It's not about the tea party or establishment but candidate quality

A national consultant sounded like a national consultant today in the Argus. He is right about 50% but he lays the blame on one side only. He's an NRA guy so he's not all bad. However, a lot of consultants (not all) like to blame everybody but themselves for the problems in the campaigns so they build themselves up.

“When conservatives are unhappy, bad things happen to the Republican Party.”
So wrote Richard Viguerie, the “Funding Father” of the modern conservative movement, in his 2006 book “Conservatives Betrayed.” Viguerie characterized the conservative movement as an independent “Third Force” in American politics, one that will bring the Republican Party to its knees “begging for support.” Then, George W. Bush was the enemy. Now, it’s “impure” incumbent Republican senators.
The modern conservative movement and the Republican Party have never been synonymous. But the animosity between the two has never been more self-destructive than it is today.
Many conservatives see the Republican Party as little more than “the evil of two lessers.” Couple that with their belief that pragmatism is a dirty word, and it’s little wonder that liberal and progressive leaders give thanks at the altar of the “tea party” while simultaneously crediting the movement for every problem facing our society. The irony seems lost on conservative leaders who should know better.

The thing about Republicans is that it is a big tent. Democrats do what their told. Republicans are anti-authoritarian, and not just the libertarians, business owners, and gun owners. Less government is the general core belief of the group.

"""For more than 30 years as a political consultant, I’ve helped elect Republicans to offices at all levels and enthusiastically advanced the cause of many national groups espousing conservative issues. Smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater individual freedom — all these tenets sound like the battle cry for the “tea party” when in fact they’ve stood as the modern Republican Party creed for decades. What has changed over the past several years is the assertion that if you aren’t 100 percent pure on the entire conservative agenda, you must be removed from office. Never mind that if you defeat an “impure” conservative or, heaven forbid, a moderate Republican, what you get in return is a liberal or progressive Democrat.""""

Devil's advocate. Sometimes I agree with this, but other times I don't. What if the so called "Moderate" is a Arlen Specter, Joe Schwarz, Charlie Crist, or John Stewart who are really democrats. Stewart admitted he never voted Republican for president after he switched parties officially. Schwarz backed Mark Schauer. A leftist. Specter switched because the base had enough of him (and so did the dems). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are liberal republicans. I think Collins is great to have in Maine. That's the best we're going to get there. Plymouth didn't need a John Stewart type but a John Walsh instead. The 7th district voted for Tim Walberg over Joe Schwarz. Take the best you can get where you can win.

""Today, Harry Reid is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate for one simple reason: The “tea party.” It snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2012 elections by putting forth unvetted primary candidates who defeated incumbent Republicans who undoubtedly would have triumphed in the general election."""

Bullshit. I don't consider myself tea party, and still call this as bullshit. Tom, you lose your argument here. Both sides fouled up. These were election results. I'll put notable ones in bold.

In 2012, these were the results:
Arizona - Jeff Flake (center-right, some libertarian leanings) replaces Jon Kyl. - R hold
California - Feinstein wins again
Connecticut - Chris Murphy replaces Joe Lieberman. D hold. Linda McMahon was an establishment R running in a tough seat.
Delaware - Tom Carper wins again
Florida - Bill Nelson wins easily. Connie Mack was supposed to be a contender, but struck out badly. Establishment failure here. 
Hawaii - Hirono replaces Akaka. D hold.
Indiana - Gun grabber Richard Lugar loses the primary. Good. Bad however was Richard Mordouk running his mouth. Joe Donnelly won and this was a D pickup. Tea Party failure here.
Maine - Olympia Snowe retired. Angus King wins. Democrat pick up. (King's an independent, but caucuses with dems).
Maryland - Ben Cardin wins again.
Massachusetts - Scott Brown loses to Elizabeth Warren. D pickup. Straight tickets won.
Michigan - Stabenow wins easily over Pete Hoekstra. Establishment failure here. It should have been closer and Durant would have given a much better race than the (nonexistent) campaign we saw.
Minnesota - Klobuchar wins easily.
Mississippi - Wicker wins.
Missouri - Claire McCaskill hangs on. Todd Akin loses what would have been a win for his mouth. Establishment (Huckabee wing) failure here. Akin wasn't tea party. Tea party was split in the primary.  D hold.
Montana - Jon Tester hangs on against Denny Rehberg. Wasn't tea party. D hold.
Nevada - Dean Heller hangs on against Shelly Berkley. Establishment win. R hold.
New Jersey - Bob Menendez hangs on despite his issues.
New Mexico - Martin Henrich takes over for Jeff Bingaman. D hold.  Tough year there.
New York - Gillibrand wins.
North Dakota - Heidi Heitkamp upsets Rick Berg. D hold. This wasn't tea party either.
Ohio - Brown beats Josh Mandel. D Hold. This wasn't tea party either.
Pennsylvania - Maybe Tom Smith should have had more help against Bob Casey who didn't win by a margin that was expected.
Rhode Island - Whitehouse wins
Tennessee - Corker wins
Texas - Ted Cruz wins
Utah - Orrin Hatch wins
Vermont - Bernie Sanders wins
Virginia - Tim Caine beats George Allen for Jim Webb's seat. D hold. Establishment loss here.
Washington - Cantwell wins
West Virginia - Manchin wins

Wisconsin - Baldwin beats former Governor Tommy Thompson. I heard Thompson ran a very poor campaign. Establishment failure here.
Wyoming - Barrasso wins.

Tom, you can pin ONE here on the tea party. In 2010, you can pin Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle there - along with Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio's wins.

What was proven here. Tea party candidates can win. Tea party candidates can lose. Same goes for establishment candidates. Dean Heller deserves a lot of credit for his win. It wasn't easy. I'm not trying to pick on one side over another. Like Tom, I'm tired of self-enforced errors in the party. Unlike Tom, I see the big picture.

