Since they contemplated a Federal gov’t that would extend across a continent, that gov’t was never going to be small. What was more important than the size of gov’t was that its power be limited. The primary means of limiting power was dividing that power between many factions, many offices and many persons. All of whom were presumed to embody all the failings of human nature.

Santorum’s moral universe would be well understood by the Founders. They would agree that family was the “atomic unit” of society, and thus deserved some favoritism.

If it goes past the first ballot, little is assured. If the candidate makes a deal the delegates don’t accept, they don’t have to follow. If a campaign is shrewd at getting their people elected as delegates, even if pledged to someone else, that campaign will show sudden surprising strength on subsequent ballots.

He who knows the rules and best exploits them, wins.

There’s no question they were pretty strongly against the sort of thing that Santorum appears to be strong on, which is interference in peoples’ private morality.

I’m not totally against Santorum, but he’s probably got the most unappealing downchecks of the three major candidates (Paul is a joke) in contrast to his
fairly decent upchecks… and as to which check is up or down, that’s another problem. A lot of what he stands for is abhorrent to a wide array of people… and which things those are varies with the group.

That was when The Great Big 0 was a blank slate with every little idiot’s aspiration printed on his forehead.

Now President Downgrade is no longer a blank slate —

1) He’s “President Downgrade”
2) He’s the Ephteen Trillion Dollar Man
3) He’s Mr. “ObamaCare At Any Cost”
4) He’s Mr. “Four-a-Gallon gas, No Pipeline For YOU!”
5) He’s Mr. Union Bailout
6) He’s Mr. Solyndra
7) He’s Mr. Libya

…as well as all the other crap very rightfully hung on him.

So the volume of “Anyone but a Republican” (remember when the Dems were crowing about how it would be decades before the PotUS was again in the hands of a Republican? Tens of weeks, maybe.) has shrunk massively in comparison to the growth of “Anyone but The One”.

No, what Gingrich wants is both some prominent say in the admin directly, and possibly some concessions as to what the admin will aim for. Moreover, he may wish to add “Veep” to his professional chops. And that’s why Gingrich is in this, and, like it or not, it’s not an irrational position to aim for.

Obama and Hilary went at it for months. Then Hilary folded and knelt before Obama. She took as payment secretary of something.

Get some cohonas!

If this idea was accepted, Santorum’s religiosity would be viewed quite differently.

Delegates aren’t just random Republicans who will be open to a reasoned debate over which candidate should be the nominee. They are selected by the candidates themselves primarily on the basis of perceived loyalty and dedication. Newt is crazy if he thinks he’ll have an EASIER time convincing a Romney-selected delegate that he should vote for Newt than convincing a random GOP primary voter in Florida, for example, of the same thing.

So, it’s not a “reset” at all, at least not in the sense that, after the first ballot, everyone will be completely open to discussion and debate as to who the nominee should be.

Moreover, even if Mitt is shy of a majority, he still may have well over 1000 delegates, and thus need only a small fraction of converts that Newt would need. Thus, even if Newt is somewhat more “persuasive” in converting Romney delegates to his camp than Romney is in winning over Newt delegates, Newt may need literally hundreds and hundreds of Romney delegates to convert in order to beat Mitt. By comparison, Mitt might only need to get 25 each from Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich.

Another thing: Keep in mind that, Paul excluded, all of the candidates want to do approximately the same things (cut spending, repeal Obamacare, etc.). The race really isn’t about one candidate’s program vs. another’s. This is important: Santorum’s and Gingrich’s argument for why THEY should be the nominee and not Mitt is basically that THEY aren’t phony liars, while Mitt is. I bring this up because I don’t see how disagreements over a candidate’s personal integrity (or at least sincerity) lend themselves well to compromises over platform planks and the like. I don’t even think it’s reasonable to think that delegates WHO ARE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR LOYALTY TO A CANDIDATE are going to “debate” whether Mitt Romney is sufficiently honest to be the nominee.

In short, I just don’t think, given the dynamics of this race, that the resolution of any impasse at the convention is going to involve individual delegates engaging in a free and uninhibited dialogue over the candidates’ relative merits.

What WOULD happen, IMO is that the candidates themselves would work something out, with Romney winding up as the nominee. He could cut a deal with Paul or with Santorum or possibly Newt, that would result in the other candidates’ arranging for his slate of delegates to support Mitt. So it WOULD, in fact, be a behind-the-scenese, smoky-room deal, not an open process of debate and arggument. M ore likely, however, any such dealmaking will have already taken place BEFORE the convention starts. Newt therefore wouldn’t have the luxury of trying to hold Mitt over the barrel at the convention, while trying to start the “reset caucus” you describe. Romney will have already offered to make Rand Paul or Rick Santorum VP before that ever unfolds.

Anyway, just my opinion.