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.

Absotute Bullshit from the credentials committee

Flat out. This is legalized cheating. This is something that Richard Daley or Boss Tweed would pull. He's smiling from his grave. ACORN's cheering too.

From The Detroit Free Press

The Mitt Romney-Rick Santorum Michigan primary results just got a little more contentious.

Michigan’s two at-large delegates to the Republican National convention will be awarded to Michigan native Mitt Romney, following a vote last night by the state party’s credentials’ committee.

The vote came despite the party’s rules that the two at-large delegates are supposed to be awarded on a proportional basis based on the statewide popular vote. Romney won the statewide vote by a 41% to 38% margin over former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

The rest of the state’s delegates will be split evenly between Romney and Santorum because each won seven congressional districts across the state.

This is the biggest example of why there's animosity between tea party groups and some committees within state party. If Santorum won the statewide popular vote, would you change the delegates after the fact? We all know the answer to that. Stick with the rules you made before the election. This is going to set off a firestorm among the grassroots, and also have repercussions in other states.

How is this going to factor down south (if they do the same for Santorum) or with states on Super Tuesday? Not very well. It will again feed into the perception (and reality here) that the elites are pushing Mitt Romney on us no matter what. It's bullshit. State committee as a whole needs to reverse this decision for their credibility, and stick with the original results. Procedures are important, and it's bad precedent, reminding me of a couple of convention votes (and cheating) from the old days before Saul Anuzis implements actual voting machines in voting. By this lame attempt to save face with a Romney "win" in Michigan, the credentials committee is getting egg on the entire state party, reflecting back on all members of party leadership down to district and county level. It's not worth one delegate.

This bullshit needs to be reversed ASAP. Kudos to Mike Cox and Eric Doster (election law attorney) for voting against this.