Instead of these pot sides at "establishment" or "Tea Party," both sides need to recruit candidates who can actually win. That means avoiding foot-in-mouth disease, laziness, and consultant backstabbing by announcing to the world that this person is going to lose because your favorite lost the primary (Rove).  

Karl Rove - Back the Hell off

I really don't understand how Karl Rove is considered a political genius unless it is the Wile E Coyote version of "super genius." He got lucky by 500 votes in Florida in 2000, and got lucky again that John Kerry was the worst candidate the dems could run in 2004 thanks to "The New Soldier" and his 1972 traitor speech (read the whole transcript). The only thing he really got right campaign wise was getting ballot initiatives going that drove conservative turnout. That's the one big thing I'll credit him with. When it comes to candidate strategy and issues, I think he flat out sucks.

Karl Rove was deputy Chief of Staff of Bush from 05 to 07. That is the same time trouble really started brewing for the Bush administration.

Karl Rove was 0-fer in Michigan. Lost the 2000 primary. Lost in 2000 and 2004 (and he shouldn't have lost 04). Crossroads lost here in 2012.  He also ran his mouth and did a 1/2way McCain statement here in the last election. He later said it was competitive in the last two weeks, but the earlier comment did major damage. Major. If he was the genius he claimed he was, he'd keep his mouth shut, stay off of Fox (if he's running crossroads) and do what needs to be done.

Now he's getting involved in primaries. Great. A quote from Coach Bob Knight comes to mind. "You (bleeped) it up to begin with, now just sit there or leave."  Knight was addressing a media person who misrepresented him. Rove embarrassed himself and spent a lot of political capital losing hundreds of millions of dollars from donor money and got bad results. His back is against the wall and he needs to redeem himself and his thought process. The think with these national consultants is that it is of course NEVER their own fault. It's always the fault of others. That's how they keep getting their paycheck and these hanger-ons stay around. It can't be the fault of "super genius" but it is the fault of those "tea party people."

Reality is that this year the only one I can pin on the tea party is Mourdock. Akin wasn't tea party (although some tea party backed him after the fact due to the attacks against him by Rove). Romney wasn't tea party. His election day operations are legendary bad with Project Orca. His sign policy also hurt us badly.  In 2010, you could point to Angle and O'Donnell as tea party, but this year you had establishment candidates lose too. Both sides have their good (Rob Portman, Pat Toomey) and bad (Tommy Thompson, Richard Mourdock).

From the NY Times.

The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.” 

On paper, that sounds great. On paper. The problem is American Crossroads is run by Rove. Rove's track record makes Sarah Palin's look almost perfect. 3 for 20 or 7 for 24 (I've seen different reports.) This wasn't a wave election. The other issue is this. It's not about "most conservative" or "most moderate" if you are looking for electability. That's consultant and pundit BS. It's about the right fit. Rove doesn't get the Midwest. He never has. His record here shows that. Electability starts with candidates who A. Do their job and run on that first, B. Work hard and campaign and don't act like they are talked into running or are entitled to the job. Competence comes first. Where that affect social issues is where you have "far right" or "moderate" candidates play those up to the expense of going away from "doing your job issues."

The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.  

As someone who is not completely in either camp, I see a major problem here. One good friend of mind who is probably considered establishment said one of the biggest problems was Republicans bashing the hell out of each other in primaries. I'm not completely blameless here, but that was a good point mentioned. "For every attack between Santorum and Romney camps, you had votes going by default to Obama" was almost the exact quote from this individual. This person has a real point, especially after seeing the results. This Rovian stuff ain't helping matters.

As far as the "backing candidates who lose part", usually Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin are cited. Mourdock lost for saying something stupid. Akin wasn't tea party. He was establishment - Huckabee wing. He lost for saying something stupid. Saying something stupid isn't limited to "tea party" candidates. George Allen was very establishment and he lost in 06 for saying something stupid.

Iowa will be ground zero for this. 

The group’s plans, which were outlined for the first time last week in an interview with Mr. Law, call for hard-edge campaign tactics, including television advertising, against candidates whom party leaders see as unelectable and a drag on the efforts to win the Senate. Mr. Law cited Iowa as an example and said Republicans could no longer be squeamish about intervening in primary fights.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

King beat Christine Vilsack, a strong candidate with 7 million in backing, by 8% in a slightly R district. Now can King sell in Eastern Iowa? That's why we have primaries. On the same note, would Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist be better as R's in 2010 than Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio? NRSC supported those now democrats. NRSC supported Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. He won his primary and got his ass kicked in 2006. He also supported Obama, the 2nd worst resident of the White House in my lifetime outside of Jimmy Carter.

Grover Norquist, who leads Americans for Tax Reform, a fiscally conservative advocacy group that plays a role in Republican primary races, said he welcomed a pragmatic sense of discipline in recruiting candidates. But he said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose, pointing to establishment Republicans in North Dakota and Montana who also lost their races last year.

“People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” Mr. Norquist said. “We’ve had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly.” 

I'm not always in agreement with Norquist, but he's dead on here. Establishment candidates lost in Wisconsin and Michigan this year. Tea party candidates won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2010. Tea party won Texas in 2012. Tea party lost Indiana in 2012 and lost Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado in 2010. Establishment won Nevada  in 2012 and Ohio in 2010. They were generally united in New Hampshire in 2010 and won. Good candidates are good candidates regardless of which wing of the party. Bad is bad regardless of which wing of the party. "Electable candidates" aren't such because of just ideology. That's DC thinking.

Who are the recent winners in a purple state like Wisconsin? Scott Walker and Ron Johnson. I'm sure Rove would consider them too right wing to win a Midwestern state. Tommy Thompson lost. He shouldn't have lost, but he lost, to Tammy Baldwin of all people. Here in Michigan, I personally like Pete Hoekstra. He's a good guy who unfortunately was not a good candidate. He ran for senate like he was talked into running and did so as a favor. He was the establishment pick. He won the primary underwhelmingly and we had Bouchard 2006 all over again in the general. Stabenow has a lot of soft support. There was an opening there, but the window shut quickly and it was all over before it started.

