Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Michigan Republicans must look towards the future to win


    By dennislennox, Section News
    Posted on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    Tags: dennis lennox, republicans, state house, 2010 (all tags)

    (Promoted by Nick...)

    With Republicans in the political wilderness  struggling to find a roadmap to electoral success in 2010, party leaders should focus on recruiting candidates that can win in a vastly different political landscape.

    The 2010 elections must be our first priority, but 2012 should be in the back of our heads because congressional, legislative and county commissioner constituencies will be redrawn based on the upcoming census.

    So while a candidate may be capable of easily winning a 60-percent Republican seat in 2010, the would-be politician may struggle to win a competitive, 50-50 race two years later -- particularly if Democrats are the ones drawing the map.

    This is especially important when you consider the State House's Republican minority.

    Read on...

    As a candidate for the State House, I want to take back majority, but I'm realistic and understand party leaders will be more focused on keeping majority in the Senate and winning back the Governor's Mansion.

    That's why I have stepped up to the plate, donated $500 to the House Republican Campaign Committee and challenged all other prospective and declared 2010 candidates to do the same. With 110 seats up for election, $500 from every candidate would be enough to win one or two seats.

    So with limited party resources for anything but the marquee races, Republicans have to do a better job at recruiting candidates.

    Increasing the number of seats in the State House will require a new strategy aimed at turning around Michigan by letting her future pull up seats at the table.

    At a time when Democrats are on the verge of winning whatever is left of this great state's next generation -- your children and grandchildren -- Republicans have to run candidates that appeal to the future and not the past.

    Looking at the photos of the 2009/10 class in the State House, a friend remarked that the members of this august body don't look like the people they represent.

    On the Republican side, only three members -- Brian Calley, Justin Amash and Paul Scott -- are under the age of 35, while the Democrats have nine members under 35.

    Not only are there are not enough young faces on the Republican side of the aisle, there aren't enough women serving in the State House.

    With six women in caucus, Republicans don't come close to the 19 women in the Democratic caucus.

    The idea that only 6 percent of the caucus is younger than 35 is an indicator that Republicans have to invest more in outreach to the next generation -- a crucial demographic that ranks second only to seniors in the number of voters.

    The number of women in the party's caucus is marginally better, but still shows that a lot of work could be done to boost numbers, especially when you consider that women are often swing voters in key suburban constituencies.

    While the lack of diversity is troubling, it can be easily fixed.

    Instead of going after the usual suspects for candidate recruitment, Republicans should commit to having 50 percent of State House candidates be under 35. Additionally, 50 percent of 2010 candidates should be women.

    These are the types of candidates that will win seats and bring the Republicans out of the wilderness in the Legislature's lower chamber.

    With both parties responsible for a broken state government, it's time for the next generation to pull up a seat at the table and get to work.

    Michigan's future depends on a new generation of leaders, so let's hope that Republicans will learn this before becoming a permanent minority.

    < Don't forget, today is an important national holiday! | Will Michigan Fall Further Behind? >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    To a certain extent, you're right - (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by snoopygirlmi on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    However, it doesn't matter what the person looks like if they can't articulate Republican/conservative values to the public.

    Also, you also have to consider biology for the under 35 women who aren't running for office.  A lot of us are at home taking care of the next generation and just don't have time to get involved.  

    Yeah, we understand that most people work during the day and that's why meetings are scheduled for 6:30 - 7 pm, but that's prime family time and when we start getting our kids ready for bed.

    I always wondered why I didn't see a lot of younger women at the meetings, but now that I've got a toddler at home, I totally get it - because I'm one of the people who wants to be more involved, but I can't because of just the practicalities of raising a kid.  So, I'm a lot more picky about what I do attend because I've got to take my family into consideration.

    Also, a lot of us who are under 35 really don't want our kids to have the same messed up childhoods (ie divorce, latch-key kid) that we had, so we just aren't interested in pursuing a career as demanding as being a state legislator.  Our family trumps being in the State Legislature.

    Hope that gives you - and others - some insight as to who some of your supporters/activists are.

