E!! The True Conservative Story™

Not sure if you’ve heard that Tax Day Tea Party organizer and DontGo Movement leader Eric Odom said “thanks, but no thanks” to RNC chair Michael Steele’s request to speak at the Chicago Tea Party event?  Instead, Eric invited chairman Steele to come and mingle and LISTEN.  Which I thought was well-played and a great idea.

Now it seems the grassroots Tea Party effort is being portrayed as a project of the GOP.  Here is Eric’s response - which, as a volunteer Tea Party organizer here in NV, and an associate and friend of Eric’s, I can verify as true and genuine:

This story out of TN has cheered me up considerably.

Apparently Representative Kent Williams sold out conservative Tennessee voters and his own party when he  stole the House Speaker’s chair at the last minute – with the help of Democrats with whom he has been secretly conspiring.  And apparently the TN GOP decided not to take it lying down.  From a resolution of their Executive Committee:

Whereas the supporters, voters and donors of the Tennessee Republican Party have a right to expect that, having collectively campaigned for and won a majority in the state House for the first time since 1868, both houses of the legislature would be lead by loyal Republican leadership; and

Whereas the evidence shows that Representative Kent Williams had been planning his betrayal for eight weeks and conspiring with Democrats to crown him Speaker in exchange for betraying his fellow Republican caucus members; and

Whereas Representative Kent Williams rewarded his Democratic allies with committee chairmanships, putting at risk the Republican agenda the majority of Tennessee voters voted for; and

Whereas Kent Williams’ actions and words provide indefensible evidence to the 30 written challenges questioning the Bona Fide status as a Republican; and is entitled to its constitutional right of Freedom of Association; and

Whereas the Tennessee Republican Party seeks to disassociate with Representative Kent Williams;

BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That state Representative Kent Williams of Carter County, Tennessee, be forever barred from seeking elective office in Tennessee on a Republican ballot; and

2. That the Tennessee Republican Party immediately request all media outlets in Tennessee to cease referring to Representative Kent Williams as a Republican.

3. That Kent Williams receive no support, endorsements, or financial backing by those affiliates of the Tennessee Republican Party.

Can they DO that?

Yes.  As the resolution notes, the Republican Party enjoys the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Association.

Hmmm…

Have the state parties in Pennsylvania and Maine – home to RINO (Republican In Name Only) sell-out Sens. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – heard about this pithy little resolution out of Tennessee?

Maybe the GOP in every state should start disassociating themselves from Republican legislators who sell out conservative values, the voters, and the party that got them elected.

I can think of one state, in particular, in which at least one prominent Republican seems to be conspiring with Democrats to give “bi-partisan” support for tax hikes in the middle of a huge recession.

I’ll give you one guess which state – and which Senator – it is.

In the midst of all the in-fighting over whether social conservatives and the religious right have ”ruined” the Republican party, the American Conservative Union has re-published an interesting piece by Randall Hoven (originally printed at American Thinker).

I don’t talk much about my faith here on E!!  but as a Christian conservative with a libertarian streak, I am always interested in these kinds of debates.  Generally speaking I’m a social and cultural conservative, but I am cautious about state-mandated morality (because it can cut both ways) and often find myself defending freedom itself as an important right and virtue.

This is because I believe that (1) God grants us freedom and free will, (2) God grants us free will for a reason, and (3) Jesus Christ was not an Authoritarian. 

Free will is meaningless if people aren’t free to choose wrong as well as right, evil as well as good.  (Please don’t interpret this to mean I support anarchy; I don’t.)  We can and should legislate behavior to keep people from unduly harming one another, but we really can’t legislate matters of morality and conscience and spirit.  A man’s heart and mind cannot be taken by force; he must give it freely.

Jesus never strong-armed or forced anyone into listening to him, following him, or believing in him.  He spoke the truth with grace, closed his remarks with something pithy like “go and sin no more,” and that was basically it.  You were either touched and moved by what he said or not – but he didn’t chase you down the street, and he didn’t appeal to Rome to turn the Beautitudes into the law of the land. 

