As House Bill 4714 (2013) was rapidly transitioning from "read a second time" to "substitute H-3 adopted and amended" to "placed on third reading" to "read a third time" to "placed on immediate passage" to "passed; given immediate effect" . . . yes, transitioning just that quickly (the proof starts on page 24 of House Journal # 59) . . . I was in conversation with, among others, Dara Bailey (Vice President & National Vetting Director of iCaucus National). She offered to commit national resources to help the liberty-minded network in Michigan do what needs to be done to visit political punishment on every single legislative turncoat next summer. All that we need to do as a statewide movement is to use Joanie's screencap of 2013 House Roll Call # 241 as a motivator to set aside our nationally infamous internecine squabbling, and work as a cohesive machine toward a larger goal.
Before I get started, let me quickly update and revise a definition that I used about four months ago:
liberty-minded network: (short for "liberty-minded, tea party, conservative grassroots network") referring collectively to a loosely-networked quasi-alliance of grassroots organizations who have a common advocacy for constitutionally-restrained government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free-market capitalism. These organizations specifically include the Campaign for Liberty, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Michigan Conservative Political Action Conference, iCaucus, the Michigan Conservative Union, and the tea party network (among others).
It should have been obvious to even the most thick-headed of the blueblood elites inhabiting the Michigan Republican Party halls of power that a message was sent both at the May 2012 State Convention and at the February 2013 State Convention. The liberty-minded network is committed to principled cause first, and loyal to a political party only to the extent that the party serves the purpose of the cause. (Hell, we've been sending that message since the August 2010 State Convention.) One particular grassroots organization made it very clear to every candidate that they've endorsed since 2010 that ignoring constitutional principles and refusing to defend the state against a federal takeover is flatly unacceptable. The "Priority A-1" concerns of the network are state sovereignty and constitutionally-restrained government, and every other matter must - as far as they're concerned - be considered in the context of those two priorities.
iCaucus, an organization that I'm quite fond of, has an overarching benchmark in every election cycle. Specifically, that on election night, not less than 40% of the available seats be filled by officials-elect who are fiscal, social, and most importantly constitutional conservatives. To my knowledge, that benchmark has never been realized on a national scale, nor am I aware of any state chapter that has hit the mark on a statewide level. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done, and I'm thinking that if we're truly serious about reclaiming the Wolverine State in the name of liberty, then we need to adopt that as our goal for the 2014 election cycle.
Which brings me back to my original thought, that if our elected leadership can't be bothered to properly defend Michigan against a federal takeover, then I'm thinking it's high time we replaced them with leadership who will. In 2014, the full membership of both state legislative chambers, all four executive seats, eight education seats, every county commission seat, all 14 U. S. House seats, and three Michigan Supreme Court seats (plus a vacant U. S. Senate seat) will be up for election. I'm envisioning a plum opportunity for the liberty-minded network to teach the "party of Engler" an election-year lesson for the sole purpose of making a point.
Keep in mind that in 2014, if we're going to be successful, then we're going to have to be selective with our targets, because if we try to get everyone, then we ultimately get no one. Our objective is to "take over" 40% of the total number of seats available (regardless of which party is currently holding those seats), whether by primary or convention or general ouster. Between federal, statewide non-federal, and state legislative, a total of 178 seats will be up for election, of which 40% is (178 × 0.4 = 71.2) approximately 72 federal and state seats that need to be taken over by the combined strength of the liberty-minded network.
Of necessity this means that we will have to subject some sitting "republican" officials to the receiving end of a primary challenge. On the other hand, any sitting official who is a known to be a fiscal, social, and/or constitutional conservative, who is eligible for reelection and standing for reelection, counts toward the number of total targeted seats (though in this case as a "retain" instead of as a "flip"). By the way, any seats currently held by democrats that we can flip in the general election also count toward the totals, including if we can flip them in the democrat primaries. There's nothing written anywhere that a democrat can't be a fiscal, social, and/or constitutional conservative. Granted, in today's political climate they'll be tough to find, but they do exist. (I'd recommend starting our search in this regard with Scott Dianda - HD-110, Calumet - who was the lone Democrat "no" vote on both 2013-HB-4111 and 2013-HB-4714.)
