common Core is a program sponsored by the mostly Republican National Governor's Association. State participation is optional.

The program establishes a set of common standards in English language arts an mathematics that k-12 students should achieve before being moved on to the next grade. In essence, a kid moving from third to fourth grade in Alabama should have the same level of math proficiency than a kid making the same move in Oklahoma.

While the standards are identical and State participation is not required, the curriculum to be used is completely up to the teachers, school districts and States. There is no mandated curriculum, just a targeted level of proficiency.

The Federal government has opted to incentivize participation by way of funding, but no State is compelled to take the funds.

The Federal government is prohibited by Federal statutes to inject itself into crafting school curriculum:

“U. S. Congress. General Provisions Concerning Education. (2010, February). Section 438 (20 U.S.C. § 1232a). US Code TITLE 20 EDUCATION CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER III, Part 2, §§ 1232a. Prohibition against Federal control of education. No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.”

So yes, I'd like to see a factual and robust debate on Common Core between the candidates, and see some myths and fear mongering challenged.
 

[massadvj]

For years I've been participating in forums with "conservatives" objecting to this or that Republican nominee to this or that post because they were "no different than a Democrat", or because (as in the case of Mitch Romney) once held positions that were unacceptable and irreconcilable with conservative tenets, even if since then, the candidate had "evolved" on the issue. Conservatives justified their objections and their unwillingness to vote for the subject of their on "principles". They called those of us who would support those candidates RINOs.

Now we have a front runner for the nomination who was an actual registered Democrat during the GWB presidency who has stated support for abortion, gun control, higher taxation, single payer health care, affirmative action, tariffs... the list goes on, and he is the darling of the conservative wing of the GOP because he's going to do "something" about those illegals!

I'm not desperate. I am sad that the polity has deteriorated to the degree that it has.

Common Core?

Common Core is a program sponsored by the mostly Republican National Governor's Association. State participation is optional.

The program establishes a set of common standards in English language arts an mathematics that k-12 students should achieve before being moved on to the next grade. In essence, a kid moving from third to fourth grade in Alabama should have the same level of math proficiency than a kid making the same move in Oklahoma.

While the standards are identical and State participation is not required, the curriculum to be used is completely up to the teachers, school districts and States. There is no mandated curriculum, just a targeted level of proficiency.

The Federal government has opted to incentivize participation by way of funding, but no State is compelled to take the funds.

The Federal government is prohibited by Federal statutes to inject itself into crafting school curriculum:

“U. S. Congress. General Provisions Concerning Education. (2010, February). Section 438 (20 U.S.C. § 1232a). US Code TITLE 20 EDUCATION CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER III, Part 2, §§ 1232a. Prohibition against Federal control of education. No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.”

So yes, I'd like to see a factual and robust debate on Common Core between the candidates, and see some myths and fear mongering challenged.
 

I was being facetious on the common core suggestion.  The point I was trying to make was that such a proposal would be specifically designed to eliminate Bush from the ballot. 

[DCPatriot]

For years I've been participating in forums with "conservatives" objecting to this or that Republican nominee to this or that post because they were "no different than a Democrat", or because (as in the case of Mitch Romney) once held positions that were unacceptable and irreconcilable with conservative tenets, even if since then, the candidate had "evolved" on the issue. Conservatives justified their objections and their unwillingness to vote for the subject of their on "principles". They called those of us who would support those candidates RINOs.

Now we have a front runner for the nomination who was an actual registered Democrat during the GWB presidency who has stated support for abortion, gun control, higher taxation, single payer health care, affirmative action, tariffs... the list goes on, and he is the darling of the conservative wing of the GOP because he's going to do "something" about those illegals!

I'm not desperate. I am sad that the polity has deteriorated to the degree that it has.

Common Core?

Common Core is a program sponsored by the mostly Republican National Governor's Association. State participation is optional.

The program establishes a set of common standards in English language arts an mathematics that k-12 students should achieve before being moved on to the next grade. In essence, a kid moving from third to fourth grade in Alabama should have the same level of math proficiency than a kid making the same move in Oklahoma.

While the standards are identical and State participation is not required, the curriculum to be used is completely up to the teachers, school districts and States. There is no mandated curriculum, just a targeted level of proficiency.

The Federal government has opted to incentivize participation by way of funding, but no State is compelled to take the funds.

The Federal government is prohibited by Federal statutes to inject itself into crafting school curriculum:

“U. S. Congress. General Provisions Concerning Education. (2010, February). Section 438 (20 U.S.C. § 1232a). US Code TITLE 20 EDUCATION CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER III, Part 2, §§ 1232a. Prohibition against Federal control of education. No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.”

So yes, I'd like to see a factual and robust debate on Common Core between the candidates, and see some myths and fear mongering challenged.
 

Luis, thank you for the detailed post.  I agree with you on everything, except the sentence in bold...

The "Federal Government" may not itself, inject any curriculum, but the public teachers' unions sure as hell can do the deed.

[olde north church]

I support Trump AT THIS TIME for only one reason:  He is destroying the GOP, an old, infirm, decrepit GOP that serves no one but the Money Men, Political Hacks and Hangers On.  People spoke about changing the party but never had the balls to do.
The only people who are against WHAT TRUMP IS DOING are those who gained by keeping the patient on life support.  People with their own little fiefdoms.

[bkepley]

I support Trump AT THIS TIME for only one reason:  He is destroying the GOP, an old, infirm, decrepit GOP that serves no one but the Money Men, Political Hacks and Hangers On.  People spoke about changing the party but never had the balls to do.
The only people who are against WHAT TRUMP IS DOING are those who gained by keeping the patient on life support.  People with their own little fiefdoms.

Amazingly these guys who want to destroy the GOP claim everyone else is Republican In Name Only.

[GourmetDan]

EC, it is called ballot manipulation.
The rules were established to be a candidate long ago and now the party wants to change the rules because the PARTY does not like how the rules worked out.
The "republican" leaders in Virginia are GOP party loyalists and will do anything to protect their own.

The party only establishes rules to direct the process toward a certain outcome.

When those rules fail to produce that outcome... it's time to change the rules.

The purpose of the party is to deliver a certain outcome... nothing more...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis, thank you for the detailed post.  I agree with you on everything, except the sentence in bold...

The "Federal Government" may not itself, inject any curriculum, but the public teachers' unions sure as hell can do the deed.

So then Jeb and Scott Walker being the only two candidates to have successfully broken the hold of the NEA in their respective States should be in the lead in the polls, shouldn't they?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Amazingly these guys who want to destroy the GOP claim everyone else is Republican In Name Only.