Pragmatism vs Ideology

I rarely like the internet political quizzes, because frankly most of the questions suck. I found one that I really liked that was as close as it gets. I Side With. It gives "yes" and "no" answers, but also other choice "C" answers as well.

The Results:
Gary Johnson - 96%
Mitt Romney - 76%
Virgil Goode - 64%
Rocky Anderson - 16%
Jill Stein - 10%
Obama - 5%

Romney on social, Johnson on the rest.

I'm not that surprised except that I usually don't score as high with libertarians and my marks with LP/RP are both in the 70-75% range with the rest under 25%. They didn't ask trade questions which skewed it away from the populists more.

However, I didn't write in Johnson. No, Romney wasn't my first choice. Like many, I didn't like the coronation attempt between Foxnews and also the rules changes for Mitt. On the same note, I didn't care for EITHER side in the Ron Paul vs Romney dual coronation attempts. In Romneys defense, he at least won a majority of the primaries. Luckily for Romney, I want Obama fired. In Ron Paul's case, I voted for him in 08, but not this year. The coronation push alienated me. The RNC and Paulite gamesmanship didn't look good for either side in Tampa. The former didn't need to spike the football. The latter has no business claiming anything until it won enough actual primaries (at any level, let alone presidential) to contend. My candidate lost too. It sucks. It happens.

Would I like to see more liberty candidates in the GOP? In some areas, if they aren't too hung up on technicalities. There's no way a candidate who claims to be a libertarian (and pro-life) republican would vote against defending planned parenthood. Or vote against national CPL reciprocity, all while incorrectly (especially on the CPL) claiming "constitutional" grounds (Full Faith and Credit). There are times due to language where a bill should be voted down, or amended. There's also times when there's nothing wrong with the bill's language. If you claim to really be a liberty candidate, be for liberty, don't just fall on your sword when the end result of that is less liberty than before. 

I realized over my years that 3rd parties are a protest vote. No more, and no less. If Teddy Roosevelt can't win as a 3rd party, no one can. I used to vote about 1/3 R and 2/3 L when I was a new voter, then considered myself independent. I have protested vote or 'voted for blank' on occasion, although I am less apt to do so than in my early years. This year was a bit of an exception as I did leave a few more of the uncontested races blank than normal with Green Oak pushing another millage. Again.

Many of the Paul hardliners are either writing in Ron Paul or voting for Johnson. Some are doing so because they really like Gary Johnson and damn the torpedoes. I can understand that. A couple of my family members took that stance. No games are involved there and they can't bring themselves to support either candidate.

Then, there's this mindset by some. "You didn't let us take over the party, so we're going to spite you and hope you lose to a 48-49% Obama so you'll be forced to come back begging to us." Ain't gonna happen. Even if Obama won due to Johnson votes, it ain't gonna happen.Two words. Ralph Nader. Nader's name since 2000 among democrats is mud. Ron Paul's name (as he'll get the blame) will be mud if Obama wins with 48-49%. There won't be begging, but a declaration of political war. 

Some people like Herman Cain are clamoring now for a 3rd party. All I have to say to that is the following. 
1. How will the third party get enough support to win?

"“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said."

It is so easy to say "We'll get a new conservative party and the conservatives will join us and all will be well." The problem is that it's all bullshit. Third parties failed, have failed, and always will fail. Teddy Roosevelt, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Virgil Goode, John Anderson, George Wallace, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan all failed as 3rd parties. In order for a 3rd party to be relevant, one has to be competitive in 34% of the seats in congress or compete for a majority in a electoral college. Ain't gonna happen.

Steve Schmidt also has his head up his ass. That's not surprising. He was McCain's campaign manager. We all know how that went. I could have done a better job than that clown in 08. I doubt I would lose Indiana at least. That takes work in a presidential election.

“When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.

Screw off, Steve. We just ran a moderate. We ran a moderate before that in 2008. Your boy McCain. Hell, Bush was a moderate, at least fiscally. What we need is to repudite bullshit like what you are slinging to try and salvage your incompetent reputation.