Let me sidebar briefly and point out that, when I'm talking about flipping or defending seats, I am most assuredly not referring to major party affiliation. I couldn't care less which major party is currently holding a targeted seat, nor should the network. The "flip or defend" that I'm referring to here is conservatism (regardless of whether fiscal, social, or constitutional). Ignoring completely the major party banner in question, hitting our 2014 election night benchmark of state-level conservatism will also strike a major blow in reclaiming the Great Lakes State for state sovereignty and individual liberty.
Admittedly, however, a good chunk of the work we'll need to do will involve either running exactly one reliably-conservative candidate for a republican vacancy nomination (regardless of how many contenders actually enter the ring) or running exactly one challenger in a primary contest against a squishy "republican" incumbent. The reason for carefully keeping it to one known conservative in each targeted contest is to avoid diluting the conservative vote, thus allowing the milquetoast moderate to win a primary plurality.
We'll start with the vacancies that need to be upgraded
(listed numerically by district)
State Senate vacancies to be targeted, based on 2011-SRC-663:
District 13 (John Pappageorge of Troy is termed out): voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693, but is indicating that he will vote "no" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up
District 17 (Randy Richardville of Monroe is termed out)
District 28 (Mark Jansen of Cutlerville is termed out) . . . however, I notice that he's still got one term remaining on his lifetime limit in the State House. Pete MacGregor (HD-73, Rockford) may forego his third term in the State House to run for this vacancy.
District 32 (Roger Kahn of Saginaw is termed out) . . . however, I notice that he's still got two terms remaining on his lifetime limit in the State House
Thus, there are 3 Senate vacancies (counting only the names in boldface) that we should ensure are filled with fiscal, social, and/or constitutional conservatives in next year's primary.
State House vacancies to be targeted, based on 2013-HRC-11 and 2013-HRC-241:
District 19 (John Walsh of Livonia is termed-out)
District 38 (Hugh Crawford of Novi is termed-out)
District 42 (Bill Rogers of Brighton is termed-out)
District 43 (Gail Haines of Lake Angelus is termed-out)
District 44 (Eileen Kowall of White Lake is termed-out)
District 47 (Cindy Denby of Fowlerville is termed-out): It should be noted that Denby has pre-emptively endorsed Henry Vaupel in what's currently expected to be a four-horse primary to replace her, but as I've mentioned previously, we already have a principled contender for this vacancy.
District 59 (Matt Lori of Constantine is termed-out): This is the douche-canoe who not only introduced 2013-HB-4714, but also attempted to introduce the NPV enabling legislation last year.
District 69 (Jase Bolger of Marshall is termed-out)
District 90 (Joe Haveman of Holland is termed-out): This is the slimeball who introduced 2013-HB-4111 in exchange for a job on Snyder's second-term administration. I can just about guarantee you that the "dutch mafia" in Ottawa County is going to do their damnedest to stick an establishment moderate into this vacancy.
District 98 (Jim Stamas of Midland is termed-out)
District 104 (Wayne Schmidt of Traverse City is termed-out): Jason, I think this is effectively your seat to take.
Thus, there are 11 House vacancies that we should ensure are filled with fiscal, social, and/or constitutional conservatives. Oh, and if any of these lower house losers are even thinking about running for a "promotion" to the State Senate next year, then we ought to promptly shift the seat in question into the "Worthy of Primary Challenge" category . . . toot sweet.
And now the potential primary targets
(listed alphabetically by surname)
State Senate incumbents (identified based on the votes cast on final passage of 2011 Senate Bill 693, to create the state ObamaCare Exchange):
Booher, Darwin (District 35, Evart): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693, and is indicating that he will vote "yes" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up
Caswell, Bruce (District 16, Hillsdale): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693
Emmons, Judy (District 33, Sheridan): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693
Green, Michael (District 31, Mayville): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693. Based on his March 6th floor speech, he may have redeemed himself on this one, and intel indicates that he has flipped to a "no" vote on 2013-HB-4714.
