The Wheels Down Politics Show – J.L. Spray and the GOP Convention Rules controversy

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

J.L. SprayJerry Kratochvil interviews Nebraska delegate to the GOP Convention Rules Committee, J.L. Spray.

Nebraska National Committeeman, and Nebraska Delegate, J.L. Spray talks to Jerry about the upcoming meeting of the GOP Convention Rules Committee and how it will affect the rest of the convention and the nomination of Donald Trump.

Spray talks about how any Nebraska rules would or could affect how Nebraska delegates vote and what they might see in Cleveland.

Then they get into two of the competing theories for allowing delegates to vote however they’d like , as opposed to the current “requirement” of voting for Trump on the first ballot.

They discuss the “open delegate” concept of Curly Hoagland of North Dakota as well as the “vote your conscience” concept of Kendal Unruh of Colorado.

J.L. gives his thoughts on what could happen, and what is likely to happen in Cleveland. And he also gives his thoughts on what probably should happen.

In closing J.L. also gives some ideas about what could or should happen regarding Republican primaries in election seasons to come.

On Twitter@gopjls


You can find this, and all of our podcasts at and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.

Follow Jerry Kratochvil @WheelsDownPols and @LeavenworthSt on the Twitter and Like Leavenworth St. on The Facebook to get the talk of Nebraska politics!


  1. The Eye Ball says:

    The GOP has allowed the primary process to take over the Party. The Party is now run on wild animal passions, not logic or reason.
    Both men mean well, but reality is very clear. Nebraskans did not have the right to vote for Scott Walker. The idea of supporting ANY GOP presidential candidate makes no sense for the average Nebraskan. Do you let other people vote for what you will eat for dinner?
    Given the stupid rules, Nebraska should have its primary moved to January. Who cares if Nebraska loses half the delegates? Nebraska does not count now so what difference would it make?

  2. Tony says:

    2 out of 3 voters voted for Trump. Sure, go ahead, ignore that and change the rules. See what happens to the Republican Party in Nebraska after that.

    • Sparkles says:

      “See what happens to the Republican Party in Nebraska after that.”

      After that, really?
      How about what’s already happened to the party. A party that demands allegiance to the likes of Donald Trump.

      At their recent meeting of the Water Buffalo Lodge, the NEGOP was presented the following resolution:
      “Be it resolved that the Nebraska Republican Party strongly opposes all degrading remarks towards women, minorities and other individuals by Republican elected office holders or party officials, including candidates for President of the United States, because such rhetoric tarnishes the GOP’s legacy as the party of Lincoln, alienates millions of Americans, and jeopardizes Republican majorities in the Nebraska Legislature, the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate.”

      And they chose to table it.
      Apparently refraining from ‘degrading remarks towards women, minorities and other individuals’ is a bridge too far for the modern day NEGOP.

      • Tony says:

        Yeah sure, tabled Democrat talking points. What is considered “degrading” Sparkles? Can you promise to adhere to the following? “I Sparkles promise to never make disparaging remarks about people in Britain that voted to free themselves from the tyranical yoke of the EU”. A simple “yes” will do. No? Wow, what does that say about the modern Democrat Party, that they won’t support people voting Democratically for freedom.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Tony, actually one of the worries in NI, according to the Irish press, is that UK will withdraw from UCHA, where membership has given UK something like a bill of rights. Doubt home grown ministerial government in London that different from Brussels, and I know about bananas, a much bigger issue than tea kettles.

      • Khan says:

        And they chose to table it.
        Apparently refraining from ‘degrading remarks towards women, minorities and other individuals’ is a bridge too far for the modern day NEGOP.

        Or maybe enough folks saw meaningless virtue signaling for what it is.

  3. The Grundle King says:

    It appears to me that the Republicans have a choice, and it’s just not that complicated…either nominate the guy that won the primary race, or nominate the person who can win the POTUS race.

    At this point, common sense tells us that those are two different people. It’s pretty clear that, despite all assurances, Donald CAN NOT and WILL NOT stop sticking his foot in his mouth. He actually seems determined to continue doing so. The polls do not lie, and at this rate, they’re not likely to change in his favor. Despite all the fervor of is followers, the rest of the country either A) doesn’t care for him, or B) flat out despises him.