If Steven Law at Crossroads really wants to do this right and be actually pragmatic instead of being another NRSC racket (Chafee, Crist, Specter all over again), he'll need to learn the territory of these areas in depth. He'll need to talk to the experts on the group and learn from them. REAL experts - away from the DC bubble. These experts are those who understand how things work in each individual state - people that live there. If Law tells Rove and DC consultants to back off, this may work. 

If Crossroads follows Rove's lead and pushes in, you're going to see state establishments, tea parties, conservatives, and everyone up and down the line unite - AGAINST Crossroads. Why? Turf wars. Arrogance combined with ignorance. Wasting money. How? Because candidates like Steve King in Iowa will drive up the Western Iowa vote with this line "Washington DC thinks they know what is best for Iowans. Vote for me and teach Washington establishment a lesson that primaries are for Iowans." That can work in every state. 

I encourage all Republican and Conservative donors to ask themselves these things when determining which committee to support:

1. Do these people have a good track record? Take a close look. While there's always many reasons why candidates sometimes lose, if you see the same style of campaign repeatedly with the same results, a pattern emerges.

2. Do I want my money spent on 3rd parties to elect republicans being wasted attacking good republicans in primaries?  If I want that, I'd donate to the candidate itself or an issues PAC.

3. Will this committee spend my money properly? I hate wasting money. Some call me cheap, but I prefer the term frugal. It goes back to running a countywide committee on $1700 against $10K+. We won BTW.

That doesn't apply just to Crossroads and Rove, but any committee. We all need to use due diligence in our decision making in which committees deserve our support, be it establishment, tea party, or all points in between.

RetakeOurGov makes their endorsements

There's been a lot of chatter both ways about Retakeourgov's endorsements. They are listed on Retakeourgov's site

For those who don't know, Retake Our Gov is one of the major tea parties in Livingston County. It's leader is Wes Nakagiri. Wes is a good guy and generally runs a good ship with his organization. I believe this is the first year they are directly endorsing candidates. Their PAC leadership can endorse whoever they want. However, there should be a clear process for endorsements. A lot of the candidates who wanted their endorsement and didn't get it are irked because they said they were not contacted or interviewed, so they don't know how Retake our gov made it's decision.

I expect growing pains with PAC's and expect the process to be smoother in the future. That's how my experience as been when I was one of the people making endorsement decisions with PAC's. There's many ways decisions can be made regarding PAC's from endorsements to grades, to "negative endorsements" advocating to defeat certain individuals (such as "unacceptable" ratings).

When I was with the Concerned Taxpayers Group PAC of Livingston County, we had a professional interview process at a conference table. Five or six of us were there rating candidates based on their answers and their records, if any. Most of the questions were pre-selected, with some follow up questions from the panel who were all fiscal conservatives who varied in their politics (Some R, mostly I). All candidates were invited for interviews. Those who were not interviewed didn't get considered for endorsement. Those who did were considered and our group endorsed those candidates who scored the best based on the average grade among the five people. It is subjective, as it always is to a degree, but the process is objected as that all have a change to get it if they didn't have a bad record.

A PAC's endorsement process should be clear, known to candidates, and known to its members. Hopefully, any process confusion this year can be explained by Wes, and any future decisions will iron out the growing pains from an initial run.

Early coronation attempts from some tea parties are not the way to go

I want to preface this post by saying that I'm neither pro, nor anti tea-parties. Plural because they are heavily local based. When one is right, I'll support it. When it's wrong, I oppose it. The same goes for RNC, MIGOP, PACs and local parties. I'm not a paying member of any tea party organization. I'm not tied to any tea party leadership. I have been a visitor to Retakeourgov meetings in the past and think they are a very well run organization. Neither they, nor Brighton Tea Party from what I've read, took part in this. A lot of other tea parties did not either, at least 21 of them. Hence, why I used the word SOME in the title with regards to this.

FromMidland News Herald

MT. PLEASANT - Members of a coalition of Tea Party groups Saturday endorsed Gary Glenn of Midland for the Republican nomination to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Glenn is president of the American Family Association of Michigan, and has long been active in conservative social causes. He’s best known as one of the authors of the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment to the Michigan constitution, which banned gay marriage in the state.

“I simply told the truth about where I think this country is headed,” Glenn told representatives of about 48 activist groups from across the state gathered at downtown Mt. Pleasant’s Centennial Hall. “If Barack Obama and Debbie Stabenow are re-elected, they threaten to take away our birthright of freedom, and turn our country into the United Socialist States of America.”

I knew about this in December, a week before my warning about big fish wannabes in small ponds. I heard then that this was a setup for Gary Glenn back then. I'm not posting this to discuss the positives and negatives of Gary Glenn as a candidate. My problem would remain the same if this was set up for any of the other candidates running, especially at this point. I also don't care for this being marketed as a "stop Stabenow" attempt as we already have a good process for that called the August primary.

This was my warning in December.

This is a dangerous game that can easily become more about personalities than about issues. Certain people like to see themselves as power brokers. You get on the right PAC boards and you become "an important person." You can puff yourself up to sound even more important, and can have some yesman who follow you, tell you how great you are, and then try and take your spot in the future. There's also yesmen "leaders" who will automatically "lead" their group to follow whatever some big name wants. That's what I refer to as big fish in little pond syndrome. I've seen it over 11 years of involvement in PACs, C4's, Party, and office politics. Guess what. Most of those who think they are big names, really aren't that important. The ones who puff themselves up in the room, usually aren't important, and deep down, they know it.

I hope the tea parties (plural) stay about ideology, and less about personalities. THAT is their strength. Once they become about personalities and favorites, it's all downhill from there. The cost is respect.