Goeff Hansen (District 34, Hart): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693, and is indicating that he will vote "yes" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up. I have it on good authority that the Michigan Campaign for Liberty has this guy flagged as a priority target for primary ouster, and this vote is just one aggravating factor amongst many.
Hildenbrand, Dave (District 29, Lowell): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693. This guy's been a major disappointment to iCaucus Michigan; disciplinary action will be forthcoming if he tries to renew their endorsement.
Jones, Rick (District 24, Grand Ledge): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693. Intel indicates that he may have flipped to a "no" vote on 2013-HB-4714, but this is unconfirmed as of this writing.
Kowall, Mike (District 15, White Lake): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "no" on 2011-SB-693, but is indicating that he will vote "yes" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up
Marleau, Jim (District 12, Lake Orion): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693, and is indicating that he will vote "yes" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up. This is the wizard who introduced 2011-SB-693, thus allowing the federal foot in the door in the first place.
Meekhof, Arlan (District 30, West Olive): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2011-SB-693
Nofs, Mike (District 19, Battle Creek): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "no" on 2011-SB-693, but is indicating that he will vote "yes" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up
Rocca, Tory (District 10, Sterling Heights): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "no" on 2011-SB-693, but is indicating that he will vote "yes" when 2013-HB-4714 comes up
That's an additional 11 Senate seats (counting only the names in boldface), unless we have good reason to believe that any of them are going to commit to a "no" vote before Tuesday (though the bill isn't yet on the Senate Calendar as of this writing). Wes Nakagiri, over at RetakeOurGov, is leading a collection and dissemination effort of as-up-to-date-as-possible intel on which of the "republican" senators stands where on HB-4714 (though he's using the pre-2011 apportionment plan instead of the current one). Here's the Senate contact list, sic `em.
State House incumbents (identified based on the votes cast on final passage of 2013 House Bill 4111, to fund the ObamaCare Exchange, and 2013 House Bill 4714, to accept the Medicaid Expansion):
Callton, Mike (District 87, Nashville): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
Forlini, Anthony (District 24, Harrison Township): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
Foster, Frank (District 107, Petoskey): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111, "yes" to discharge 2013-HB-4714 from committee, and "yes" on final passage of HB-4714
Glardon, Ben (District 85, Owosso): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
Heise, Kurt (District 20, Plymouth): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111, but voted "no" on 2013-HB-4714
Jacobsen, Bradford (District 46, Oxford): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
Kesto, Klint (District 39, Commerce Township): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714. This was the one republican State House pickup in the 2012 election cycle . . . not a keeper
LaFontaine, Andrea (District 32, Richmond): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Was a "no" vote on the exchanges (and was expected to stay that way on the expansion), but became a turncoat and voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4714
Lyons, Lisa (District 86, Alto): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714. For someone who's allegedly one of CPAC's "rising stars," she's developed a bad habit of voting in lockstep with party leadership.
MacGregor, Peter (District 73, Rockford): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111, but is planning to vacate this seat in order to run for Mark Jansen's senate vacancy (District 28). Based on conversations with him, and tea party leadership in his district, I'm convinced that the backlash heat from 2013 House Roll Call 11 compelled him to "see the light." He voted "no" on 2013-HB-4714, and was a leader of the principled resistance this time around.
MacMaster, Greg (District 105, Kewadin): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111. He was expected to vote "no" on final passage of 2013-HB-4714 (based on the backlash heat from 2013 House Roll Call 11 and his own promises), but ultimately voted yes when 2013-HRC-241 was called. Have reason to suspect that he brokered a deal with caucus leadership in order to obtain passage of an anti-A21 bill that he'll be introducing after the recess.
