Saturday, 27 February 2010
The Chair's Decision Is Not Subject To Question
That might be called
"How to Chair a Meeting Jack Murtha Style"
Those who viewed the above video might be thinking, "That is Wrong"
In my opinion they would be correct.
My opinion, however is not universal, there are some who deem that is exactly how to Chair a Meeting.
I recall experience a sense of confusion during the times I witnessed the Chair of the Republican Party State Convention, refusing to recognize Calls for Division, or saw a County Chair refusing to recognize an Appeal of the Chair's decision. Numerous occasions during County meetings when questioners were met by a declaration, of Out of Order by Fiat.
My thinking got foggy and I wondered, "How did I get into a meeting run the way Progressive Liberal Democrats run them?"
I mean I THOUGHT I was in a meeting held by the Republican Party, but what was happening was NOT what I thought the Republican Party stood for.
I have certain concepts that I hold Sacred
One: The Foundation of Democracy is respect for the Will of the Electorate, with due consideration for the Rights of the Minority and limited by Constitutions, By-Laws, Rule of Order, which spell out the Powers of the State and Rights of Individuals and those areas in which the State,
MUST NOT INFRINGE.
Two: That Constitutions, By-Laws, Rules of Order have MEANING. They mean what they SAY and not what someone WISHES they mean.
There are those who think that Constitutions are Living, Pliable Documents that can be altered in definition to fit a desired outcome.
They feel that matters of import are best left to an elite who know what is best and the rest of us should sit quietly until they make our decisions for us and tell us what we should do.
That we should submit to Centralized Control of Society.
In my opinion, this attitude permeates our National, State and Local Government and must be challenged and changed.
For us here locally, I think we need to start by cleaning our own house,
If not here, where?
If not now, when?
What are YOUR thoughts??
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Of Sausages and Politics and Things That Go Bump In The Night
They say that anyone who is upset by the sight of something Ugly should not watch Sausage being made or Politics in Action
and that Things That Go Bump In The Night usually refers to something Ugly and Menacing Lurking in the Darkness .
I have avoided watching Sausage being made, but I did experience the other 2 on a Tuesday Night recently.
I think at times I have become a relic of a forgotten age. In our present era where we are surrounded by varying hues of Gray, I am told I think in terms of Black and White, that I have too rigid a concept of things such as Constitutions, By-Laws and Rules of Order.
I might say I am Sorry about that but I am not.
When, for instance I look at Section VIII of the
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF LINN COUNTY
and see
The Executive Committee is subject to the orders of the Linn County Central Committee, and none of its acts shall conflict with actions of the Linn County Central Committee.
The term none, means never, not at all.
To me it does not mean, "unless we feel like it", or "unless we decide we know what is best."
It just means it is not supposed to happen,
But then I have simple modes of thinking.
So when the Executive Board took it upon itself to change the meeting place last spring and later decided to close the Party Office.
Both of which were established by Votes of the Central Committee, what comes to my Mind is "That is wrong"
Yes I still think in such outmoded terms of Right and Wrong,
I lack nuance.
A Rule is Followed or it is Broken.
When I read in the
BY-LAWS OF THE LINN COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
IX. RULES OF ORDER
Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall prevail unless modified by these by-laws.
I actually think Robert's Rules of Order are to Obeyed.
Silly me.
So when I see some one like John King rising to present a motion based on Robert's Rules of Order and QUOTING from a Text of them, only to be Ignored and Ruled Out of Order.
Again I have the simplistic reaction of
That is WRONG.
Taken in isolation, complaints about actions over the last year could be construed as "nit picking"
Taken in total they comprise a "Pattern of Behavior"
When anyone has risen to object to anything they deem to be irregular they are invariably ruled "Out of Order"
When a member of the Executive Board has spoken out of turn, not in keeping with the Strictures of Robert's Rules of Order they have been Recognized Ex post Facto, after the fact.
I do not make the claim that this is a local problem.
It is not.
I was at the last State Convention, if you were not in attendance I suggest you query someone who was to verify the following.
There was controversy over the selection of delegates.
The Convention was informed by a Member of the Rules Committee as to the Proper manner of amending the National Delegate List.
That method was implemented and when it was in the process there was a hasty motion to end debate.