Some folks consider me a big name. I'm not that big. I'm just big enough to be a pain in the arse when I choose to be. Big names come and go real quick. In some respects, I was a bigger name 10 years ago and got in a nasty office politics battle. It was a learning experience and one I never forget. The winners were nobody. The losers were everybody. The six of us lost. The other side got a Pyrrhic victory as the best people (us) were no longer there and the organization wasn't even close to being the same. Been there. Done that. Don't want to see it on our side again. Don't want to be brought into it, but quite capable if I am forced to do so.

According to Michigan for Conservative Senate, 43 tea parties made the decision. At least 21 did not, and some have said that the number was over 60 that did not.

What's wrong with this from a tactical standpoint?

1. Infighting. Michigan for Conservative Senate calls this a Tea Party endorsement in its press release. That's not going to sit well with a lot of people.

2. Process. Some were excluded in the decision. How was the process? Was Glenn that much better than Hoekstra, Durant, Konetchy, Hekman, Marino, or Boman?

3. Timing. This was announced right before the presidential primary. How much press did "Michigan for Conservative Senate" receive for this? Some, but not nearly what it would be in May. This limits the help for Glenn. Few were paying attention to the senate race.

4. Timing pt 2. We have no idea who is a viable candidate or who can win. If you're going to gamble like this all in, you better be ready to both win the primary and take out the dangerous incompetent one - Debbie Stabenow. The filing deadline is May. That's the first we'll see of someone getting weeded out and/or dropped out candidates. Things can change quickly. Spence Abraham was up 20% over Stabenow in September of 2000. He lost. The campaign is just beginning.

As voters, we need to look at the candidates, where they stand, who they are, and do our due diligence in making a decision this August. Take this endorsement for what it is. A pick made from some representatives of some tea parties. No more. No less. It's not a consensus for all of them. I just hope it doesn't lead to unneeded trouble.

Beware of big fish wannabes in small ponds

The Detroit News has a story out that has my guard up. The title is this. Tea party groups work to unseat Stabenow. There already is a process for that. It's called a PRIMARY. We will decide the GOP nominee in August.

Invitations are being sent to all eight GOP candidates for a Jan. 14 debate at Central Michigan University, organizers announced. Two leaders from each qualified tea party group will be invited to participate in a Feb. 25 straw poll at CMU to determine who wins the tea party endorsement.

Uniting under the banner, Michigan 4 Conservative Senate, organizers say endorsing one candidate and rallying behind him is the best way to ensure a conservative candidate defeats Democratic incumbent Sen. Debbie Stabenow in November.

"It's just a way to take a pulse of tea party groups and encourage them to work together and rather than work apart," said Cindy Gamrat, an organizer for Michigan 4 Conservative Senate.

1. What is "qualified?"
2. Who are the designated "leaders?"
3. What is the "tea party?"

That type of talk gets my guard up. It looks like a power move to me.

Speaking for myself, I'm not "tea party." I agree with them more than I don't, but I do things my own way. I've been to a couple of RetakeourGov meetings and met some folks from Brighton Tea Party, but haven't finally contributed to any tea parties. I also am not a member of any leadership there, nor choose to be. I'll stick with being an occasional spectator.

The media talks about "Tea Party" being one singular thing. It isn't. There are hundreds of different local parties with their own personalities and opinions. Some of them are larger and more organized than others. Some are more ambitious when it comes to politics than others. I'm impressed with what I've seen from retakeourgov and their organization at the meetings I've seen. I haven't been to a Brighton Tea Party meeting, but they (along with a Milford group and Retakeourgov) did a good job with the senate candidate forum recently.

Most tea party members I know aren't trying to be "big fish in a small pond." Almost all of them never start out that way. Eventually many leaders or "lieutenants" in these organizations gain a following, get told how great they are, and start to believe their own press clippings. Many, not all, not even most. The good ones stay grounded.

However, this is politics. The definition of politics is "who gets what, when, and how." Power. Power brings out the worst in a lot of people. Politics is nasty for a reason, and nothing can get more nasty than internal political wars (along with local cities, school boards, and townships). Been there, done that, and weary of being involved in it again. I don't know the internals of this, but it's looking like a couple of power moves here.

I don't know much about Cindy Gamrat outside of her being a recent Indiana transplant to Plainwell in Southwest Michigan. Michigan 4 Conservative Senate is the website for this plan. This is modeled after Indiana's attempt to take out the center-left Dick Lugar in Indiana. Dick Lugar however is a Republican. Far leftist Debbie Stabenow is not.

So is this a "Stop Stabenow?" It's not. Stabenow will be quasi one on one (and some 3rd parties) against the Republican nominee whoever it is. This is about "stop Hoekstra." This is an attempt to have a coronation of the favorites of a few people. This is no different than the coronation attempt many establishment folks are trying to set up for Pete Hoekstra.

The question is who's the favored candidate.

"I think it's really disingenuous to have a group of people come together and anoint themselves as tea party leaders and take it further and endorse a candidate," said Patty McMurray, of Birmingham, co-founder of the Michigan Conservative Alliance, which wasn't invited to the straw poll.

Modeled after the tea party unification in Indiana, Michigan tea party organizers say it's important to not only vet the candidates but also the tea party groups themselves. Gamrat has been whittling down the original list of 120 conservative groups in Michigan to ensure their longevity and activeness, and that they are truly a tea party group, not affiliated with a national organization and not a political action committee. Those who qualify are allowed to have two members cast votes in the straw poll. McMurray's group was excluded because it's a PAC, Gamrat said.

Vetted by which people? WHO decides what is "legit?" McMurray's group is punished due to having a PAC? MANY tea party groups have PAC's. It's good organization. Anyone can form a PAC. It's not hard to set up, although it takes discipline to manage properly. Those with a PAC are doing good work. I think McMurray is attacked for supporting Hoekstra.

Currently she expects about 110 people to cast straw poll votes, representing 55 tea party groups statewide.

How large are these 55 groups? How are the votes weighted? Will the locals support this?