McCready, Michael (District 40, Bloomfield Hills): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
O'Brien, Margaret (District 61, Portage): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Was a "no" vote on the exchanges (and was expected to stay that way on the expansion), but became a turncoat and voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4714
Pagel, David (District 78, Berrien Springs): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111, "yes" to discharge 2013-HB-4714 from committee, and "yes" on final passage of HB-4714
Poleski, Earl (District 64, Jackson): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
Potvin, Phil (District 102, Cadillac): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111, but voted "no" on 2013-HB-4714
Price, Amanda (District 89, Holland): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714. This is an establishment moderate that the Ottawa County "dutch mafia" will attempt to protect.
Pscholka, Al (District 79, Stevensville): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714. This is an establishment progressive that the Upton Machine will attempt to protect.
Shirkey, Mike (R - District 65, Clark Lake): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Was a "no" vote on the exchanges and originally a "hell no" vote on the expansion, but flipped and voted "yes" both to discharge 2013-HB-4714 from his committee as well as on final passage. It should also be noted that, during the Second Reading (when the bill was open for amendment), his amendments were the only ones "gaveled through" for approval. He's been trying to fend off calls for a primary challenge by using all the good he's done on behalf of the liberty-minded network to counterbalance one bad vote. I'm going to get back to that.
VerHeulen, Rob (District 74, Walker): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111. Given that the very grassroots organization that leveraged his primary win last year publicly reprimanded him for that vote, I believe that he "saw the light," as evidenced by his "no" vote on 2013-HB-4714. However, there are some local tea party elements that aren't exactly fans of this guy, so expect some debate over whether or not he should be on the final version of this list.
Yonker, Ken (R - District 72, Caledonia): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Was a "no" vote on the exchanges (and was expected to stay that way on the expansion), but became a turncoat and voted "yes" both to discharge 2013-HB-4714 and on final passage. He told me in a conversation after the committee vote was taken that he believes that his vote is the correct one for the people of Michigan, even though he remains a principled opponent of ObamaCare implementation. If I had the Grover Cleveland necessary to bankroll the exploratory phase of a primary campaign, lying around in personal disposable cash, I'd canvass the district myself.
Zorn, Dale (District 56, Ida): Eligible for re-election in 2014. Voted "yes" on 2013-HB-4111 and on 2013-HB-4714
That's an additional 18 seats (counting only the names in boldface) that we can combine with the 11 vacancies, for a total of 27 House seats to be targeted for either upgrade or flipping.
But to do this right means that we cannot overreach in our efforts.
Remember my earlier admonition that we must be selective with our targets if we want to be successful in next year's elections. (I mean it; if we try to get everyone, then we ultimately get no one.) The liberty-minded network must focus like a laser on not one chair more than the aforementioned 72 "targeted" federal and state seats, 40% of the total number of 178 federal and state-level seats available, or we risk stretching ourselves too thin and compromising our effectiveness. If we're going to break them down a bit more by ballot level, then this is what it'd look like based on what we've discussed so far:
Total seats available = 15 × 0.4 = 6 seats to "flip or defend"
House Seats to Defend: Justin Amash (R-MI-03), Tim Walberg (R-MI-07), and Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI-11), if any of them choose to stand for reelection in their current seats
Other House Seats, Republican: I can think of three or four that have earned the receiving end of a primary challenge, but none that are otherwise worth committing resources that can be better used elsewhere.
Other House Seats, Democrat: In 2010, Rob Steele came tantalizingly close to unseating the Dingellsaurus (15th, now 12th), and in 2012, two Democrat-held seats (5th and 9th) could have been flipped if the MIGOP had simply committed the resources to do so. With Gary Peters (14th) vacating his seat to run for the Senate vacancy, there's a potential to flip any one of these blue seats to at least blue dog, but there's still the "worth it" question that has to be answered first.
The Senate Seat: With Terri Lynn Land in, Mike Rogers out, and a dozen other known potential candidates who may yet get in, this one may or may not yet be worth it as far as the liberty-minded network is concerned. TLL is at least receptive to our concerns and subscribes to our principles; I suspect she's more "one of us" than is publicly known. Justin Amash may yet choose to vacate his congressional seat to challenge for this one, but I don't think that iCaucus Michigan can guarantee his re-endorsement if so.