    Agree 100% (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mitchfoster on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    Dennis I believe that you are on the right track to what Republicans need to do all over this great country to begin our re-building process. I don't believe that the Democrats are winning soley based on the fact that they used Facebook and the internet to get their ideas out there, they won because the people who were expressing those ideas spoke on a level that was understandable. Their was a great article in Details magazine talking about the Freshman Congressman from Illinois, Aaron Shock, and that he will be the face of the party in years to come. And just as Meghan McCain put it, we need to kick the "Old School" out and bring in a fresh new crop of Republicans with Conservative ideals.

    I am a Junior in college and I plan on running for State House as soon as I graduate due to the fact that my Rep will be term limited and I will recieve his support. I hope and know that more people in my generation will start getting into politics and this will help turn around the Republican down-turn.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by thejmfc on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    I agree that it would be nice to get some younger people in the state legislature.  Not as an end in itself though.  Personally, I don't care if I'm represented by a 95-year-old white guy or a 22-year-old minority of your choice, so long as they are a true conservative, represent me well, and can communicate their values and ideas well.  

    Communication is an area where I believe the younger generation does hold an advantage.  They have a better grasp of the new communication tools available through the internet, and by virtue of being young, other young people are more likely to listen to what they have to say.  

    As for recruiting more women, it's not something I feel should be a priority.  I'll admit that I'm probably in the minority on the issue, even within the party.  That said, I'm old fashioned in that I believe that the man is the head of his household, and that the concept carries up into other areas of leadership as well.  Don't get me wrong, I love and respect women.  I would just rather be led by men.  Of course, I will happily vote for a conservative woman before a liberal man, any day.  It's just not my preference.

    Agree with snoopygirlmi (none / 0) (#4)
    by TheCurrent on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    I agree with snoopygirlmi

    I mean it would be great to have more young people and women, ideally that'd be nice. But when I vote for someone, and I think most people are this way, they don't care about what they look like or how old they are, they care about their values and their beliefs.

    If we are going to bill ourselves at the party of values, we have to vote for values, not for gender of age. We can't be that superficial, then we'll lose the values upper hand.

    I would agree that demographics... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by KG One on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    ...take a back seat to that candidate's philosophy and communication skills.

    Electing someone under 30 to Lansing won't amount to squat if that individual flip-flops on issues and sells out when it becomes convenient for them to do so.

    Youth (none / 0) (#6)
    by Brady on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    Dennis, your heart is in the right place but remember that Ronald Reagan was an old white male.  Republicans have shown over the past year that there is little desire in the party to abandon old fashioned conservative values for fresh faces and new ideas.  College kids aren't about to shift en masse to the Republican Party anyway as tax cuts and smaller government means higher tuition rates and heavier student loan debt.

    Shell Game (none / 0) (#8)
    by Brady on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    Nick, your "money is fungible" quote is the reason that Republican majorities and administrations fail to provide for smaller government despite all the political hyperbole.

    I noticed that no one commented on thejmfc's electoral preference for men.  Do you share that preference?

    True Conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MichWolverine on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    This posting is the 'problem' with the GOP, not the 'solution' -- TRUE CONSERVATIVES DO NOT LABEL PEOPLE.

    I noticed that the writer is very concerned with various 'groups' of people and sets a desperate tone to 'attract' more of these people to the GOP.

    TRUE CONSERVATIVES CARE ONLY ABOUT IDEALS, and whether or not those ideals reflect the values upon which this Country was founded -- God, Country, Fiscal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, etc.

    The shared values of true Conservatives do not recognize nor pander to 'groups', but rather represent a call-to-arms for all Americans, regardless of race, age, gender, religion, or any other group to whom the other political parties pander.

    If the GOP wants to win, it simply needs to shine a light on the vast differences between Conservatives and Liberals.  Rather than running against an individual, our candidates need to run against the true Liberal beliefs.  You know, those wacky beliefs that Liberals, themselves, prefer not to mention until after they're elected (because they know most Americans would not share their radical views, so they have to keep them under wraps).

    When provided with information of good versus evil, human nature dictates that most people prefer to see themselves as good.  They prefer to see themselves as loving America rather than hating their own country. They prefer to see themselves as hard workers who drive our economy forward rather than viewing themselves as free-loaders.  Most Americans believe in individual freedoms rather than Government control over their lives.  When the GOP begins to point out these 'obvious' differences between the parties, most people will determine that they have more in common with the Conservatives, and would be embarrassed to be cast as a Liberal.