The Chair recognized the Voice Vote as affirming closing debate and motions.
Had that been limited to the Decision by the Chair all would have been in order.
BUT
The Chair refused to hear Calls for Division.
I know this for a fact. I was there. I too called for Division.
Members holding microphones Called For Division.
It was not the case that the Chair did not hear.
It was the case that the Chair FLAGRANTLY violated
The Rules of Procedure.
Which seem to apply only to us, not to them.
We are told if we object that we are creating controversy which will hinder Republicans from being elected.
I say that is the Solid Wast Product of a Male Bovine.
WE have NOT created this controversy, we are reacting to Improper Actions.
So what should we do?
Our Committee is charged with the Management of Affairs of the Republican Party in this County, the Executive Board is charged with Routine Business between meetings and to advise and assist the Central Committee.
This not what is being followed.
Sit quietly while our Constitution, By-Laws and Rules of Order are ripped into shreds?
Wait to be told what decisions have been made by others for us to follow?
So that Republicans chosen by them can be elected?
This reminds me of a Soviet Era Anecdoti.
Where was the First Soviet Election?
Eden
God ripped a rib out of the side of Adam, made Eve
And said
Now choose a Wife
Anyone else feeling a pain in their side?
But It Was the Very BEST Butter
The Mad Hatter is very upset that the Butter he and the March Hare had applied to his watch gummed up the works.
Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.
`It was the best butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.
Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'
The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the best butter, you know.'
After attending the February Central Committee Meeting, I feel like I was at a Mad Tea Party, and I do have the distinct impression that we were Buttered.
Those who have attended in the past will recall the Chair's statements insisting that the Constitution, By-Laws and Robert's Rules of Order be followed by the Body.
I said the statements have been made about the actions of the Body, because it would appear the the Chair does NOT feel such restrictions should apply to it.
There has been in the Past and repeated during the February Central Committee Meeting a complete disregard by the Chair of the Rules of Order, the County Constitution, the By-Laws of the Linn County Central Committee, Robert's Rules of Order and activities that Traditionally occur as part of the Agenda,
There were those attending who patiently waited for the New Business period to rise and make Motions, as has been customary in the Past.
Myself I was primary waiting for the Traditional Call for New Members.
I have been repeatedly assured by the Executive Board during the period of the Past Year that the complete disgrace of our incorrect Membership Lists would be corrected by this just Passed Caucus.
I distinctly discussed with them during my participation in the Compilation of the Forms following the Caucus, that the Membership List should be purged and a New one created out of the Caucus Form As and that those who had previously been added to the Central Committee Lists under the designation in our By-Laws as Assistant Committee Persons, would be required to appear back before the Committee to be put back on the Rolls, myself included.
They decided to leave the Call for New Members OUT?
It would appear that the Chair is curiously selective about what portions of our proceedings that traditionally occur should be followed or feels that this only applies to the Body but not to it.
It would seem that we unwittingly voted to accept an Agenda that only included those items the Executive Board listed,
That was a rather clever Parliamentary Trick, and had that been the only action taken by the Chair it would have been in Order.
BUT
Robert's Rules of Order includes Suspending the Rules, which if voted upon by a Majority would have allowed extra items to be Moved and Voted upon and a Call for New Members made.
The Chair ruled that Motion Out of Order.
When Mr King rose to Challenge the Decision of the Chair and QUOTED Robert's Rules of Order he was Ruled Out of Order and Not Recognized by the Chair.
I present for you the Inconvenient Truth of Robert's Rules of Order for you to read yourself.
21. Questions of Order and Appeal.When a member wishes to appeal from the decision of the chair he rises as soon as the decision is made, even though another has the floor, and without waiting to be recognized by the chair, says, “Mr. Chairman, I appeal from the decision of the chair.”
If this appeal is seconded, the chair should state clearly the question at issue, and his reasons for the decision if he thinks it necessary, and then state the question thus: “The question is, ‘Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly [or society, or club, etc.]?’” or, “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?”
To put the question he would say, “Those in the affirmative say aye,” and after the affirmative vote has been taken he would say, “Those in the negative say no. The ayes have it and the decision of the chair is sustained [or stands as the judgment of the assembly].” Or, “The noes have it and the decision of the chair is reversed.”