McMurray and fellow MICA co-founder, Leisa Audette, are both Hoekstra supporters and feel the event is rigged so Hoekstra doesn't win. Though he co-founded the Tea Party Caucus while in Congress, some fellow candidates have painted Hoekstra as not conservative enough and part of the Washington establishment.

It is rigged against Hoekstra, along as all candidates except one. It's a coronation attempt - the same thing that much of the establishment is doing for Hoekstra.

On a side note, this whole "Tea Party Caucus" in Congress is a joke. This is a case of politicians in DC calling themselves "Tea Party" and trying to pass themselves off as conservatives. I never bought into that talk. Talk is cheap. Votes are what matter, and Hoekstra has a long history of votes. Good and bad. He can stand by those votes and defend them, or admit mistakes if he's changed his mind on the issue. Debbie Stabenow can join the "Tea Party Caucus" if she wants. Does that make her tea party? No way. Talk is cheap. Deeds not words.

Randy Bishop, of the Northern Michigan Patriots, has been actively promoting the tea party convention and openly criticizes Hoekstra. He says unifying behind one candidate is necessary to avoid splitting the vote — as what happened in the governor's race last year leading to a Rick Snyder victory, he said.

"Just as much as much as we respect their choice not to participate we hope they would respect ours to participate," Bishop said of uninterested tea party groups.

By excluding those with a PAC? I'm interested in who Gamrat and Bishop are supporting. I'm more interested if it's the same person, and that is who they and a few others want to win.

The good and bad with tea parties is that many of them are new to politics. The good about that is that the old boys and girls club gets shaken up. The GOP establishment is largely as disliked as the democrats. They want to get involved and make a difference.

However, not all of the "establishment" is bad. Many of us have been involved 10, 20, or 30 years. Many of us are as conservative or more so as the tea party members. We also have a long history of inside baseball and power struggles and good intentions producing bad results. I've seen big fish and small pond syndrome. I've seen folks become yesman to become popular with big fish in small ponds.

That's a danger here I see with consolidation or quasi consolidation attempts. I understand the thought of trying to herd cats or tea party folks to supporting one candidate to stop a Snyder, but:

1. Who decides?
2. What's the process?
3. What's the criteria for the endorsement?

This is a dangerous game that can easilly become more about personalities than about issues. Certain people like to see themselves as power brokers. You get on the right PAC boards and you become "an important person." You can puff yourself up to sound even more important, and can have some yesman who follow you, tell you how great you are, and then try and take your spot in the future. There's also yesmen "leaders" who will automatically "lead" their group to follow whatever some big name wants. That's what I refer to as big fish in little pond syndrome. I've seen it over 11 years of involvement in PACs, C4's, Party, and office politics. Guess what. Most of those who think they are big names, really aren't that important. The ones who puff themselves up in the room, usually aren't important, and deep down, they know it.

I hope the tea parties (plural) stay about ideology, and less about personalities. THAT is their strength. Once they become about personalities and favorites, it's all downhill from there. The cost is respect.

As for this races, I think the primary needs to work itself out over the next few months before any push towards going behind one candidate. I understand the push. Joe Schwarz in 2004 taught a harsh lesson.  Hoekstra I'd vote for over Stabenow easily. No hesitation. Candidates will rise and fall as they are vetted, organized, and make more statements. Our Senate primary is in August. Not February.

Jason Bauer pleads no contest in BSTP vote fraud case

This is the second plea in the BSTP related case. Michael McGuinness already pleaded no contest, which for sentencing purposes counts the same as a guilty plea. If you click on the BSTP tab, you'll find a list of a bunch of previous stories on what I called the Bullshit Tea Party or BSTP. Others were more polite and called it the fake tea party.

From the Oakland Press

The former political director of Oakland County’s Democratic Party pleaded no contest Monday to charges related to voter fraud.

Jason Bauer, 27, is scheduled to return to court in January for sentencing.

Bauer and co-defendant Michael McGuinness, the former chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party, were charged earlier this year with three counts of uttering and publishing and three counts of perjury. Both have now pleaded no contest, which not an admission of guilt but treated as such for sentencing purposes.

Bauer was also charged with three misdemeanor counts of violating the Michigan Notary Act.

Authorities accused the two men of fraudulently entering the names of three people as “Tea Party” candidates for county commission and state Senate seats to appear on the November 2010 ballot

I wonder how far up this thing goes. Of all the people involved in this scheme, only two of them got caught, and that's due to the forgery. Dumb. Breakdown - Takedown - You're busted!

Bullshit Tea Party (BSTP) leader pleads no contest to perjury and forgery

Remember the Bullshit Tea Party (BSTP) from 2010? Now as Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright says, "The chickens are coming home to roost."

From the Free Press

Michael McGuinness, former chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party, pleaded no contest last week to charges associated with a fake Tea Party scheme hatched for the 2010 elections.

McGuinness, 27, was facing a trial this week on perjury and forgery charges linked to putting unwitting people on the ballot as candidates of the tea party.

No contest for sentencing purposes means the same thing as a guilty plea. Jason Bauer, his political director is up on trial December 8th.

These jagoffs need to be taught a lesson that vote fraud is no longer tolerated in Michigan.

I've first caught wind of the BSTP back in July of 2010. Here's some background on this:

BSTP releases list of candidates. Several are Democrats

Michigan Capitol Confidential - Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party

Right Michigan - Breaking - Fake Tea Party candidate not running

More from Right Michigan

Even more from Right Michigan

O'Donnell wins Delaware Primary - mixed views on this

I thought Castle was going to pull it off in Delaware, but I was wrong about it. If I lived in Delaware, I wouldn't care for either of my two choices (O'Donnell for non-ideological reasons like frivolous damages claims in a lawsuit) but would have done a one time only vote for liberal republican Castle for pragmatic reasons. Delaware is a social liberal state with heavy Philadelphia area influence.

I think the pundits are missing the point with the O'Donnell win and I think this still goes way beyond "tea party" and "moderate" and "liberal" and "conservative reasons." This stuff has been stewing since 2006, caught fire in 2008, and exploded with the stimulus and Obamacare. Spending and big government is one big issue, but the other one is simply attitude.