    I don't know Dennis (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Eric T on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    you said-
    Instead of going after the usual suspects for candidate recruitment, Republicans should commit to having 50 percent of State House candidates be under 35. Additionally, 50 percent of 2010 candidates should be women.

    50% under 35, the other 50% women???

    It sounds like you are throwing out all the White guys over 35, those are seasoned, experienced politicians, with proven consistent voting records, on issues you may be concerned with.

    It kind of sounds like an affirmative action program, or quota hiring.

    Take a look at the mess, that kind of stuff creates.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_firefighters_lawsuit

    Those kind of programs are great if your on the end, that is getting all the gravy and preferential treatment, but when your the one put at a disadvantage because of it you, are not going to like it.

    There needs to be a balance and drop stereotypes (none / 0) (#12)
    by Michigan Redneck on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 02:13:36 AM EST
    I do agree with this post, to a point.  Being an unmarried thirty something woman, when I have tried to get involved in Republican politics at the grassroots level, I think many in the party don't know what to think of Conservative women who are not married.  Many have stereotypes in the back of their heads.  Unmarried women past college age must be enviro-freak-pro-choice-feminist-lesbians.  Or so the thinking goes.  Or maybe they are just at the meetings to find a man.  When Republicans see unmarried women at meetings they aren't the none too friendly.
    I think it starts with meeting and greeting these women to find out what and why they are really trying to get involved.  Many may be surprised to find out that we believe in hard work, struggle to get by yet refuse to take handouts, are pro-life Christians and don't have ticking biological clocks.
    As for the exacted number of 50% women candidates, it should not be a quota.  It needs to start at accepting Conservative minded women at the grassroots level.  Then work from there.  If it's 50% then so be it.  If it's less then so be it.  If it's more then so be it.  But the main issue is drop stereotypes.
    Women can be conservative without the "perfect" husband, 2.3 kids, Yellow Lab, two car garage, white picket fence and SUV.

    Reaching Out, Yes; but as you propose... NO! (none / 0) (#19)
    by pauldpeterson on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    While I find the carrot at the end of this article's stick attractive, that we look to the future by reaching out to women and the upcoming youth, I find its means extremely disturbing.  To imply that a public cannot be represented properly by someone other than the demographic they're reaching out to is a high form of bias that we are trying to stamp out in this country.  In fact, I would daresay that many conservative women may even prefer representation by a man than a woman; it's not something you can presuppose.  There is evidence to support either view, showing it is a matter of personal preference, not something you can cast generally over an electorate. Same with the young; historically, the young look up to their mentors for guidance, and I believe, representation, at least after they're done being teens. ;)

    WHAT MATTERS MORE...

    What matters so much more is the substance of a candidate's core values, beliefs, platform, open-mindedness, willingness to listen and actually represent, ability to unify, and ability to stand up to criticism and attack, which will invariably come from a hateful Left.  What the Republican Party needs to stand for is standing against this kind of demographic pandering that results in wishy-washy values, based on the Left's interpretation of multiculturalism or demographic diversity, which has been sold so long to Americans, that even now, it eeks it's way into our (supposed-to-be-conservative) Republican Party.  (Incidentally, as a white male, I find it highly offensive and unprofessional, if that matters to anyone else.)

    Lastly, let's get something absolutely straight about DIVERSITY. The Left has used it as a means to DIVIDE people according to their demographic by continually pointing out policies of Diversity and producing 'Diversity Training' to industry that dwells on how Diversity means white males being considerate of other races and women (what about other races being considerate of the host of European sub-ethnicities in our culture, specifically ideas of honor and chivalry?). This in itself is divisive; white males are not the problem our society today, haven't been for a long time, not sure they ever were (en masse) as the feminist movement has besmirched their own gender so much that Freud, were he alive today, might accuse them of a mental illness he called 'penis envy'.  Conservative women are more concerned about actually BEING feminine and standing for right and against wrong, which I, for one, am staunchly in favor of and support whole-heartedly; this includes a lack of discrimination, yet encouraging fair competition and discouraging unfair double-standards.