In either case he immediately announces what is before the assembly as the result of the vote. If there is a tie vote the chair is sustained, and if the chair is a member of the assembly he may vote to make it a tie, on the principle that the decision of the chair stands until reversed by a majority, including the chairman if he is a member of the assembly. In stating the question, the word “assembly” should be replaced by “society,” or “club,” or “board,” etc., as the case may be. The announcement of a vote is not a decision of the chair. If a member doubts the correctness of the announcement he cannot appeal, but should call for a “Division.
Our County Constitution and By-Laws clearly state that the GENERAL Management of the Republican Party in Linn County is the responsibility of the Central Committee, that the Executive Board is responsible for ROUTINE Business in the Interim (between meetings), to advise and assist the Central Committee and that NO DECISION of the Central Committee can be over ruled by the Executive Board.
There has been a continuing pattern of behavior by the Executive Board of Nullifying decisions made by votes of the Central Committee and this constitutes a DIRECT Violation of our County Constitution and By-Laws.
I submit that at the Next Meeting when the Agenda is presented that two Motions to Amend be made, if they are not included already.
Resolved: that a Standing Rule be made that New Business shall include Motions from the Floor.
Resolved: that a Standing Rule be made that New Business shall include A Call for New Members
One other thing I recall the Chair introduced us to a Sergeant at Arms and Lincoln Leaders who will be at the head of Subcommittees formed by the Committee Persons in the Precincts forming a State Legislative District
The chair and co-chair shall be empowered to name such other officers as is determined necessary to carry out the aims and purposes of the organization subject to approval of the County Central Committee.
When did the Central Committee Vote to Establish these Positions ???
But as I have in the past, I ask you to not just take my word for Tuesdays events but have for you an unedited audio file of the meeting.
Note it was suggested that I might cut the file off at the end of the meeting because there were some words uttered in anger.
My answer was No, I wish to present an audio file that has not been edited in any form whatsoever.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Let justice be done though the heavens fall"
Friday, 19 February 2010
The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
- It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal. - It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life. - It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
economic reforms grounded in market solutions. - It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end. - It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010
Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation
Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center
Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator
David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review
We the undersigned join in our support of the guiding principles of The Mount Vernon Statement.
Current count: more than 21,500 signers.
Name:
E-mail address:
City:
State:
Do not display name on website:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
First We Must Get Their Attention
There is an old tale about a farmer who bought a new plow mule and was informed by it's former owner that, "He will do everything you want from a plow mule, just ask him nicely."
Much to the chagrin of the new owner, the mule laid his ears back, dug his hooves in the dirt and didn't budge.
So he called the former owner who came over looked at the mule, picked up a 2 X 4 leaning up against the barn and WHACK laid the mule out.
"I thought you said all I needed to do was ask nicely", the new owner said.
"Well" the former owner replied, "FIRST you gotta get his attention."
I would say events around the country, Tea Party Rallies, Town Hall Meetings and most recently the Election in Massachusetts, MAY indicate that the American Public is giving up on, "Asking Nicely"
The question is, whether anyone is paying attention.
Now it is quite true that the Election of Senator Brown WAS about the Proposed Health Care Plan.
That, however is not the entire picture.
Let's be honest, the public does think Health Care is important.
The American Public does want some changes and improvement.
The American Public also wants something done about dependence on Foreign Energy supplies.
What it doesn't want is the Progressive Plan on Health Care with an accompanying take over by the Federal Government of 1/6th of the US Economy.
NOR does it like the Raping of the US Economy that is a called Cap and Trade with the attending Redistribution of Wealth around the World which is in my opinion the real goal of the Global Warming Agenda.
But MORE IMPORTANT.
The American Public is LIVID at the Progressive's Obsession with the above to the Exclusion of attention on what it feels are the MOST Important Issues of Today.
Those being, the Economy, Jobs and National Security in the Face of International Islamic Jihad,
And while they were voting on Health Care, Cap and Trade they were also saying
YOU ARE NOT HEARING US
We want you to start focusing on what WE think is important
PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which means to me that anyone who campaigns on other issues to the exclusion of the Core Values that the Public desires?
Is in for a BIG surprise.