I was a family member's house last night and saw this headline on the TV. "NRSC won't spend money on this race." That's the problem that so many of the conservative base AND independents have, beyond any ideology. First off, even if the NRSC isn't going to donate money, they need to shut the hell up. Don't give away your game plan. Don't automatically write off competitive seats like a pussycat. Nobody respect that, from any ideology. Where a lot of the disconnect is though between the base, the tea party, Washington, and establishments is this attitude. Who works for who. The establishment and DC leadership thinks they are in charge, they pick their candidates, they appoint party leadership, and that they lead the way and that the base should follow their lead, no matter what. Grass roots vs professionalism, and they believe they are the professionals. That works when everyone is on the same page. When it isn't, then it doesn't work. Neither the base or the independents like being dictated to.

The difference today than in the past is this. Conservative independents (Where most tea party activists fall) and the base republicans no longer are accepting dictates from party leadership. In the minds of most, they FUBARed the situation. A lot of this is aimed at NRSC and to a lesser extent RNC (Steele's foot in mouth). NRSC tried to run off candidates in primaries in favor of RINO's. Castle isn't a RINO. He's a liberal. Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were RINO's. Now they are democrats. Lisa Murkowski is showing RINO tendancies and may run as a write in. Lincoln Chafee is a RINO who endorsed Obama. Joe Schwarz was a RINO on the house side and backed Mark Schauer. Why the hell are these idiots getting support from leadership IN PRIMARIES. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and let the state electorate make the decision in the primary. It's leadership's job to elect republicans, not the coronation of their candidates.

In this election season, the majority of time the leadership has dictated a candidate, that candidate was defeated in the primary. That ought to send a message to DC, but DC doesn't get it at all. Charlie Crist quit and ran as a so called independent. Arlen Specter switched primaries and lost anyway. Bob Bennett's bailout votes cost him his job. Bob Inglis lost. Parker Griffith lost. Castle lost. Their preferred primary candidates in Colorado, Nevada, and Kentucky lost too. In Wisconsin, California, and Washington, their preferred candidate won. In New Hampshire (close to call), their candidate is winning barring recount. In Wisconsin, Washington, and New Hampshire, the preferred candidate is acceptable to many of the base as well.

What needs to happen:

1. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and stop running their mouths. Primaries are decided by state voters, not leadership. Save your money, time, and mouths for the general election.

2. The base that does not like the "coronation" candidate needs to pick someone better who can win. Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio were very good choices. Others aren't.

3. Losers in primaries need to suck it up and take it for the team. One BIG reason a lot of so called establishment "moderates" are almost despised more than democrats are due to people like Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Joe Schwarz, Wayne Gilchrist, Lincoln Chafee, and many so called conservative pundits, Bush administration people (Dowd, McKinnon) and columists in the 2008 election. These assholes (not all moderates, but those I named) got their candidate who they demanded elected (McCain) in the primary, and then go out and endorse a leftist like Obama in the general. Many have LONG memories on that.

4. Pick a better establishment. Marco Rubio said this in his primary against Crist. This is most important. In the end, the establishment is picked by apathy. Party leadership (outside of caucus - NRSC, NRCC, etc) is elected. It's elected by activists. We need to do our homework and make sure the right people are elected. For me it is those that have their ear to the ground and at the same time are strong competent individuals who are good administrators and want to win in the fall.

Did DC learn its lesson? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Court of Appeals squashes the BSTP

Right Michigan has the story

For the fake Tea Party of Michigan.

Mark Steffek's puppet masters,the Democrats are likely a little hung over this morning. Mark Brewer is likely cleaning off his hand and counting the pennies left after suffering another failure of epic proportions in an attempt to deceive Michiganders. The Detroit News reports that the ballot will not see the Gadsden symbol on it this November:

"In light of the plaintiff's failure to strictly comply with the requirements (of state election law), plaintiff fails to establish a clear legal duty on the part of the defendant to certify the petition," the court ruled.

Short of an expensive and approved emergency challenge to the MI SC, its done, over.. fin.

Keep in mind that Oakland County Democrat chair Mike McGuinness, who is tied to the BSTP with his roommate and political director Jason Bauer, was until recently an employee of Secretary of State candidate and convicted criminal George Soros backed Jocelyn Benson.

Ruth Johnson for Secretary of State.

Election Fraud with the democrats and the BSTP? (Bullshit tea party)

A bombshell today posted at RightMichigan. This is another reason not to vote for Jocelyn Benson as Secretary of State.

From Right Michigan

Apparently, on July 23, 2010 a man calling himself Aaron William Tyler filed signed paperwork to run on the November ballot as a "Tea Party" candidate for the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, District 2 seat. The candidate also filed paperwork to form a campaign committee, Citizens for Aaron Tyler. He listed a Springfield Township address and gave his birth date as Feb. 26, 1983.

However, when Johnson's office notified Aaron Tyler, now living out-of-state, that he had a $30 late fee for failing to file proper paperwork for his committee, he told Johnson's Director of Elections, Joe Rozell, that he had no idea what they were talking about and that he had never filed paperwork to run for office. Tyler's signature on the apparently falsified candidate filing, which had been notarized, does not match his signature on file in the State's Qualified Voter File.

At a press conference Friday, Johnson read a letter she received today from Aaron Tyler. His signature on today's letter did match Tyler's signature in the state's Qualified Voter File:

"This letter is in regards to the elections filing with the OaklandCounty Clerk's office. I was shown a document that states my intention of being placed on the ballot for this fall. I have been in Phoenix, Arizona since July 27, 2010 for a new job. I did not sign this piece of paper. I have been receiving calls in regards to various aspects of this election process and have been confused as to why I was getting those. I figured it must have been some sort of mistake. I finally took the initiative to call the Clerk's office to investigate and they have helped explain the situation to me. I have no intentions of running for elected office. I believe a fraud was committed." - Aaron Tyler, Aug. 20, 2010

Legitimate Tea Party organizations across the state have condemned the state's new Tea Party as a "Fake" Tea party which does not represent them or their beliefs. Election experts have called the state's new Tea Party a ploy by Democrats to confuse voters.