Conservatives can win. Conservatives can win in moderate or even liberal districts. Moderates can win. Moderates can win conservative and liberal districts. They both win by not doing a Steve Schmidt and putting their big mouths away and by doing their jobs properly on constituent issues and being competent people. That's what's most important. Don't be incompetent like Steve Schmidt was in his election work. Don't be a dumbass like Todd Akin (establishment, Huckabee wing). Don't be a dumbass like Richard Mourdock (Tea Party). They made the same error. Don't be something that you aren't. I think Mitt would have done much better in the primary if he was just who he was. I think that came out in the first debate.

Be who you are. Be competent at what you do. Be tactically smart and principled. Have a good plan. That's the starting success to build from at any level.  Pick fights when you must, but not when you don't have to do so.

Conservatives need moderates (true moderates, not leftists). Moderates need conservatives. Tea party needs establishment. Establishment needs tea party. Right now, we don't have the leverage. We need to create it and create it now, so Obama doesn't spend the next four years turning this country into Chicago.  

Pick your battles - is it worth it?

There's a lot of inside baseball dust ups and gamesmanship going on right now with RNC convention away from the speeches. There's plenty of blame that could be spread around, and a lot of it could be avoided with common sense.

I preface this by saying the following. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012 during the primaries. I held my nose and voted for McCain in 08 and will be holding my nose and voting for Romney this year to get rid of Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of his cabinet. I don't consider myself a "Paulite" and don't follow his supporters 100%  I don't consider myself one that always sides with - or against - "leadership." I call things as I see them. I don't like coronations on any side. Pushing a coronation on me is a good way to get my opposition. That was one of the reasons I did not support Romney - or Paul - in this year's primary. Coronation tactics and takeover tactics. Make your case and I'll make my own decision. That's why we have primaries.

Many conservatives, and almost all the Ron Paul supporters went apeshit at this vote at the RNC convention. Now I support the first part of the rule 16 (primary binding), but not the second part with disavowing if the candidate and state party does not support them. I would support the disavowing for the presidential vote at the convention, but not the other votes with the other committees.

I have three problems with the rule.

1. HOW it was enacted. That's shown at the video posted at Right Michigan Bus games, and an Obama style script from a teleprompter wasn't needed.

2. Would the disavowing delegate occur for the presidential vote only, or for the rules committees and other stuff as well?

3. It wasn't needed. Mitt already won and had the votes. This was probably about avoiding future floor fights from the camera. Now I don't like airing stuff in front of cameras or even in public meetings. If I have a problem with a leadership decision, I'll usually give my gripes in private behind the scenes. It's more effective that way. On the same note, in the era of youtube, that's impossible to do no matter what if something is taped.

But in reality, this doesn't do that much, except potentially protecting themselves from laziness. It wasn't needed and Mitt had the votes. This is a much different era of primaries in 2012 than it was in 1976 with the rise of the internet, cable news, talk radio, and everything else. People harken back to the brokered convention in 76. That was 36 years ago. I wasn't born yet. I've seen a lot of changes in primary elections just in the years I've followed politics.

If you want a "tea party" or "liberty candidate" as the video says - to win, you plan this long before the convention.

This wasn't nearly as bad as the extra delegate which cost Saul Anuzis his position as RNC committeeman. That wasn't needed either and in the end didn't make a difference, but could have potentially been a much bigger problem. I like Saul and he's a good guy who's done a lot for grassroots that is overlooked, but that was a bad decision. We all make them at some point.

What both of those things where -  was equivalent to Terrell Owens celebrating on the Dallas Star at Cowboy's stadium in an infamous football game. 

This was stupid. It wasn't needed. It didn't do much of anything except rub it in the faces of people the leadership do not like. It's bad tactics, just like hostile takeover attempts from the other side are also bad tactics. It's short term thinking that is a long run failure.

I'm repeating myself with this one phrase. "It wasn't needed." Certain people in leadership didn't need to pick the battle. No good was going to come from it. There's other battles that didn't need to be picked. That's not limited to one side either. Some of the Ron Paul folks wanted to try and get a floor fight to replace Romney as the nominee. They lost it after they lost the primaries with their candidate finishing way back in the pack. Shit happens. My candidate lost too. Take your lumps like we did. On to the general election and it's time to improve through downticket races and gaining support of voters so more parts of our platforms become enacted - long term.