Anyway, check out Hoven’s piece and let me know what you think about his views.  I’d be interested to hear from so-cons as well as libertarians.

 Leslie Carbone has a very moving post up over at dontgomovement.com.  I like her passion.

Just received a press release from the California Republican Party (CRP) that they have filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against Barack Obama, Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others citing a pattern of misconduct. 

Specific complaints include the fact that the Obama campaign provided Project Vote a copy of its donor list while hiding the fact that they did so, that Obama flew to Hawaii to visit his grandmother on $100,000 worth of campaign funds (instead of paying for it personally), and that Obama has been promised (and has accepted) “pro bono” legal representation by a law firm that has told its attorneys it will compensate and reward them for helping Obama.  All of these things are either in violation of federal election law or formal FEC opinion.

We’ll see what the FEC does, if anything.

After carrying herself in a fair, patient, and professional manner over the past eight months, it seems Sue Lowden must now bear up under the label “inept” by the RNC Committee on Contests.  This tag seems harsh and unfair in light of the extreme difficulty and complexity of Lowden’s position this election cycle.

The real story – which is not one of party ineptitude but instead of the combative and unreasonable demeanor of one Mr. Jeff Greenspan – began early this year.  Greenspan, an official Ron Paul campaign representative with whom Lowden was working after Paul received 14 percent of the vote in our presidential caucuses, agreed that the Nevada GOP would give Paul 14 percent of the state delegation (equating to four delegates).  Lowden invited Ron Paul to speak at our state convention, and Greenspan submitted the names of four Ron Paul supporters to the Nominating Committee for consideration.

But on the morning of the convention, April 26, for reasons I have yet to understand, Greenspan went back on the deal with the Nevada GOP.  Instead of moving to an up-or-down vote on the delegate candidates pre-screened from the dozens that had been submitted for consideration, Greenspan teamed up with a Paul supporter named Mike Weber, led a floor “revolt,” and threw the convention into chaos.  How did they accomplish this?  By insisting on opening up nominations from the floor.  This resulted in some 287 new nominations for 31 delegate slots and 31 alternates.

There was no way the convention and/or state party could hear and vet 287 last-minute nominations in one day.  In fact, in light of the time it takes to hear individual speeches/pitches for candidacy, eat meals, take bathroom breaks, allow for interruptions, and take care of other necessary convention business, it is doubtful whether full, fair and proper vetting of 287 new delegate candidates could have been done in two, three, or even four days.

And so it was that the well coordinated, pre-arranged delegate selection process put in place by the party and agreed to by Jeff Greenspan turned into an unholy mess.  The convention fell apart.  And to outsiders, the process meltdown probably did appear “inept.” 

After the convention fell apart, Greenspan, Weber, and other Paul supporters like Wayne Terhune continued their crusade, doing what they could to impede reconvening and even holding their own unsanctioned “convention” in June.  Due to the boycott by the Paul people, the GOP was unable to obtain enough RSVPs to obtain a quorum for the reconvening of the official state convention.

This week the RNC Committee on Contests reviewed the matter, ruled that the Paul “convention” in June was unauthorized, rejected the “delegates” that were “elected” at that meeting, and recommended a compromise by which the Nevada Republican Party will replace four of the current convention delegates (which the Nevada GOP’s Executive Committee appointed last month) with four Ron Paul delegates. 

Readers will note that four delegates is exactly the number of delegates the Nevada GOP had originally agreed to include before Greenspan reneged on the original deal.

Chairwoman Sue Lowden has agreed to the compromise.

“It was always my intention and hope to bring the Ron Paul people into our party,” she said yesterday.   “In fact, I was the only state Republican party chairman to invite Ron Paul to speak at our state GOP convention.  So I’m more than happy to accept the compromise proposal from the Contest Committee, especially since it’s exactly what we had already agreed to last April.”

The matter is scheduled to move to the national convention’s Credentials Committee next.  If the Paul camp also accepts the compromise proposal, this mess will be at an end.

