Tag: Primaries (page 2)

Trips.  Trifecta. Three times the fun last night for Republican contender Rick Santorum as he CRUSHED the competition in MN, MO, and with Fox News beating to death the "beauty contest" meme, CO. Santorum might see some trophies for his wins in those states in the form of a revitalized campaign account and new tires for his pick up.

The big losers? Mitt and Newt.

Particularly Mitt.  Polling had put Mitt in the lead in CO, and conventional wisdom proved wrong for some counties.  The presumed leader having those counties pulling for Mitt 60% against McCain in 2008, give the Mitten State's son a 20% finger. A bad night for Romney, as even "non binding" votes show a trend that should scare the bejeezuz J. Smith out of establishment Romney supporters.

He has high negatives.  Very high.

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 lefties are in charge, their EPA is destroying business, the justice department is destroying our borders, the president is destroying our world standing as a super power, the treasury and fed destroying our currency, the previous congress has set the timer for self destruct on healthcare, and the current and presumably 'better' congress cannot even show the skills needed to stop the fiscal bleeding. Michigan's own congressmen have been stitching their fingers together ala super committees, and even the good doctor Dan has wrapped the gauze a little too tightly choking off the air that provides for common sense.

How important is 2012 to you?

Think death-star-about-to-blow-up-the-planet kind of important.

"It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters. "

An article by John Hawkins on 7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability Is A Myth was a reminder that there are people who are more motivated by charisma, charm, and I might dare say 'gravitas', than by substantive policy concern. Hawkins starts off:

"1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

Let's be perfectly honest; Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin. To everybody else, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama is a "lesser of two evils" election where we'll grudgingly back Mitt because we won't lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets anyone fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards. "