Now some (not all) of the Paul supporters want Obama to win out of spite through 3rd party votes in the hopes that future candidates would beg them for support. That won't get support and will cost immensely. That would get the entire Paul movement smashed forever and destroyed by any means necessary - and most conservatives would join in the smashing because as much of a problem Romney is, Obama is that much worse. It won't be "We can control the election, you need us" like some of them want. It will be "F-you. Obama won or almost won. You helped him. Time for your movement to die." If you become viewed as poison, everything you touch - including your issues - also turns to poison because will be tied "with those people."

The most important thing in politics is relationships. While it is inevitable that bridges sometimes get burned, it's important to avoid it when it is avoidable. I've had good relationships with people in the party despite at times being in heated disagreements. We both understood the reasons for our actions, and while there was even some hard feelings at the time, it wasn't personal. They weren't my enemy, and at the end of the day they didn't help THE enemy. Helping the enemy however, is a whole other matter. That's as cardinal of a sin as backstabbing. I will never ever forget the bastards and pieces of trash who were "conservatives" or "republicans" for Obama in 08. They helped give us Obamacare, the stimulus, Eric Holder, bad SCOTUS picks, tax increases, record debt, record deficits, and a vastly increase government. The establishment can't smash those who support different primary candidates, especially those who are willing to work within the party. Those that lose - whether it be the "moderates" (by far the worst offenders), libertarians, Paul supporters, conservatives, or anyone else need to suck it up and not campaign and use threats to spite the winner.


The reality however is this. None of the gamesmanship was needed, nor effective in their goals. In reality, it didn't do much, if anything. It did not effect the outcome. If you want to elect a presidential candidate in the primary, convention is only one small portion of it. You have to win enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses in enough states. RNC rule changes only affect a small portion of this, usually with scheduling of primaries. Most of the power is done through the state level through state committee and also with the state legislature/governor.  Even a lot of the scheduling is done there. 

The way to stop the bad stuff is to make sure we have good committeemen and good state chair and state committee members, and make sure other states do the same thing. That's how bad rules get stopped.  It starts locally, but electing good precinct delegates, executive committee members, county officers, district committee and officers, and state committee members, along with RNC committee members is how it is done. It's long term, and takes a lot of organization, recruitment of good candidates for those positions, and reaching out to swing voters that make decisions. 

Also, there's statutory members automatically on those exec committees. They are your county elected officials (or nominees). Those are important people and will always some of the power regarding county officers. That county commissioner race is important. 

I've been at this 11 years. Some have been around longer. Many have not. Most don't know how to organize. Most who do know how to organize don't know how to convince the swing voters and alienate them (happens with all cliques) with takeover attempts and power grabs (or what seem like them), and airing stuff to the media that should be handled in house. There's battles to fight. There's battles not worth fighting. All or nothing is a failure. Picking the battles at the right time after paying one's dues with the party, is the correct way to handle things. 

In other words, all sides need to think long term, swallow their pride, don't celebrate like TO did, pick the right battles, and stay cool.

The Michael Steele Controversey

All over the political wires are critics of Michael Steele for various quotes or actions while at RNC. The latest response is this.
From the AP

"I'm the first here to admit that I've made mistakes, and it's been incumbent on me to take responsibility to shoulder that burden, make the necessary changes and move on," Steele told GOP activists and party leaders, drawing a standing ovation.
"The one mistake we cannot make this November is to lose," he added, and the crowd cheered in agreement.
Saturday's speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference was Steele's first public appearance since the disclosure of questionable spending — including a $2,000 tab at a sex-themed California night club — resulted in top advisers cutting ties with him and North Carolina's state party chief calling for his resignation.

While I have concerns largely due to my treasury background, I'm not on the Fire Steele bandwagon yet. The RNC chair is a two year gig. The major report is in November after election day. Results matter, and that is the truest test of the RNC.

I'm glad Steele mentioned that he made mistakes. What is the RNC, Steele and his staff, going to do about it? There's a little more than six months for everyone to prove themselves.

RNC Litmus Test provision fails unanimously. Right decision.

I think this is was a rash decision that needed to fail. I don't like RINOs, but this isn't the way to stop the DeDe Scozzafavas, Arlen Specters, Lincoln Chafees, Joe Schwarzes, Jim Leaches, and Chuck Hagels who go out and back leftist democrats. There's a difference between RINOs and Liberal Republicans. RINOs are the names I mentioned. Olympia Snowe is NOT a RINO. She's a liberal republican. As bad as she can be on issues, she's not going out and campaigning for Jim Jones Obama.

