RightMichigan.com || Amash Should Be Primaried

Advertise on RightMichigan.com

NEWS TIPS!

RightMichigan.com

Buzz

Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?
Tweets about "#RightMi, -YoungLibertyMI, -dennislennox,"

Raise the curtain.

Amash Should Be Primaried - Part II

By JGillman, Section News
Posted on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:39:26 PM EST
Tags: fear, GOP, Primaries, Elite, Establishment, Ideas, Conservatives, Republicans, Strength, Weakness, Electability (all tags)

The title as you have seen is more tongue-in-cheek than a direct challenge to representative Amash.

It is more of a call to open up challenges on those who might consider themselves to be safely elected in those wonderfully gerrymandered districts that are designed to protect the party's candidate to infinity. A wonderfully sought goal for those who hold the strings, and those who might have their strings held while "in power." How delicious it must be to know that the lack of core grounding can open the door to special favors, graft and outright corruption masked in the intent of good deeds. A narcissistic personality can thrive quite well where the ego stroked by proper lobbying can ignore conscience and responsibility.

Even the good men fall for the tall tales they hear about themselves. Even those who wander into office under the most idealistic attitudes soon find themselves courted by the sirens of special interest that have nothing in common with traditional values, or good conservative policy.

The debt ceiling vote by a number of our Republican legislators shows this. Michigan demonstrated the odds of overcoming without the fear of the electorate with its vote in support of saddling the kids with even more debt. The odds are 8-1 against principles holding true. And it happened quickly. And there would be no reason, but for commentary such as our own here, and a wall of shame to back it up, that they might consider a primary challenge on its way.

I wrote in part I, about a condition that calls out for challenges. It is clear the way that the system is stacked in favor of incumbents without regard to adherence to principles we understand as 'Republican', or at least conservative. Incumbents or party elite favorites eschew the debate process often in attempts to minimize the importance or equal standing of challengers with lesser name recognition. The strategy has its advantage for purposes of primary selection, but it undermines the candidate's support later in the race, and perhaps in subsequent election cycles.

There is fear of primaries by incumbents. There is disdain of those who would challenge party 'favorites' by the elite select. But the fear we need to recognize, is that by those who feel only frustration when trying to correct all that is essentially going to hell in this country.

Continued below ~

Its about those moderates. Those weak willed individuals who currently serve, or are apologetic for those who serve with no foundation. The favorites who "play by the rules" and engage only when told to engage. Nothing sets off a constitutional conservative like the knowledge a neo-socialist progressive is running on the Republican platform with the blessing of the party powers-that-be.

OK, maybe they are just moderates.

Why are conservatives afraid of 'moderate' elite favorites?
Because conservatives know that in the way it is, the selection by party, and election of such persons, represents in some ways, a worse loss of representation than if the other team wins. A win by a moderate means a conservative must either bear the sins of the flag carrier, or face the scorn and disdain mentioned already in the next race. A win by the opposite party, means only a cycle away is a chance to argue a message of principle, educate, and engage true conservative thought. An opportunity to speak up that is effectively silenced in the face of party machinery when the home team is in power.

"But, but, He votes 90% conservative!"

How does a conservative make the argument that Republican principles are not being advanced if he cannot face in a debate or in some form of dialogue another who purports to be Republican? A 80-90% conservative rating might seem fine, unless it is dissected in only a way that a challenge can bring. that 10% might well represent 80% of a core set of principles held by many. What if 9 out of 10 votes were to lower taxes, and the 1 out of ten representing a true constitutional principle? Taxes are subject to debate and frankly compromise, until they reach a level of confiscation. The right to life, or issues regarding to the federal government's true constitutional mission can be answered only with core convictions.

Conservative ratings can be completely misleading, and are used too often with no regard to the weight of the issues voted on.

A favored candidate presumed to be electable, or a moderate incumbent presumed to be unassailable because of party mechanics silences the voices of conservatives within the Republican party. The nightmare like silent scream of irrelevance is frustration amplified.

The conservative's fear is not one of self interest, but rather for the sake of the nation, and the waiting generations. The big picture.

The conservative fears the capitulation of moderates to the far left in the most Chamberlain like manner, where good will is expected from an unlikely place in the doggedly progressive other side. The inch given by the moderate Republican is the mile gobbled by the leftist takers who praise the gifts they receive from those who "just want to get along", while pilfering the wallet from everyone else in the room.

But the fear that conservatives have for our country is matched by the fear of others for their own positions of influence. The establishment elite fears a new insurgency of involved candidates, activists, and frankly, formerly disenfranchised voters.

But why are the 'elites' afraid of newcomers?
Naturally, those who already occupy an office would like to escape the unnecessary criticisms produced in a primary cycle. Who wants to hear about the mistakes they have made? Even honest folk have a hard time facing their own policy inventions that have gone bad, and usually the only answers they have considered would be to spin a reason to continue supporting them. A primary challenge brings these things forward for inspection by the most critical element; the voters.

Add to this, the cost of a primary can be quite high. Claims that there is no need to challenge the incumbent Republican are buttressed by groans of cost to the candidate. Costs, that have no place being spent in a fight among similar interests, but in facing down that evil "other side." A recent announcement of a potential primary challenger for Dan Benishek's seat in 2012 drives home the point.

The morning after I published GT County board chair Larry Inman's possibility of entering the race for congressional district 1, I received a call from a concerned Dan Benishek. His primary concern understandable in the way we proceed with such contests:

"I don't want to spend money in a primary fighting another Republican, when I will need it to fight McDowell."

Its a legitimate fear that the resources used in repeatedly deciding the flag bearer will undermine the efforts in the general election when facing a more complete ideological opposite.

Both interests have legitimate concern that we are losing a race because of a challenge, or fear of losing our party's collective soul because we are not.

In Part III (maybe) a solution, and a new reality.

< Amash Should Be Primaried - Part I | Second Democrat Official Sentenced in Fake Political Party Case >

Share This:

Amash Should Be Primaried - Part II | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)

whew (none / 0) (#1)
by Tom McMillin on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:34:24 AM EST

amash rocks.

I know... by JGillman, 01/11/2012 08:38:19 AM EST (none / 0)
He rocks except with a clear by maidintheus, 01/11/2012 12:25:49 PM EST (none / 0)

Funding HAMAS rocks? by Corinthian Scales, 01/13/2012 03:37:19 PM EST (none / 0)

Time for a Conservative Party? (none / 0) (#4)
by Pogo on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:56:27 PM EST

Quote: "A win by a moderate means a conservative must either bear the sins of the flag carrier, or face the scorn and disdain mentioned already in the next race. A win by the opposite party, means only a cycle away is a chance to argue a message of principle, educate, and engage true conservative thought."

Which is a slightly too polite statement of the reason why I'm not going to vote for Romney in November. We've all seen what the semi-Democrat syndrome is, the same results at a slightly slower and less noticeable pace. If a Bush/Romney-type office holder drags this country down with continuing handouts, increasing the $15 trillion of debt, who do the voters turn to for an alternative? Far better to let Obama crash and burn the whole thing, and have an a clear path to reverse the damage afterward. Sooner or later the debt ceiling is going to fall in on us - things that can't go on indefinitely, don't. I look forward to it happening during a Democrat administration, with full credit for policy choices where due. Another possibility to consider would be that, if the convention confirms present trends, this is the right year to start a third party movement, because the presidential race looks like a write-off already anyway.