There's more at Right Michigan, and it's a must read. Whoever said that vote fraud is not a problem is either mistaken or a liar. Jason Bauer is the one who was behind that application.

As far as the BSTP and Bauer goes, I covered them here and here and here

Yet More on the BS tea party. (BSTP)

Besides the ongoing research done on my site here, many others are exposing the fake tea party, the BSTP, for what it is.

Kudos to Right Michigan, Classical Values, Michigan Capitol Confidential, and theblogprof, as well as the late Chet Zarko for first catching this.

Blogprof - Confirmed: Michigan 'Tea Party' A Democrat Hoax To Trick Voters At Ballot Box

Classical Values - Fake "Tea Party" Democratic operatives fail my smell test!

Michigan Capitol Confidential - Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party

Along with tons of stuff at Right Michigan

Know the tricks. Know the enemy. Neutralize them.

Michigan Capitol Chronicle finds another smoking gun on the BS "Tea Party" (BSTP)

Yesterday, I posted some smoking guns on the BSTP. There's plenty more.

Here's the latest:

Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party
A tea party organizer says he has found the smoking gun that links the Democratic Party to the controversial "Tea Party" that is running candidates and seeking official ballot status in Michigan.

A "Jason Bauer" is listed on recent federal election documents and state campaign donation documents as the "political director" of the Oakland County Democratic Party. A "Jason H. Bauer" signed the affidavits as the notary on nine of the mysterious Tea Party Political candidates' paperwork turned in to the state of Michigan.

A "Jason H. Bauer" has registered twice to run for office in Oakland County, once as a Democrat in May of this year. Both times, the Auburn Hills home address given by "Jason H. Bauer" is the same as the "Jason Bauer" who is identified as the Oakland County Democratic Party political director on the state and federal campaign documents.

The "Jason H. Bauer" signature on the Oakland County document also appears substantially similar to the notary signatures on the Tea Party political party candidate filings revealed this week.

Now we have a Jason Bauer to go with these four clowns:

Mark Steffek. Steffek is the chair and treasurer of the BSTP. Steffek's political donations include David Bonior for Governor and the UAW's PAC. The UAW leadership and Bonior? Far leftist democrats. Check the donation reports, which are all online at the Secretary of State's website

Thomas Murdock. He and his wife Joyce donated $100 to Andy Dillon. Joyce also supports anti-hunting committees. No real tea party supporter would donate to Dillon or anti-hunters, but the BSTP does. Source - Secretary of State

Frantt Whitehall. Frantt donated to Garnet Lewis, Sharon Tillman, Mike Huckleberry. Robert Whitehall of the same address gave to Clinton County Democrats. Source - Secretary of State.

David Polzin. He donated to Bart Stupak. No real tea party supporter would donate to Stupak, but the BSTP is another story. If that's not good enough. David Polzin of Menominee gave $10 to Grand Traverse Democrats, and $55 to Granholm, and $50 to Michigan House Democrats fund.

There's more on Bauer:

On the Oakland County Democratic Party website, Jason Bauer was listed as the contact and a member of the Host Committee for the party for Mike McGuinness, the chairman of the party.

The Detroit Democratic Party Meetup Group has a Jason Bauer page. On that page, Jason Bauer introduces himself as a member of the Oakland County Democratic Party and as a candidate for the Auburn Hills City Council. When Bauer filed paperwork to run for the Auburn Hills City Council, he identified himself as Jason H. Bauer.

On the Federal Elections Commission website, Congressman Gary Peters itemized his donations. A May 4, 2009, donation of $200 lists Jason Bauer as the contributor and lists his employer as the Oakland County Democratic Party and his occupation as "Political Director."

Don't be fooled by the BSTP.

The Bullshit "Tea Party" (BSTP) releases their candidate list. Several are open democrats

The actual tea party movement isn't a real political party. It's a loose-knit group of conservative and libertarian activists who are irate at the spending, taxes, TARP, and other big government leftism that has gone on for the past six years.

However, the left is trying to create a bullshit "tea party" to try and siphon 2-3% of the vote to keep power with the democrats. How do we know it's the left? I'll give you four reasons later.

Here's their list of candidates.

State Senate
District 7: Shelley Niles
District 12: John Young
District 13: Thomas Murdock
District 15: Heather Sartorius
District 26: Andrew Nicholls
District 36: Frantt Whitehall

State House
District 1: Jameson Canto
District 26: Susan Quashat
District 43: Matthew Quinn
District 51: William Guethner
District 64: Sara Summerfelt
District 65: Christopher Dickinson
District 107: Tony Matthews
District 108: David Polzin

Notice where they are. Those are almost all competitive or swing districts. They aren't based in Detroit (except 1), Flint, or Southfield, nor Livingston County.

State Senate:
District 7 - Bruce Patterson's seat. Downriver west to Belleville and north to Northville. Close district for years.
District 12 - Mike Bishop's district. Democrat Pontiac and Republican Northern Oakland. Leans Republican, but nothing with Pontiac is safe.
District 13 - John Pappageorge Central Oakland. One of the three closest districts in the state in 06
District 15 - West Oakland. One of the few safe or almost safe districts. It still has West Bloomfield though.
District 26 - Part of Genesee and Oakland Counties. Treading Republican, but not there yet.
District 36 - Midland and the Lake Huron Coast. Swing district.

State House:
District 1 - Grosse Pointes, Harper Woods and part of Detroit. Swings.
District 26 - Leans Democrat. Royal Oak and Madison Heights.
District 43 - Slightly Republican. Waterford, part of West Bloomfield (not the most democrat part)
District 51 - Southern Genesee County - Slightly Republican, but Pat Lockwood held this seat in the 90's.
Districts 64 and 65 - Jackson County, swings.
District 107 - Eastern UP, Northern Lower Penninsula - Swings
District 108 - Central/Southern UP - Swings.