From Hotline

Members of a committee of state party chairmen voted unanimously today to oppose a so-called "purity test" for GOP candidates, according to a source in the closed-press meeting.
The committee voted to stand against the resolution, offered by IN RNC member Jim Bopp, that would give the party chair the power to cut off funding from a candidate who did not meet at least 8 of 10 ideological benchmarks.

It sounds great, but it won't solve the problem. I'm not that pissed off at the RNC or even NRCC, which I don't like, for backing Scozzafava. That's their job. This isn't like the NRSC throwing their weight in primaries like they did for Lincoln Chafee and are doing right now against Marco Rubio against fiscal liberal Republican Charlie Crist.

The problem is that Scozzafava was picked by a one vote margin by a committee of county chairs in New York. They picked a candidate who was rejected by the voters IN HER DISTRICT. That was shown by her 5% vote and 3rd place polling behind both the democrat and by the conservative party's Doug Hoffman (who had his own troubles like not understanding local issues in the district).

That wasn't the DC establishment's fault, and while I'm not exactly a cheerleader for the RNC/NRCC/NRSC, blame needs to be put where it belongs, on the annointers. When there is no primary, the onus on the committee is to pick not your buddy, but the person that fits the district. Primaries normally do the job, and in 99% of all cases, that's what determines the candidate for the district. That's why we don't need litmus tests for funding. What we need is for RNC/NRSC/NRCC to let the district voters of the primary, determine the nominee, and those people are what need to be backed. It is OUR job to weed out the RINOs and to pick the best candidate for our districts. Scozzafava would not have survived a primary. Specter was going down, and isn't accepted by the people in either party now. Joe Sestak will kick his sorry ass if Pat Toomey won't. Joe Schwarz crashed and burned.

The last thing we need is for DC to make more decisions regarding our candidates, even in cases where it is well intended.

In other news, the state of the union speech is tonight. I'll catch the reader's digest version of it from Redstate or something. It's all crap anyway. Actions, not words.

The New RNC Chair - Michael Steele

Yesterday, the RNC elected Michael Steele to be RNC chair. While he wasn't my first choice (Saul Anuzis), he wasn't my last choice either (Mike Duncan). One thing I do like about Steele is that he didn't make his name in Washington. He came out of the ranks of state government, as the Lt Governor of Bob Ehrlich. He also was, along with Newt Gingrich and JC Watts, tied in with GOPAC which works on building farm clubs of Republican officeholders.

Congratulations to Steele, but now it is time for the RNC to get to work to take back the majority from the idiots like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the fools in the US Senate (more than any other political body) who are FUBARing this country. While much has been made about technology being a major difference in these elections, it is one aspect out of many that needs to be addressed, and not the biggest. The biggest is to bring the ideas back, and ideas do not come from Washington DC.

Part of the reason of the 1994 victories was put in place before the Contract with America. It didn't start with Rush Limbaugh or talk radio. It didn't start with the internet, then dominated by the right and/or libertarians. It didn't start with Newt Gingrich, although he was one of the major people responsible for the comeback. It started with reforms in state governments. John Engler and Tommy Thompson with their welfare reforms started the changes. In 1993, Virginia and New Jersey flipped in their gubenatorial elections.

In 1994, The GOP picked up 12 gubenatorial seats, in addition to its congressional victories. These pickups were in the South and West as one would think, but also in the Northeast. New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticutt of all place. They also held in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. They held all their seats in the Upper Midwest at the time as well. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois. Now a lot can be be said for reasons of the changes since then, not the least of which (In Ohio and Illinois) were crooks in state government like George Ryan (Chicagoland politics is even more corrupt than Detroit and New Orelans) and Bob Taft. In off year elections, governors usually lead the ticket. That's the case in Michigan as well, which will be an open seat as Granholm is (thankfully) termed out. Those lead the way.

One thing I was not doing when Howard Dean was elected DNC chair was laughing. Most of the GOP was laughing at his 50 state strategy. I wasn't. Many democrats were cringing and said that Dean was wasting his time. I was also cringing, for a different reason. The problem I saw was too many followers in the GOP, and that leads to trouble and complacency. When the main principles of the GOP are supposed to be less government and more freedom, and when Bush is leading a big spending spree, trouble is on the horizon, and peaked with this stupid bailout. Much of the base stayed home in 2008.