    A solid majority of the country (55%) views Hillary Clinton unfavorably…and the trend shows that it’s a growing majority. The ONLY way the Republicans can lose this race is to run someone viewed EVEN MORE unfavorably (ala Donald Trump @ 60% unfavorable).

    Cut the losses, dump Trump, and let’s see how well the Trumpkins practice what they preach when they tell folks to ‘get behind the nominee’.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Rasmussen…which I have a hard time relying on considering how many times they’ve been wrong in the past.

        Virtually every other poll has Trump trailing Clinton.

    • Anon says:

      If the polls don’t lie, and Trump has defeated over a dozen rivals, with actual results, who is going to do better, especially since the guy has already won, and also the Buffets are god in Omaha

  4. Scott Lautenbaugh says:

    Books even JK Rowling couldn’t make work:

    “J.L. Spray and the GOP Convention Rules Controversy”

    Not a page-turner.

  5. anon says:

    Bunch of whining old goats, sparkles got you worried, vote for Hillary, nobody will know. You don’t have to justify it

  6. The Grundle King says:

    Interesting article on Bloomberg’s website this morning about how an organization called ‘TxPEP’ performed a very large (and costly*) amount of research into Texas’s abortion laws, and how SCOTUS relied heavily on that research in their decision to protect the ability of “doctors” to continue killing the unborn…masked as ‘reproductive freedom’.

    * And who paid for that costly research? Why the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation…as in the foundation named after Warren Buffett’s dead wife. Quite the feat, if you ask me…killing the unborn from the grave.

    Maybe TxPEP should consider changing their name to Buffett’s Baby Butcherers.

    • Sparkles says:

      TxPEP is a research group based at the University of Texas at Austin. They spent the past several years meticulously documenting the impacts of Texas’ reproductive health laws.

      So your complaint is that SCOTUS relied on rigorous data collection in addition to the input of the country’s most highly informed medical organizations and medical professionals in arriving at their decision?
      You’r upset that scientific evidence and fact were given greater credence than emotional rhetoric and ideology?


      By the way, here are the respective credentials of the TxPEP research group who meticulously, for years, documented the evidence?
      One – OB/GYN (Doctor) and Professor of Dept of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences
      One – Doctorate in Economics from Princeton University
      Two – Doctorates in Sociology
      Two – Masters in Public Health with the second engaged in her Pre-Doctoral, Public Health

      This wasn’t that right wing idiot James O’Keefe & crew splicing together disparate sound bites, or the criminally indicted 20 something year old anti-abortion activists from Center for Medical Progress splicing together video clips.

      Quite to the contrary, it would appear the Buffett money was wisely invested.

      • bynd says:

        What type of morally bankrupt person states money is wisely spent to kill the innocents? Those who follow the Ricky Fulton logic that 166,000 Nebraskans who want to vote on a death penalty revocation bill should not be allowed to do so.

        And they call their opposition Nazis etc.

        It’s time to add Zygotes to the non discrimination lists. After all, they are a persecuted minority based only on their lifestyle and their inability to vote. Many are illegal since they were not wanted on their side of the border. Nor were they conceived as a thoughtful consequence of a loving mother or father and might as well be orphans. They are definitely unwanted. Isn’t that who all progressives want to have legal protection for? The oppressed and unwanted? The disenfranchised? Those who are in the way of progress and a more powerful group wants to hide or get rid of? Those who are defenseless?

      • Tony says:

        No, that’s not our complaint. Our complaint that is university liberals with a predisposition for killing babies came up with “research” that, what a shock, attacked Texas abortion laws. Sort of like when university liberals funded by environmental groups and government grants – surprise – come up with “settled science!!!” that we’re all gonna die because people drive SUV’s.

      • The Grundle King says:

        I’m not at all upset that research was performed. Research, when done for the right reason (finding information) is a good thing.

        Politically-motivated research, when performed with the intent to support an agenda, is not research…it’s propaganda. I would agree, though, that Buffett’s money was wisely invested…the results were likely exactly what the Buffett family was paying for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.