Why aren't they running in ANY non-competitive districts? Simple. Because they are leftists who want the democrats to win. We know this for four reasons.

Reason 1 - Mark Steffek. Steffek is the chair and treasurer of the Bullshit Tea Party (hereafter reffered to as BSTP. Steffek's political donations include David Bonior for Governor and the UAW's PAC. The UAW leadership and Bonior? Far leftist democrats. Check the donation reports, which are all online at the Secretary of State's website

Reason 2 - Thomas Murdock. He and his wife Joyce donated $100 to Andy Dillon. Joyce also supports anti-hunting committees. No real tea party supporter would donate to Dillon, but the BSTP does. Source - Secretary of State

Reason 3 - Frantt Whitehall. Frantt donated to Garnet Lewis, Sharon Tillman, Mike Huckleberry. Robert Whitehall of the same address gave to Clinton County Democrats. Source - Secretary of State.

Reason 4 - David Polzin. He donated to Bart Stupak. No real tea party supporter would donate to Stupak, but the BSTP is another story. f that's not good enough. David Polzin of Menominee gave $10 to Grand Traverse Democrats, and $55 to Granholm, and $50 to Michigan House Democrats fund.

Granholm? Caucus? That's what the BSTP supports.

We as conservatives need to make sure that the BSTP is exposed, is not a real tea party, and is just another arm of the democrats. A vote for the BSTP is a vote for more of the same from the left which is running this state into the ground.

Right Michigan is also doing research on this.

Brighton again takes a stand against Big Government

I'm more of a pitchforks and torches kind of guy than I am a tea party guy, but this will have to do.I'd estimate about 750 there.

Once again, count on Brighton to take a stand against Big Government, much as we did last September. With the punk in chief railroading the debtor's prison health care deform billthrough Congress, now is the time to fight.

It was a good turnout for a weekday event that started right after the day shift ended. It wasn't like it was when national tea party express came through Brighton, but it was a good event anyway. Joe Hune spoke there and did a good job as usual. I saw Bill Rogers and Cindy Denby there in the background as well.

I could have done without seeing the Lyndon LaRouche booth and their violation of Godwin's Law, but at any event, there will be a few of those types showing up.

Overall, a message was sent. Less government and more freedom. Those that don't support that need to be fired.

Brighton takes a stand against big government

Holy Smokes. I didn't expect this big of a crowd.

It's the joker.


























The Three Stooges, Larry, Moe and Curly, and the crowd.

I debated whether to go to the tea party or not, but decided to do so. With the punk and Joker Mr. Obama's latest proposal, it was the last straw. He now wants to fine individuals $3800 for forgoing health insurance. Whether or not one wants insurance is none of your damn business. Bastards. In other news, he wants to raise the debt ceiling to 12 trillion. We got to pay that off somehow. China will collect eventually.

It's time to run the big spenders, taxers, and regulators out of DC and Lansing. This tea party needs to be a first step to run the clowns out, whether it be local, state, or federal. Unfortunately, we don't have a big chance federally until 2012 when the Dangerously Incompetent Debbie Stabenow is next up. A major difference can be made at the state level when we have an open seat for the Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and State Senate positions. John Cherry spent 8 years as Granholm's LT. Nice guy, but wrong for the job. Valde Garcia is term limited out. Joe Hune was solid in his six years against the big spending, tax raising, fee raising, and regulations that were pushed in Lansing. He'll be solid as a senator.

The estimates of the crowd range from 2000 to 4000. I'm not sure of the exact number, but it was wall to wall of people on all sides of the Mill Pond going back from Main Street to St Paul to the Gazebo to the Imagination Station Playground border. I haven't seen this many people in one spot in Brighton since the old football games in the mid 90's against South Lyon. Parking? Forget it. It was a clustermuck.

The speeches were basic less government and more freedom talk. I've heard them before as a political junkie, but it was cool for those who haven't heard them. The crowd numbers sent the biggest message. One other good thing I saw was that there wern't many idiots. Out of the thousands there, only two signs I saw that did not belong there because of Godwin's law. That's not a bad ratio. Less than 1%.

My favorite sign was this:

Democrats destroyed Detroit, now Michigan. That is the absolute truth. The liberal democrats - starting with WHITE democrats in the 1960's destroyed that city (riots were on his watch), moved out, and now want to inflict what they did there here. If you want what happened to Detroit to happen here, vote the same bums in, the Jerry Cavanaugh's of today, and continuing with the Coleman Youngs afterward.

That is what will happen if the same jokers are elected here in Livingston County. That is what will happen to the state if the same jokers are elected in Lansing once again, and what will happen to the entire country if the current fools in DC are brought back again in 2010 and 2012. Send them home. Cherry, Whitmer, Stabenow, Levin, Schauer, Peters, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Baucus.

The tea parties - A good start, but needs to be sustained.

Back in my football days, we had a saying about the season. It is a marathon, not a sprint. The "season" started in January with offseason weightlifting and conditioning. The hard work in January was to pay off in the fall.

This tea party is a good start. That's what it is, a start. What did it do? It woke some people up hopefully about the spending going on in this country. That is important, but it needs to be followed up. It needs to be followed up with calls to our congressmen, senators, state reps, state senators, and even local officials.

The potential organization needs to be more than potential. It needs to be real, active, and ongoing as preparation for the special elections and local elections of 09 and for the major 2010 elections across the country. That is the true measure of success. I remember an astroturf rally for gun control in 2000 that ended up going nowhere. The pro-freedom groups didn't have the rallies, but had the organization where it counts - votes.

Step 1 was the tea parties. That was a successful step. Step 2 is following up with organization dealing with the reps and elections. That has yet to be determined. We don't win in April. We win in August and November.