Either way, Greenspan and his minions owe Sue Lowden an apology for their antics and the tremendous amount of time and energy that has been wasted trying to work with them and around them.  And Ron Paul should dismiss Greenspan from his campaign.

Here’s a piece in the LVRJ re: the Nevada delegation the Republican National Convention.  

Seems the RNC committee decided that the Nevada GOP violated rules in its delegate election/appointment process.  I remember wondering about all this after the whole Ron Paul Rebellion thing and its aftermath…but I assumed GOP leaders knew what the rules were and that appointing delegates was ok.

Anyway, the committed has recommended a compromise, as I posted earlier this morning.

From Chuck Muth via email:

The Muthster tells me that Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley did an interview last week in which she threatened to target any Republican candidate who signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. 

On the other side is Muth and Citizen Outreach, not-so-gently reminding candidates that there will be a barrage of pre-election phone calls and mail-outs into their districts if they don’t sign the Pledge.

What’s a Republican candidate to do?  Buckle when the leader of the opposition party points her canons his way, or stand up for fiscal conservatism and fight the Good Fight?

Here’s a third alternative for Nevada’s candidates:  if you’re billing yourself as a Republican but support raising taxes on an already over-taxed citizenry, do us all a favor and leave the party.  Buckley will be glad to have you, and we’ll be glad to see you go.

If you’re a voter who opposes new taxes, or are running for election and want to see and/or sign the Pledge, go here.  Candidates can fax it to Citizen Outreach at (775) 522-3925.

National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg just emailed me to point out that Reid could screw Lieberman on committee assignments, seniority, etc. 

(I suppose Lieberman might prefer a broken leg or two to being shut down in the Senate…)

One of today’s Roll Call alerts leads with this opener:  “With the controversy surrounding Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) speaking at the GOP presidential convention and his name being floated as a potential GOP running mate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) maintains that there will be no consequences for the Independent-Democrat.”

What “consequences” would there BE…? 

Does this mean Reid has called off his privately funded band of mercenary thugs?  Or changed his mind about bribing a Senate dining room server to poison Lieberman’s lunch?

And is this anything like Jack Nicholson’s order (in the film A Few Good Men) that Private So-and-So was “not to be harmed”?

As I noted in a post the other day, Republicans have historically tended to be more reliable voters than Democrats, i.e. they show up at the booth with a lot less prompting and prodding.  This is a factor that cannot be left out of the registration equation.  Democrat campaign managers need to figure out how many registered Democratic voters are needed to equal/exceed one Republican vote.  Because it is an issue of quality over quantity, it is not going to be a one-to-one correlation.

On this subject, NV Senator Bob Beers has some comments on all the media attention the voter registration issue is getting.  He notes that while much Ado has been made about the voter registration gains made by Democrats in the past year (here and here and here), some Republicans see it another way:

The hyper-aggressive Democrat voter registration program, funded by Harry Reid’s millions in advance of his 2010 re-election or election of his son in his place, seems to have been focusing on that peculiar brand of ultra-transient new resident, most of whom have probably moved home in the wake of the flattening of Nevada’s once-thriving job market.

Some contend the Democrat voter registration program has become so aggressive that it has taken to registering people who do not actually exist.

The majority of existing voters who are changing their party affiliation to Democrat had been registered Non-Partisan. Those people probably were already voting Democrat, so changing their registrations won’t have much impact on November end-of-season voting, though it will cause an increase in the raw number of Democrats who vote in primaries.

As case-and-point, Beers points to the primary balloting…particularly in the Porter-Titus congressional district, where more Republicans voted than did Democrats.  26,892 Republicans voted compared to 26,241 Democrats despite all the buzz re: the massive registration lead Democrats had supposedly built in that district.

Below Beers shows the trend in some other districts where there was both a Democrat and Republican primary:

Well, I don’t relish raining on conservatives’ celebratory parade after Tuesday’s primary victories here in Nevada, but a commitment to fair analysis requires that I do just that.