    The Left pushes the slogan DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH; again this is WRONG.  UNITY IS STRENGTH; this is why their party is now stronger than ours. Ours is fractionalized and factionalized because some of us have bought their hype, having been misled, which is part of what I'm fighting against for the benefit of our party! While UNITY IS STRENGTH, what, then, is DIVERSITY, really?  DIVERSITY IS ADVANTAGE, which doesn't necessarily take the distilled form of demographics; rather, performance diversity. "All Men are created equal" (do I really have to insert here that 'Men' refers to 'huMANity'?); yet, a Man is also the sum of his deeds (again, women too!), meaning outcomes depend on what you do with yourself and your life.  Therefore, Diversity as Advantage is expressed even more in what people can DO in a group, NOT HOW THEY LOOK!!

    In Conclusion, we must Reach Out to groups we need to win through good marketing of our ideals, educating them on why we win in the Arena of Ideas, and engage them in conversations of substance, hopefully, purging them of the Lies from the Left; i.e., we need to carefully convince people to join us, not pander to demographics. It is also more a matter of Marketing the Republican Party properly, without sacrificing substance.  We can look to the future, and REACH OUT to the future, while standing on the RICH HERITAGE of our past as a party.  Getting away from that heritage is how we got into the wilderness in the first place.  Never make that mistake again!

    Paul "Revere" Peterson
    Conservative Patriot
    Internet Columnist

    DIVERSITY OF SUBSTANCE/PERFORMANCE... (none / 0) (#20)
    by pauldpeterson on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    What is wrong with our legislative bodies (and possibly our party's offerings), is that they are all lawyers (OK, so all/never are statements born of fallicy, but let's face it, MOST are lawyers). Other than our society generally having a dislike for lawyers as a profession (no offense to the good, conservative lawyers out there, but, hey, the jokes speak for themselves...kidding!), politicians usually play down their profession in favor of their platform. Oft times, this is because they're from rich families, coming from Law School directly into politics, never having had to make it in the private sector (hats off to the lawyers that have).  So where's the Diversity in our legislative bodies?  Must be that close to the entire population of those represented are lawyers, yes?   (Actually, we all know this answer to be NO.)

    We are losing our Constitution in government because lawyers are more interested in telling people what they CAN'T do than empowering them TO DO. Even now, lawyers in government are pridefully rewriting our way of life into their own image, even thinking they can run businesses they know nothing about, and for what? Because they've sold the electorate somehow on the idea that only lawyers can write law? Wrong!  I could rewrite the Tax Code on one page, if not a line or two. Translation into legalese or ensuring a new law doesn't unintentionally conflict with good existing law is what paralegals and staff lawyers are for (including any other legal issues involved).

    Therefore, perhaps we should concentrate on DIVERSITY of SUBSTANCE, PERFORMANCE, PROFESSION within our CONSERVATIVE UNITY in order to produce good laws and Constitutional Governance. After all, the Framers of the Constitution were...

    "Ben Franklin was the only really old man.  Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20's. Of the 56, almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers and politicians."
      -- Excerpt from Atty Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.'s speech, "Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"

    Paul "Revere" Peterson
    Conservative Patriot
    Internet Columnist

    Ladies and Gentlemen . . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kevin Rex Heine on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    . . . please permit me to introduce the one and only Paul Peterson.

    I've known this guy since my sophomore year of high school (79 - 80), and I can promise you that he is a rock-solid Reagan-style Republican.  He's also well capable of holding his own, if not mopping the deck with, any random troll lurking about on this site.

    Now all we need to do is get Tim on here, and The Trio will ride again.

    Welcome! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Brady on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    Welcome to Right Michigan, Mr. Paul Peterson!  I hope we'll see much more of you here!

    Do you have information that shows how many Michigan legislators are attorneys?  I didn't realize that most, or even a majority, were attorneys.  This information would be very helpful.

    In fairness (none / 0) (#29)
    by chetly on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 11:13:39 PM EST
    In fairness to Lennox on preferences, the public record is replete with evidence that he against preferences and supported Proposal 2.

    Recruitment is far different than preference, and I support the concept he envisions, although I am fearful the moment he assigned numerical goals that we're going down the road to quotas or preferences.

    Half of politics is showing up, according to the old saw.  It's true.

    I for one have advocated, along with Akindele Akinyemi, and others, that WE SHOW UP IN INNER CITIES.  That we ask minorities, women, and others run.  That we fear nothing in those requests, make NO ASSUMPTIONS, and act surprised when they say "well, I'm a Democrat, or traditionally voted D..."....