What Steele and the RNC need to do is a simple, but three-fold strategy.

1. Keep the base. By keeping the base, I do not mean exclude the others that aren't part of the base, but without the base united, nothing will happen. The GOP can not under any circumstances become democrat lite nationally. Now I understand that certain people can not win in some areas on some social issues (which mostly should be left to the states - let California be California, Alabama be Alabama, and Ohio be Ohio), but the big spending, bailouts, and trash like that needs to come to the end, especially on the federal level.

2. Don't concede a damn thing. Candidates should be run everywhere, and should be supported everywhere. What the hell have the democrats done for Detroit over the last fifty years? They destroyed it, and it started with the "white progressives" running it. On the same note, what efforts have the Republicans made in Detroit to compete? Jackshit. They ran against Detroit, without having a plan for reforming Detroit. This isn't limited to Detroit. The GOP concedes most fights against incumbents before it starts. This is especially true in the Senate. It should be easy to run against senators. They, more than anyone else, screwed up this country, and have been around forever. There's no way North Dakota should have two democrat senators. There's also no way that 1/2 of the seats should have been conceded before things even started in 2006. Arkansas (Still locally very democrat) had no Republican candidate. A first termer had a free ride. That's unacceptable.

3. Ideas win. Campaigns should not begin and end with "They suck." Yes, they do suck, but that's not enough of a reason for the middle to vote against somebody. It did not work in 2004 for the dems, and it did not work in 2008 for the GOP. In 1994, a vote on these issues was promised - and delivered (Votes on issues happened, some didn't pass)- if the Republicans took control.

Going back in time

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:


FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)

Unfortunately, when the trouble happened, largely from 2002 to 2006, the GOP got away from those ideas, and we had spending increases, and balanced budgets from the Mike Pence wing of the party shot down. What is needed today is a new contract on these 70% issues that Americans support and are the backbone of the GOP. This needs to be pushed in 2010. Be the leaders, kick Pelosi and Reid to the curb, and make Obama follow until 2012, and kick him out.

I hope Michael Steele is up to the task and gets the RNC straightened out from the mess it's in. He has a chance to be the hero much like Haley Barbour was when he took over a "down and out" GOP back in 1993.

Inside baseball (RNC, MI GOP races)

I'm violating the 3rd rail of my site. I generally do not comment much publicaly on inside baseball measures that are not elections. It often causes more trouble than it is worth. Right now we have two significant races affecting the GOP. One is for RNC chair. The other is MI GOP chair.

I'll start with the MI GOP chair. I am currently undecided in who I am supporting, assuming that I am a state delegate for the next convention. I have been a delegate every time I chose to run for the spot, so I assume it is likely I'll be at the next meeting. Ingham County Chair and former State Senator Norm Shinkle was running, and dropped out and supported Former Slovakia Ambassador Ron Weiser. That means two people are running now. Ron Weiser and State Rep and US Senate candidate Jack Hoogendyk. I know both Norm and Jack who are both good people. I do not know Ron Weiser. I don't claim solidarity to the "West MI" clique or the "East MI" cliques, etc. etc. I've backed those firmly in the West MI clique in the past, and those in the East MI clique in the past. I will continue to back those in both camps.

I have three questions for each of the candidates.

1. How are you going to keep the State Senate, AG, and Sec of STate seat, and how are you planning to take back the house, governor, and State Supreme Court back from the dems?

2. How do you plan to assist candidates who are running - specifically.

3. How will you build on the current foundation set by Saul and his administration and which would you do the same or different?

Those three questions and answers will determine whom I support.

Now for the RNC, there are six candidates for that position.