So, three targeted seats for sure, and maybe one other, with a great big question mark on whether we identify two other seats for takeover, or whether we commit those resources to a fight elsewhere on the ballot.
Statewide Non-Federal
(executive, educational, and judicial)
Total seats available = 15 × 0.4 = 6 seats to "flip or defend"
Education Seats: I'm not automatically ruling any of these out, but since these seats are typically the ultimate in low-profile partisan elections, and since the top of the ticket usually carries these (due to the "straight ticket" option), I can't think of any that would be worth the commitment of network resources. But that's subject to change.
Judicial Seats: Justice Brian K. Zahra's partial term expires on January 1st, 2015. Justice Michael F. Cavanagh's full term expires the same day, but whether or not he stands for re-election in 2014 will depend on whether the statutory age limit is lifted. Justice David F. Viviano is the Snyder appointee to fill the Hathaway vacancy, who must stand for voter ratification in November 2014 (to fill the unexpired term ending January 1st, 2017). I think that the liberty-minded network will put a priority on helping Justice Zahra retain his seat, but the other two seats are an open question for now.
Executive Seats to Defend: Ruth Johnson was iCaucus endorsed in 2010, and so far as I'm aware has given the liberty-minded network no reason to regret that decision. Whatever political animosity anyone may have had toward Bill Schuette in the wake of the August 2010 State Convention has largely dissipated in the face of his vigorous defense of the state against the federal leviathan (though the Legislature and the Governor seem to insist on backdooring us at every turn). I would think that defending these two seats is pretty much a given, as well as a priority.
Executive Seats to Flip: If I need to explain why Governor Rick Snyder needs to be primaried to the regular reader of this site, then y'all haven't been paying attention. The trick, as I've said before, is to run exactly one challenger against him, so as to avoid a repeat of the 2010 primary. We also need to have that challenger nailed down by the time of the Biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference (September 20 - 22, 2013). And I recommend that we don't wait until the One Rough Turd has figured out how to get off the fence on whether he's going to run in next year's election. My guess is that the Nerd King is dragging his feet on purpose, gambling that he can coax potential challengers to reveal themselves out of impatience. Slick Rick has already gone on record as not being overmuch concerned with what the tea partiers think (like that's a surprise), so let's patiently line up our ducks, and then "pull the trigger" only when the time comes.
So, four targeted seats for sure, with eleven other options in this category for us settle on two for takeover, or resources that can be used elsewhere on the ballot.
Michigan State Senate
Total seats available = 38 × 0.4 ≈ 16 seats to "flip or defend"
Vacancies to "Upgrade": Three seats as discussed above
Incumbents who are Worthy Primary Targets: Potentially eleven seats, as discussed above, unless any of them switch their votes on HB-4714
Senate Seats to Defend: Two that I can think of. Patrick Colbeck (R-07, Canton) and David Robertson (R-26, Grand Blanc) were both iCaucus Michigan endorsed in 2010. I'm aware that there are some in the liberty-minded network aren't all that thrilled with these two, and are likely to balk a bit at the suggestion that we defend them. I'm fine with that, but I'll get back to that point in a bit.
So, all sixteen targeted seats here have been tentatively identified.
Michigan House of Representatives
Total seats available = 110 × 0.4 = 44 seats to "flip or defend"
Vacancies to "Upgrade": Eleven seats as discussed above. And let me be very clear about something that I said earlier: any of these loser house losers who might even think about running for a "promotion" to the State Senate next year will find himself promptly listed under "Incumbents who are Worthy Primary Targets"
Incumbents who are Worthy Primary Targets: At least 18 and potentially 21 seats, as discussed above.
House Seats to Defend: This may provide us the option of committing some defensive resources to protecting the Representatives who consistently voted against party leadership to preserve Michigan's state sovereignty and defend Michigan's economy against federal takeover. The "list of 26" is a good place to start.
Wow, that's between 50 and 58 seats that are worth consideration for a commitment of network resources. In order to not lose focus and waste network resources, we are going to have to pare this list down a bit.