There’s one in every crowd.  Or in this case, five…Republicans, that is, who are muddying the waters of the clearest issue facing the GOP this fall:  energy and offshore drilling.  In response to voter discontent over high gas prices and polling near 80% in favor of offshore drilling, the majority of GOP has (wisely) gone after the Dem anti-drillers in the House.  Enthusiasm for the cause has given new life to conservative candidates who were losing oxygen in tight races.

Enter Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Isakson (R-GA) who, along with five Senate Democrats, have announced that their ”Gang of 10″ wants a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break the ”stalemate.”  Sounds good, right? 

Not really.  The bill says new production on offshore federal lands would be left to the state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hoops and hurdles are huge.  The bill prohibits drilling within 50 miles of the coast — keeping some of our most potentially productive areas closed.  ANWR would still be  a no-go. AND the plan contains $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and handouts for alternative fuels and renewables…to be paid for (drum roll) by raising taxes on oil companies!

Boys, we’ve been over this umpteen times:  we need to open up all lands in all coastal states, keep the red tape to a minimum, drill wherever the oil is, tap ANWR, and get it straight that raising taxes on oil companies means raising the price of gas for consumers, because Big Oil will just pass the hikes down to the man at the pump.

These five Republicans need to re-think their agenda and quick, before November voters hit the ballot booths.  If you wish to express your thoughts and feelings to any of the senators, here are links to their contact pages:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

The Las Vegas Sun says Jon Porter’s (R-NV) recent energy petition is less about his tightly contested race with Democratic challenger Dina Titus and more about an overall Republican strategy to insert GOP-backed energy proposals into the House floor schedule over the past 7 weeks. 

Not sure the Sun has it quite right.  It’s a political axiom that the more birds you can kill with one stone, the better.  

The Sun quotes a Republican strategist stating that “making energy No. 1 was a no-brainer.”  So was having Porter push forward one of the petitions.  It achieved the GOP’s agenda in D.C. and sent a message to Nevada voters that Porter is on the right side of the issue.  Hope it’s enough to save Porter’s butt because – although he’s not as conservative as some of us would like – Dina Titus is an incurable taxaholic.  Nevada does not need her in Washington.

Here’s a strange fascination for this election season:  The Arizona Democratic party is using one of the GOP’s own to shred U.S. Rep John Shadegg (R-AZ) in this new campaign ad.  Set to the classic David Bowie song “Changes,” the ad includes quotes (and provides sound bytes) of controversial statements recently made by U.S. Congressman Dean Heller from Nevada (R-Carson City).

In a segment which first aired on KTVK-Channel 3 on March 3, Heller re-stated an old mantra about the men who go to D.C. only to become corrupted:  “Instead of changing Washington, Washington changed us.”  Then, on July 8 in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Heller expressed concern over the influence of trial lawyers, environmental lobbyists, and labor unions in Washington D.C. and said “its’ time to clean house in the Republican party” and “the next couple election cycles are going to do that.”

When first reported, Heller’s comments were seen either a gaffe or a bold move – depending on the hearer.

The Daily Kos snarked, “Dean Heller’s foot, meet Dean Heller’s mouth.”  Others in D.C. agreed and quickly came out against Heller’s remarks.

But Chuck Muth, one of Nevada’s best-known conservative pundits and a constituent in Heller’s district, supported Heller’s comments without equivocation. Muth blogged, “Longtime liberal columnist Michael Kinsley famously defined a “gaffe” in politics as “when a politician tells the truth.”  If you accept that definition, and I do, then Nevada Republican Rep. Dean Heller committed a gaffe of canyon-sized proportions this week.  I hope he keeps it up.”

As Muth told the Las Vegas Review Sun, “[Heller] was the first one to voice publicly what an awful lot of conservatives around the country are saying.”

Some in D.C. agree.  As reported here by PolitickerNV, The Club for Growth said “Heller is spot on” and cited cases in which Republicans are losing seats in special elections.  Spokesperson Soloveichik said, “We’re seeing a lot of housecleaning because people are disenchanted with what Republicans are doing.”  Referring to corruption scandals and lamenting that Republicans can no longer be taken seriously as stewards of fiscal conservatism, Soloveichik said, “They’ve abandoned their principles.”