1. Saul Anuzis
2. Mike Duncan
3. Michael Steele
4. Ken Blackwell
5. Chip Saltsman
6. Katon Dawson

1. Saul Anuzis. Saul is great at logtistics and communications. That's his specialty. Many chairs want to be part of the cocktail party crowd. Saul will go to the grassroots meetings instead. Saul also is not afraid to go on TV to go after the dems, or to ruffle feathers. He's a solid conservative (fiscal, life, guns), and is working to make sure the GOP is fiscally conservative again. I remember how on Granholm's tax increase, he was doing his best to try and firewall that from going into law. It didn't happen, but he showed that the Republicans need to stand for something and not follow the leader of Granholm which started this downward spiral going back to 02-04.(Johnson/Sikkema) I do have one concern. Who will Saul hire in DC for election consulting? Saul is a delegater, like a lot of CEO's. After 2004 I talked with him about election mailings and strategies since I had some concerns about some of them and what happened in a few races. I think that is his one major weakness in Michigan. If that is addressed, and I think it can be as Saul IS a delegater, then Saul can be a great chair for the RNC. Election strategy is my only concern, but it is a concern. I think it is less of one in DC for him than it is in Michigan with the cliques. DC has it's cliques, but Saul isn't as tied to/against them than he was to a degree in Michigan.

2. Mike Duncan, the incumbent, needs to go. The RNC, NRCC, and NRSC hung out to dry so many winnable seats and got involved too often in primaries, spending money that needs to be used to win seats away from democrats. That's not to get to the next part. Mike who? I've never seen him. He's the RNC chair, and I couldn't pick out his face in the crowd? That's not good. Lastly, he was Bush's guy. I've frankly had enough of the Bush years and the big spending and the "big government conservatism." Sorry, Mike. It's not personal against you, but just how it is time for Boehner to step down from leadership, it's time for new leadership in DC that is frankly not tied to the establishment crowd.

3. Michael Steele. His claim to fame is running successfully as Bob Ehrich's LT in Maryland back in 02. Ehrlich as governor, Steele as LT Gov. He ran in 06 against Ben Cardin and did not win.

4. Ken Blackwell. I like the guy since he wasn't tied to the corrput Taft liberal republican machine in Ohio and their tax increase/gun grab support. More importantly, Blackwell spoke up and fought that when it was not the in thing to do. Taft was convicted of four misdemeanors while in office, and Blackwell was not a part of that. Unfortnately, he lost badly in his gubenatorial campaign.

5. Chip Saltsman - Mike Huckabee's campaign manager and former policy advisor to Bill Frist. He did a good job in Tenneesee from keeping it from being Gored in 2000.

6. Katon Dawson - South Carolina Chair. I don't know much about him, although South Carolina is the most GOP state in the South up and down the ticket.

For MI GOP Chair, I'm undecided. For RNC, I support Saul Anuzis.

Tired of political calls - call 202-652-4583 - Strategic Fundraising

This may end up being my best post and my most popular post in the history of the Republican Michigander blog.

I am not happy with the organization contracted out by the RNC, Strategic Fundraising. These jerks got my cell number. If there is one thing I don't like, it is political orgs calling me and asking for money. I only donate on my terms, not others. If there is one thing I despise, is being asked for money on my cell phone. I NEVER donate over the phone. If I do it, it is always in person or in a rare case, online. NEVER over the phone.

The first call I got was from a guy claiming to be the RNC. This guy was a very aggressive fundraiser. 202-652-4583 Some free advise for this guy. Do not lie to me if you want my support. I'm Irish by blood and remember those types of slights for a long, long time. This guy said he was the RNC, and I asked immediately if this was a financial related call. He said it wasn't, went into talking points and called it a "pledge" instead....of $75. Thanks for lying to me prick. That's a real good way to get a dime from me, genius. I get a call from this same phone number a couple of days later after hanging up on the guy. You didn't get the message? 202-652-4583. Today, I missed a call on my sell. Caller ID - 202-652-4583. Guys, the answer is no. That is spelled n-o. What part of no don't you jagoffs understand? Four calls in two weeks. Do you really want me to stay home this election? If not, don't piss me off with this crap.

Now the one good thing about the 202-652-4583 company. There IS a "Good neighbor policy" on do not call lists. While political organizations (of course) are exempt by the federal Do Not Call lists, at least they allow us to take our names off that list. I just did so, and took my dad's number off the list as well for them since they hate the calls as much as I do.

You can also go to their website and be placed on a DNC list there. If Strategic Fundraising calls me after 48 hours, I'll be putting up another blog post because then they will be liars.

We'll see what happens. In the meantime, there's the number to call, and there's the website as well.