Concluding Thoughts
As I said back in my opening thoughts, as royally outraged as we rightly are over this high-profile betrayal of our state by party leadership who was supposed to know better, we're going to have to be highly selective in our targeting for the 2014 primary campaign, or we're not going to be doing much more than very noisily spinning our wheels. Our network objective is to "take over" 40% of the total number of federal and state seats available in the 2014 elections in Michigan (regardless of which party is currently holding those seats), whether by primary or convention or general ouster. Since there will be 178 such seats up for election, if we try to secure more than (178 × 0.4 = 71.2) 72 state and federal seats, then we risk spreading ourselves too then, and may ultimately get none of them.
Though I mentioned them initially, I left the several county commission seats (all of which will be up for election next year, so far as I'm aware) out of my calculations for a reason. As a statewide network, we're going to have our hands full with the 72 aforementioned seats that we need to take; though any tea party, liberty campaign, or grassroots conservative organization that wants to divert some of their group's resources to impact their home county is certainly well within their individual authority to do so. The only advice that I have in this regard is to keep the 40% benchmark in mind, and to not get spread too thin.
A popular defense that our legislative turncoats are using to attempt to tamp down any criticism or primary threats stemming from their betrayal is what I label the "Corinthian Scales Fallacy." Their main argument will be that they've done so much good for us (such as the Workplace Fairness and Equity Act) that we in the network ought to be willing to let one or two bad votes slide, and get the hell off their backs. However, as I mentioned a shade over three months ago, the liberty-minded network operates on an "Absolute Standard" basis; all the good votes on the planet don't buy you a free pass on a scorecard vote on a core issue. Principles matter; whoring out your principles and destroying the party brand in exchange for favorable treatment from compromised leadership pretty much guarantees that the conservative base will either personally see to your ouster, or will sit your election out (including by leaving your contest on the ballot blank, which arguably sends a much stronger message than voting third party).
Don't be surprised either if the ones we settle on as primary targets try to invoke the "Reagan Card" when we start raking their record over the coals. The correct response, as I've pointed out and as Jen has pointed out, is that Reagan's Eleventh doesn't protect a primary opponent's record (provided the criticism is presented honestly). Also, while we're busy rightly crucifying legislative turncoats, we need to consider the option of devoting some resources to supporting the legislators who twice voted against party leadership to preserve Michigan's state sovereignty and defend Michigan's economy against federal takeover.
By no means take my list of potential targets as necessarily absolute (especially given that the list ultimately goes to between 73 and 82 names or seats, which is one to ten more than we can afford to engage). First, there may be valid reasons other than lack of resources to primary someone I've "red flagged" or to defend someone I've "green flagged." There's also nothing that says that we have to break the 72 targets down by ballot contest (or even that we have to actually fill all 72 target slots). I've provided what I've provided to get the conversation started.
The Mackinac Conference (traditionally the kickoff of the Michigan Republican partisan campaign cycle) is a shade over 96 days away yet, so we have some time to have the necessary discussion to whittle the list down and build consensus amongst the leadership of the various network organizations. But those 96 days will go quickly, so we need to get the discussions going now. Also, we need to continue efforts that I identified in another strategy article to adequately populate and engage the statewide precinct delegate network. If we control that network, then we have an unseen upper hand in determining how those primary elections will break.
Party leadership, at every level, can be expected to do a considerable amount of kvetching because the liberty-minded network isn't going to spread its efforts out to cover the party's priorities.
First, we should remind them . . . again . . . that they answer to us, not the other way around, and that the liberty-minded network is committed to principled cause first, and loyal to a political party only to the extent that the party serves the purpose of the cause.
Second, we should note that these are often the same politicos who typically cannot be bothered to darken the door of a tea party meeting outside of campaign season, and seem to treat the liberty-minded network like shock troops who can be summoned to do the party's bidding, and will willingly sacrifice ourselves in their trenches.
Third and finally, the 2011 Reapportionment was deliberately drawn to enhance party incumbency in each seat. They made the bed, they can lie in it. Figure out the other 106 seats on your own.