As Republicans and Conservatives we stand att the cusp of a Generational Opportunity, possibly surpassing the one we found in 1994.
Should we let this slip through our fingers it may be more than one generation before we have another one and if we fail generations of Progressive Politicians will be indebted to us.
Our Tent has many rooms, Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, Constitutional Conservatives etc.
All of our Core Values have importance and if fact, we do well with the General Population.
Right to Life values are increasing among the public, Defense of Marriage Values are as well, 30 some States have taken stands on the latter and there has been a shift in the attitude of the Public on the topic of Abortion in our Favor.
In the last Generation, more and more States have affirmed support of the 2cnd Amendment with Shall Carry Legislation.
So many of our Core Values ARE held by most of the General Public,
BUT if we do not come to the Electorate on the Issues that they deem to be most important NOW?
We may be picking ourselves up off the plow field along with the Progressives.
What the Tea Party espouses ARE Conservative Core Values,
We need not do anything but be true to our Basic Principles and Campaign on them.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Who Wants A Good Loser
Who wants a good loser?
I mean the type who yawns and assumes the attitude of "It doesn't matter, I could have won if I wanted to but it was not worth the trouble"
I prefer the ones who rend their hair and clothes beat upon their chests
and wail how unfair the universe is.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 we saw History in the Making
There was the Fall of the Bastille on the 14th July 1789
The Storming of the Winter Palace on the 25th October 1917
We had the Collapse of the heretofore considered impregnable Fortress of the Democratic Party, in Massachusetts.
In Honor of which I did something I have never done until tonight.
I watched MSNBC
Conan the Barbarian answered the question, "What is Best in Life" with
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
But today I think it is:
To see the Kennedy Machine Crushed to See them Driven before Republicans, to hear the lamentations of Olberman, Matthews and Maddow.
Yes THAT is what is BEST in Life!
Sunday, 17 January 2010
So You Want To Be Heard?
One of the most common complaints one hears from the Public is,
" No one listens to us, we want to be Heard!"
Well, this Saturday Jan 23, the Iowa Party Caucuses will be held.
If you do not Show Up, Speak Up and VOTE, then no one WILL hear you.
Linn County's Caucus will be held, according to a notice sent out by the Linnn County Central Committee in Cedar Rapids at:
Washington High School.
Location:
2205 Forest Drive SE
Cedar Rapids, IA, 52403
Parking will be available in the North lot, adjacent to the performing arts wing of the school. The Caucus event will be held in the Main Auditorium. Designated parking spaces for handicapped and senior citizens and will be available. Additionally, volunteers will be on hand to assist as you arrive for the Caucus.
Time:
Check in - 12:00 p.m.
Program - 1:00 p.m.
Check in will begin at 12:00 p.m. and we highly encourage everyone to arrive early for credentials, materials and to be seated by 1:00 p.m.
The purpose of the caucus is to perform the following two functions:
1. Elect 2 persons, each Republican residents, from every precinct to serve on the Linn County Republican Central Committee
2. Elect delegates and alternate delegates to the Linn County Republican Convention to be held on Saturday, March 6th 2010.
You must be registered as a Republican to participate in the Caucus. Voter registration forms will be available at the Caucus for your convenience. Please arrive early if you need to register.
The Agenda will probably follow the following format:
I. We will meeting all together, Pray, Pledge, Speeches and other misc. stuff
II. Breakout into Precinct Meetings
1. Temporary Chair starts this part of the meeting. – The only job of the Temporary Chair is to elect the Caucus Permanent Chair and Secretary. The Temporary Chair will assist for the rest of the night regardless if the Temporary Chair is elected Permanent Chair or not.
2. Ensure that everyone has signed in on the computer sheets. If a person’s name is not listed on the sheets, they are required to fill out a voter registration form.
3. Ask for nominations for Permanent Chair (hold election if necessary.)
4. Count votes; declare winner and record on FORM A. Turn caucus over to Permanent Chair.
5. Ask for nominations for Permanent Secretary (hold election if necessary.)
6. Count votes, declare winner and record on FORM A.
7. Temporary/Permanent Chair explains the role of Precinct Committee Representatives.
8. Ask for nominations for Precinct Committee persons. – Proxy Nominations are allowed.
9. Hold election, declare winners and record on FORM A.
10. Fill out Form B which is for County Convention – You do not have to attend County Convention to attend District, State Conventions or to be part of the Central Committee.