    Ask why?  Explain your values and beliefs ... LISTEN to what their values and beliefs are. Honestly. Match those values and beliefs to yours and ours both logically and emotively.

    Here's something the North Oakland Republican Club will do next month.  Members will go to a church in downtown Pontiac and serve food at a charitable event.  No direct politics but the organization names says enough.

    Multiply that by a 1000.

    OUTREACH.  Participation. No special catering or changing of policies or principles to "fit groups".  Stick to your guns - and explain them. Sincerely.

    It will take longer with African American geographic concentrations because there is both a longer history of our neglect and because the social concentration creates a peer pressure barrier where the first inputs will be slow and result in low outputs until you reach a tipping point to break through the social ice and defense layers the Democratic party has built up for years.  We already see though that African American populations that are in "diverse" neighborhoods have more diverse voting patterns and may be easier to reach - the same is true of all ethnicities and women.  Because they are less concentrated the social pressure and their own experience is wider and I can envision quicker turns of the tide within those demographics BUT WE HAVE TO WORK IT.

    "Affirmative action" never really meant "preference" until the left twisted the words. Republicans need to engage in affirmative actions with minorities - nothing numerical and no preference or selling out of values.  Straight truth ... repeated like every other successful message until it reaches through.


    Chetly Zarko
    Outside Lansing & Oakland Politics

    Chetly has it exact! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Michigan Redneck on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:12:01 AM EST
    Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to reply to chetly's comment.  I think many in the party are comfused between the differences of sending a clear message and pandering.  What chetly explains is sending a clear message.  What Democrats do is pander.  Messaging is "This is who we are.  This is what we believe.  I hope to see your vote in the next election."  Pandering is "Vote for me and you will recieve gubmint handouts."
    I know I am going to make people mad, but doesn't the Republican Party already pander?  e.g. Evangelicals?

    I believe the children are the future, but... (none / 0) (#35)
    by goppartyreptile on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    Our losses the last few cycles have a lot more to do with rolling over on our backs and yelling "please stop hitting me!" and not letting the people know what we stand for than whether or not we have enough youth/women/left handed goat herders, etc as candidates.

    Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that we have primaries in this state to winnow down our field of candidates, and the strongest usually survive.  So, the only way to get your desired result is to handpick candidates based on what demographic they meet, rather than their strength as a campaigner.  Or what they believe in.

    And, if that's the case, I hope you are pretty good at picking people that have a good work ethic, that are quick on their feet, and are willing to actually work... and know the issues.

    Oh, and have the right "look", and gender, and so on.  

    Bean counting and quotas and cherry picking demographically 'right' groups aren't how you win.

    Presenting a good case is how you win.  

    I'm quite sure that if you win your primary (and good luck, fyi) you'll win it because you are the best candidate and worked the hardest, not because everybody felt good about voting for a young guy.

    Too much social issues and not enough fiscal issue (none / 0) (#36)
    by Michigan Redneck on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 11:50:41 PM EST
    This is in reply to "In what way?" by jmfc

    The reason I think that the Republicans pander to Evangelicals is that I always know a candidate is pro-life and against gay marriage.  They shout it out loud with a bull horn.  They speak loud, but not as loud in regards to lower taxes.  Do they plan on getting rid of useless spending in order to lower taxes?  Or just lip service?  I never know diddly where a candidate stands on immigration issues.  I know we live in Michigan, but there's a saying something about whatever floods the cesspools of Cali, overflows into the rest of the country.  Where does the candidate stand on ridding the state and country of the welfare system?  Where does the candidate stand on seasonal workers?
    I think social issues should be left to families and churches. Being on the outside looking in I see a Christian candidate who happens to be a Republican.  I prefer a Conservative candidate, who may or may not be a Christian.  I used to sing the tune of Christianity = Republican, Republican = Christianity.  If Republicans can message to Christians without it being pandering, then they can leave their comfort zone and message out to minorities and women and it not be pandering.  
    As I had posted above about Republicans stereotyping women, I think that has a lot to do with the Evangelical influence.  Remember, God made Eve for Adam.  Not Adam for Eve.  So my thinking is that men need a wife more than women need a husband.  Yet, Republicans think unmarried men are cool, sexy and studly, while unmarried women are lonely, desperately and loserly.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!

    Related Links

    + Also by dennislennox
    create account | faq | search