My three cents?

I’ve been getting quite a few comments and emails from frustrated conservatives who believe money and power has corrupted many Rupublicans in Washintgon D.C. and that we should “throw the bums out.”  If their sentiments are shared, Shadegg and/or other Republicans may well have cause for c-c-c-Concern come November.

In re: to my comments and questions about voting Independent/Libertarian vs. Republican this fall, reader Nicky Cheese made these comments:

I’ve never bought into that “spoiler” rhetoric. More choices are better than less, no? 

Individuals ought to vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. A vote is a reflection of one’s values. Utilize the full range of potential choices in order to affirm what is closest to your values.

Movements are long-term.

More choices are better than less.  But is it really a “choice” when we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting what we chose?  If a vote for Barr or Paul still gets us McCain or Obama, as we all know it does, what good was our principled selection?

And is the spoiler argument really just rhetoric?  In the Bush/Gore contest, Gore lost Florida (and the whole enchilada) because of the votes that went to Nader.  No doubt the Naderites were “voting their values.”  But what about the prudence of picking what’s better when you can’t have what’s Best?  I’d sure like to ask those Nader voters what they’d choose if they had a Do-Over. 

The argument that gives me greater pause – i.e. that I think is more compelling – is that of long-term vs. short-term thinking.  As we consider the coming decades, what will best stop our slide to the Left and the disturbing hyper-expansion of the State? 

Do we stand on principle and vote ultra-conservative or libertarian every two years, win or lose, with the hope of steering the GOP to the right and/or bolstering what might someday become a viable Third Party?  And if we don’t, what will compel anyone to consider our cause?

Please chime in and pass along this post so we can hear from more folks.  I’ll post the best remarks up front to spark further discussion!

Have you heard about the defiant posse of disillusioned GOP-ers that held an unsanctioned state convention in Reno this past Saturday? Organizers claim it was a lawful reconvening of the GOP’s recessed April 26 state convention in Reno (which was shut down prior to final voting). However, the party’s executive committee has set (and stuck by) a July 26 date to resume activity.

Depending on who you ask, the late April shut down was either (1) a tragedy of epic proportions because it was shaping up to be a national delegation with more backers for Ron Paul than John McCain, or (2) a proper procedural response because there were too few delegates to call a quorum (because the promised Ron Paul reps did not actually materialize on the convention floor).

State rules say roughly 800 total delegates are needed in order to obtain a convention quorum. We didn’t have them in April, and we didn’t have them this weekend either because the Ron Paul reps barely numbered 300. (And just for extra fun, we’re not sure how many of those delegates were credentialed since Paul organizers didn’t have the official delegate List with which to cross-reference attendees.)

Depending on who you ask, the Ron Paul backers (1) asked the GOP for the List and were refused, or (2) did not follow the proper procedure for obtaining the List.

Any-hoo, this weekend’s gathering of 327 was a pretty poor showing considering the Paul camp claims that they had “over 1,000” delegates teed up. Their response? The April convention did not have a quorum and was invalid – but this one counts because this weekend’s first order of business was to change the rules of quorum and (you guessed it) decide that 327 delegates was enough.

Ron Paul devotees say they will take their fight to be recognized as The Legitimate Convention all the way to September’s Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul and that they will appeal their case to the RNC and/or national convention committee. Many Paul backers have also said they will cast a write-in vote for the Texas congressman in November because McCain is closer to being a Democrat than a conservative.

They have my sympathy, as far as that goes, but all this Brouhaha brings us round to a familiar electoral quandary. Do you cast a principled vote for an Independent candidate who is closer to your (and your party’s) values but could also be the “spoiler” that leads to the election of the opposition? Or do you compromise and go with the safer bet to ensure we maintain at least some semblance of sanity in the White House?

In a swing state where President Bush narrowly won in 2000 and 2004, your decision could play heavily in the national election.

Your comments are welcome, because I’m still undecided myself.