In response to:

Is There a Need for Political Conventions?

cjaeger Wrote: Sep 03, 2012 9:29 AM
Is there a dimes worth of difference??? Romney had 4 times more votes than he needed to win the nomination. Why did he and the Republican leadership go way out of their way to antagonize such a large group of energized voters?? A bit of history may explain why they took the gamble The industrial revolution along with freedom enabled a number of families to become extremely wealthy right at the beginning of the last century. Under the leadership of the Rockefeller family they began to dream of a New World Order and eventually a World Government whereby they would monopolize all natural resources and the means of production under their control. To facilitate their dream they along with a European banking family, the Rothschild, establish
Jeff3820 Wrote: Sep 03, 2012 12:40 PM
I don't buy your thesis on the Rockefellers. There were Brahmins in Boston before that.

The Republican Convention was last week. The Democrats rev theirs up this week. Television viewership of the Republican Convention was down, and I suspect we will see the same thing this week.

There were a couple of factors affecting the viewership of the Republican convention. First, the major networks didn’t push it. Only an hour each night. They didn’t advertise it and plug it. Second, the Republicans shortened their convention because of the hurricane.

But, does a well established political party even need a convention?

What Bill Clinton called, “the permanent campaign”, back in the early nineties is now...