11. Fill out Form C which is for being an Alternate for County Convention –
12. Fill out Form D is for Junior Delegates – I hope as many young people as possible are signed up.
At present I do not have a copy of the New Form A, but the following is a sample and I expect the final version to be similiar. At least this will give you something to base your expectations on.
There will be folks circulating to verify that the Form A and others are filled out correctly and the record of the Causcus is above reproach,
BUT
It is in YOUR best interest, indeed it is YOUR Duty and Responsibilty to ensure this as well.
An informed Public is an essentiial leg in the foundation of Democracy, but Citizen Participation is even more vital.
If you wish to be Heard?
Show Up, Speak Out
And VOTE!
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Just Make It Cost More
I just ran into one of the most Byzantine, Convoluted and Backwards ways of lowering costs on something that I have ever encountered.
Cross Posted at Committees of Correspondence
Union officials told The Associated Press that they view the meeting Monday as a chance to forcefully make their case that the tax is bad policy and bad politics. Unions contend that the tax would be passed along to workers.
House Democrats prefer to raise income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million and are reluctant to abandon that approach, saying the insurance tax would violate the president's campaign pledge not to tax the middle class. But they realize they likely will have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.
The Senate wants to tax insurance companies on plans valued at over $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples. Most analysts say the insurance tax would be passed on to consumers.
But Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.
"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve,"
Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."
Fox News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.
Let me see if I have this correctly. Obama thinks we spend more than we need to on insurance via our employee based Health Care Plans
SO His Solution is to TAX them make them cost MORE so we will not be able to afford what we have and will therefore settle for a cheaper Health Care Plan?
And THAT is his idea of LOWERING Costs???
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
The Vanishing Voter
Today, December 1, 2009 we have a Special Run Off Election for an At Large Cedar Rapids, Iowa City Council Seat.
We'd better vote while we can, there seem to be a lot of folks who think it's their duty to make those decisions for us.
I was #2 in my Precinct I cast for Karr go ye hence and vote your own conscience
I got an email which included the following
Two of the three Iowans who serve on the Republican National Committee say a petition outlining ten key G.O.P. policy positions is designed to help show “grassroots” Republicans that the party’s platform means something.
Steve Scheffler, Iowa’s Republican National Committeeman, is part of a “conservative steering committee” that has pushed for reform of the national party.
“We wanted the RNC to make a difference as opposed to being a mere social club,” Scheffler says. “We felt that the party needed to do some things, make some statements that would give our grassroots some faith that we were going to try to be accountable to them.”
First off, I would have preferred a title more like, "A couple of Iowans say", because this gentleman does NOT speak for me.
Further on it this missive he states:
“In my view these 10 points are not a litmus test and so we’re not saying you have to agree with all of them,” Scheffler says. “…But, you know, if you want RNC funding, then there ought to be certain standards and there should be a benchmark by which you ought to qualify for that money.”
Now isn't that cute? Not a litmus test but "there should be a benchmark by which you out to qualify for RNC funding?
Makes one wonder just what his definition of a "litmus test" is. Makes one also wonder what his definition of Democracy is.
In case it has escaped his attention, I feel compelled to answer Mr Scheffler, there is ALREADY a benchmark which qualifies a Republican Candidate for RNC funding.
It is called a PRIMARY, Mr Scheffler,
It is called the WILL OF THE VOTERS!
What gives YOU the right or idea that YOU can decide these things for US?
The Party Structure exists to express the Will of the Republican Voters
It does NOT exist to decide what our Will should be.
When the Day comes that the Party refuses to fund candidate that We the Voters select with donations that We the Voters gave the Party?
We should donate to the candidates of our choice and not a Party which thinks it can use that money to support candidates that they choose and not the ones we choose.
They have in my opinion misunderstood the lesson of NY 23, it was the Party's choice the Voters rejected and now we have those who want to make the Party's choice here superior to the choice of the Voters.
You may wish to read the rest of this article, I would not advise doing so on a full stomach.
Monday, 30 November 2009
The Political Purity Test
I just read an interesting article on the Campaign for Liberty Website
Which I will post below. But before that I will expound on my views.
