Tag: GOP (page 5)

Welcome back.  Its part III.  And while Justin Amash may or may not "deserve" to be primaried, maybe its not such a bad idea. Right?

Anyhow, I don't like to simply complain about things for which I have no answer. Though I may sometimes do so, its just not constructive.

The bottom line is that with the way long time party elites, and the fresh stock of activists often clash, we have a dysfunctional mess.  Yes we all work together until at least one side is satisfied that there is no more advantage in doing so.  A situation that offers less opportunity for growth and advancement of either continuing political domination by the party power brokers OR for the strength of message that comes with core principled positions.  neither side winds up the winner for any longer term.  And it was only under the intense pressure of the circumstances that gave us the Tea Party, activist conservatives, and constitutional types which are willing to put up with the intense political bigotry found with the old guard.

If the party elite has not figured it out, most of those new political activists don't really care about party dominance. Its more of a means to end the disregard of our constitution and traditional values.  They simply want their voices back and want to be heard.  Most would likely be perfectly happy watching professional politicos straighten it up.

If only they would.

There IS a way to satisfy all sides. There is a way in which the 'elite' within the party lose nothing, gain the help needed to enhance party dominance, risk little in trust built relationships, and see better results out of government.  All the while, new activists and party members are able to influence, assist, and return the party to the rule of law principles the very name 'Republican' originates. And it compromises no one's principles or desires for equal opportunity.

I have stated or at least alluded to the concerns  either interest has. For the established members, its loss of power, both in the ranks occupying congress, and influence among local and state parties. For the 'insurgent' membership, it is the inability to wield influence in who represents true Republican and conservative principles.  Suspicions for the end result of either desire, making one side or the other incompatible.

Not exactly the way to build a successful party.

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.

And as well, any of the other elected Republicans.

Crazy thought for a staunch conservative, right? Perhaps. But not if one has had the philosophical disagreements still within the framework of that conservatism. Not if those disagreements extend into Republican governance. Not if any particular conservative part of the constituency still feels his or her best representation is not being made.

We'll get back to representative Amash, et al, in a little bit.  In the meantime, consider the way we now select our candidates.

We'll start and end with candidate "A".

Candidate "A" is recognized as most popular, recognizable, and is considered as such to be the most likely candidate to carry an election when facing the opposing team. Candidate "A" might be incumbent. Candidate "A" has a history of disagreeable positions, and in fact has historically held positions contrary to those stated in his or her party's platform. A voting record backs up the positions taken in the past, but Candidate "A" is (or claims to be ) contrite, has found error in the votes made, positions previously held, and now expects to be taken at word to represent the platform philosophy.

Candidate "A"'s predetermined ascendency creates friction in the party. Goals of principled activists are put at odds with those who simply want the win, have no philosophic grounding, or are willing to accept the lesser of evils in order to achieve party dominance. Presumably, that dominance enables the platform advancement.  Newer members see a sort of nepotism, and become turned off to party affairs, lose trust in leaders already in place, and are less likely to work toward overall party goals.

Fewer participate in the process of selection.  Fewer work towards the advancement of Republican platform ideals.

The chief symbol of the War on Christmas is the battle between the greetings "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays", with "Season's Greetings" making an occasional appearance.  Of course, there wouldn't be "Holidays" without Christmas.  The bizarre argument for using "Happy Holidays" is that some tiny fraction of the population would be offended by "Merry Christmas", so we must use a phrase that annoys far more people.  (But they're the wrong people, so who cares are them?)

Two recent polls have shown that 69% and 77% of Americans prefer "Merry Christmas".  The percentages of Republicans was 88% yet another poll.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/pdf/7006
http://www.goppolk.org/?p=1131

Yet some Republican leaders have taken a cowardly stand with the forces of political correctness rather than the vast majority of the Republican base.  Here is a list of the greetings used by prominent Republicans who have mailed or emailed me.

Rick Snyder: "Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays"
Brian Calley: "Seasons Greetings"
Bobby Schostak: "holiday season"
Saul Anuzis: "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays"
Bill Scheutte: "Happy Holidays"
Randy Richardville: "holiday season, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year"
Pete Hoekstra: "Merry Christmas"
Dan Horning (candidate for UM regent): "Warmest Holiday Wishes"
Jack Hoogendyk: "Merry Christmas"
Senator Tonya Schuitmaker: "Happy Holidays"
Rep. Margaret O'Brien: "Merry Christmas"
Speaker Jase Bolger: "A Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year!"
Kalamazoo GOP: "Merry Christmas"

Overall this cycle, about 13 percent of labor groups' political action committee contributions -- just over $2 million -- have gone toward GOP candidates, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That's still dwarfed by the nearly $14 million in union cash that's gone to Democrats this cycle, but the GOP appears to be gaining ground with union donors after receiving only 6 percent of total contributions in 2010 and 8 percent in the 2008 cycle.

Someone needs to have their backs as the suffocating grip of reality threatens their very existence.  Government-Union partnerships are soon to be a thing of the past, and the country will be better off for it.  

Also, as each of the traditionally safe Democrat seats become threatened even more, labor has a few buck left over with each cycle, and while the "big O" refuses to help with the pipeline thing to satisfy his ecologically nutty friends, they may not wish to give him their boost.  For now anyhow. I guess labor needs to show its own bipartisanship.

Right.

No, we shouldn't be surprised at this list containing at least ONE of Michigan's representatives hitting the teat of the big L. There are others just down the list, but shining the light on Candy M right now simply drives home how close some are to the dark side.

Tonight, eight Republican presidential candidates square off again for two hours of highly structured questions and answers.  This time, the debate takes place on the campus of Oakland University and will be televised by CNBC.  

What to expect?

At a correspondents breakfast this morning, debate moderators Maria Bartiromo and John Harwood forecast that the debate would center primarily around jobs and the economy.  The Michigan setting lends itself to that discussion, since the Enchanted Mitten is home to a reawakening automobile industry and a burgeoning renaissance of its own, courtesy of a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature.

Still, we won't escape more questions on the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations.  Should this be a topic during this precious time?  Good question, but here's why I think these questions will get asked:

1.  This is television, it's about viewers and ratings.  The prurient element is a big ratings-getter.

2.  It's the topic of the day, especially with Cain's press conference yesterday.

3.  The moderators will want to see whether the other seven will rise to the occasion (sorry about that) and try to take advantage of Cain's misfortune.

4.  Voters are certainly interested in whether a candidate can handle a crisis, especially since Obama has demonstrated he cannot.  These unconfirmed allegations may not be worthy of much, it's hard to say, but this is a situation where a nonsubstantive issue bumps up against the need to discern character, composure, and integrity.