It does not matter what I think of the 10 point issue list,
It does not matter if I support all 10, oppose all 10 or chose 1 from column A and 2 from column B I object to Purity Tests period.
In my opinion, the Party and it's Officials should be strictly neutral during the Primary and fiercely partisan during the General Election.
And who emerges from the Primaries is the decision of the VOTERS, and NOT someone far off who thinks they know better than we do and should therefore withhold funds from a candidate that the ignorant unwashed masses elected.
I don't know about anyone else but I am sorely tired of other people deciding that THEY have the right and obligation for making my (our) decisions for us.
There are different reads on the results recently of the NY District 23 Election.
Mine is that Conservative Voters soundly rejected the candidate that Republican Leaders chose for them.
It is really bizarre to have a Democrat running a campaign based on the Republican's record of raising taxes, supporting government growth and intrusion into our private lives,
It was on Economic, Fiscal Responsibility, Government Growth and Intrusion issues that Owens won, issues that the Republican Candidate fell flat on.
Now that the Democratic Congressman upheld his stand on those issues which won the election for a whole hour before reneging on the major 4, I feel sure that the only Candidate that was truly Conservative will win next year in the General Election, but the VOTERS will determine that and it is sadly obvious that the Republican Party officials fell flat on their faces.
And now we have those who are on the other side of the Political Spectrum deciding that they can do the same thing.
That is decide for us who should represent us, rather than leaving that decision to US.
 | Posted by GoSlash27 on 11/28/09 10:16 AM
Last updated 11/28/09 10:18 AM
 |
It might seem at first glance that the Democrats are in serious jeopardy of losing their hold on Washington. President Obama's approval ratings are tanking. People are out in the streets protesting against out-of-control spending, government takeovers of health care, the auto industry, and the banking industry.
With all the public fervor being displayed at the town hall meetings, TEA party rallies, anti-amnesty protests, and the massive groundswell of grassroots support for uniquely conservative policies, the Democrats should be understandably nervous about their prospects next year.
But they have a powerful ally in the Republican party's unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their mind-boggling ability to alienate their own base, as well as the vast majority of independents remains unchallenged.The moment they get the Democrats in their sights, they take a deep breath, slowly exhale, turn the gun around so it's pointed at their own face, and squeeze....
We have seen an example of this phenomenon right here in the Cedar Rapids District 33 debacle; a race that the Iowa Republican party seemed determined to lose (and succeeded spectacularly), but the truly telling example of Republican political self-immolation is documented at the Republic of Dave blog.
In the wake of their loss in the NY-23 special election (in which they hand-picked the liberal candidate over the conservative one and split the base, thus ensuring their own defeat), the official response from the national RNC Vice Chairman is to subject all future candidates to a 10 point litmus test.
The 10 points:
- We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
- We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
- We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
- We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
- We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
- We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
- We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
- We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
- We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
- We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Any potential candidate who disagrees with
3 or more of these points would not receive support or funding from the Republican party.
Now... setting aside the fact that this list is outrageously specific and undermines philosophy in favor of policy positions, let's begin by focusing on what kind of candidates it would exclude.
Aside from myself, (not sure about #4, adamantly opposed to #6 and #7, and personally offended by #8), this handy new definition would disqualify a few other well-known figures that the Republican party has always feigned admiration for, such as Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Locally, it would almost certainly exclude every candidate that could ever hope to harness grassroots support.
What the Republican Party has failed to grasp at every level is the simple fact that
Conservatism is a philosophy, not a list. The
philosophy is popular, but their list is not. The
philosophy would demand a litmus test composed of exactly one item:
#1: I swear (or affirm) to faithfully execute my desired office and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Iowa.
This (essentially the oath of office that every elected representative takes) *is* what conservatism is all about, and anybody seeking office under the Republican label should be absolutely passionate about it. Senator Barry Goldwater defined the role of a truly conservative public servant when he said:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
This is what the American people are desperately seeking, and (not coincidentally) is exactly what the Republican party is
supposed to be representing. Until such time as they begin promoting candidates and philosophies that reflect this sentiment, they will be doomed to the only role they've shown any aptitude for; helping Democrats win elections they should be losing.
Newer | Latest | Older
