Y’all have got to watch @GovernorPerry at CPAC this afternoon!
“The popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals, as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. That’s what they say. That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012,” Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) said in his address at CPAC this afternoon.
There’s a cold wind blowing in a formerly hot place!
The first day of early voting in Comal County yielded double the voter turn out on the same day in 2008, with more than 3100 voters compared to 1700.
I voted on the second day, and was pleased to find that the Comal County Voting Center on Landa Street in New Braunfels was up to the task. The County has designed an efficient and organized Center, with fast moving lines and 3 stations set up to check in voters.
I cast my first “straight Party” ticket since 1992, today. The first “page of the electronic ballot offers the option to vote for one Party or the other, and a vote for Republicans took me through each page of all the candidates and offices, allowing me to review and view the names of each candidate I voted for and to see who I wasn’t voting for. I hope that those of you who are tempted to just vote the top of the ticket or for a few candidates will consider taking my endorsement of the Republican candidates all up and down the ballot, with the ease of the straight Party vote! You’ll get the well known candidates, like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, Donna Campbell for SD 25, Susan Narvaiz for Congressional District 35 and Kevin Webb for Comal County Commissioner, Pct 3, and you also support judges like Scott Fields, Jeff Rose and Bob Pemberton!
No matter where you live in Comal County, or where your regular voting place is, you can cast your ballot at any of the early voting places or times. Here’s the early voting opportunities in Comal County:
• New Braunfels: 345 Landa, Suite 101. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
• Canyon Lake: CRRC Community Center, 125 Mabel Jones Dr. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
• Bulverde: Bulverde / Spring Branch Library, 131 Bulverde Crossing. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Garden Ridge: City Hall, 9400 Municipal Parkway. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.
We had twenty good Republicans turn out to watch the Presidential Debate at the Comal County Republican Party Election Headquarters tonight.
It turns out that calling “Latinos” “Hispanics,” is equivalent in the eyes of some to calling Black people, “Colored.”
According to a couple of Dems, it’s “racist” to use the word “illegals.” One even said that it’s racist for all races!
Several libs tweeted that the request for continued security in Libya was for Tripoli, not Bengazi Actually, wasn’t the security for the Ambassador and the staff?
Here’s some information you might find interesting:
From me, Beverly Nuckols, MD @bnuckols
Here’s links to the videos we saw Wednesday night, during the #RNC2012 Convention. #GOP2012 @GOPconvention.
Tampa, Fla. – The Republican National Convention today released five videos that were featured during the Wednesday evening proceedings.
The videos are listed in the order of the proceedings:
‘Best of America’
‘The Bushes: 41 & 43’
‘Israel: Cherished Memories’
The Hill is reporting that there may be a compromise that “allows” State GOPs to continue to chose their delegates to the National GOP convention. There is no mention about killing the proposed rule allowing the Rebublican National Committeetoo change the rules – with a 3/4 majority vote – once we all go home.
Unfortunately, the controversy is being cast as Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul, rather than Grassroots vs PTB (Powers That Be):
And guarantee a third party (or 4th and 5th) push.
Propose a GOP rules change that appears designed to squelch any National delegates that might not be loyal to the favored Candidate and add a new rule that would allow the Powers That Be – the Republican National Committee – to make even more rules changes between the National Conventions!
Here are the controversial new additions to the Rules of the Republican Party:
“The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”
New rule inserted as number 15(a):
15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.
15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.
15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.
Texas’ delegation will push to get rid of these changes. From their reaction in a meeting this morning, Governor Sununu might not be able to make the transition from Temporary Chair to Permanent Chair of the Rules Committee and the Convention will most likely scrap the whole 2012 Rules and revert to the 2008 Rules.
Paul Ryan is an excellent, conservative choice for Mitt Romney’s Vice President running mate. Not lukewarm at all, no pale pastels, here!
For background on Representative Ryan from Wisconsin, read the coverage of his votes and past statements at OnTheIssues.org
My primary issue is the right to life – without security of protection for life, there is no other freedom or right and if a person discriminates between other human beings as “persons,” then I can’t trust them to preserve my life and liberty.
Here’s the notes on “Abortion” and other life issues on that link above:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
From Rush’s transcript, August 2, 2012,
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is no tax cheat. But even if he was, so what? The Treasury secretary of the United States is an admitted tax cheat, and the Democrats didn’t give a damn about that. Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Little Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat. Joe Biden is a plagiarist. Anybody care about that? Barack Obama fudged laws in a shady deal to buy his house with the help of a conflicted felon. His good pal Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon. Romney is none of this. Not even close to it. We have an admitted tax cheat that is the Treasury secretary of the United States, Timothy Geithner. Democrats don’t care about it.
Dr. Jack Willke is an unimpeachable pro-life activist. He has taught many of us both why and how to protect life over the years. I was reassured to read his account of the pro-life conversion of Mitt Romney on LifeSite News and that Dr. Willke (and Dr. Hurlbut) are secure in believing that it’s genuine
The first part of the article outlines the work Dr. Willke did with George H. W. Bush when Bush was named as Vice Presidential running mate with Ronald Reagan. The last part is about Governor Romney’s conversion:
As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.
When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.
Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”
But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.
The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.
Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the i s s u e, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”
Similar to my time with President H. W. Bush, Dr. Hurlbut presented Governor Romney with sound scientific and medical information. The Governor responded by changing his position to support the protection of innocent human life from the point of fertilization. He declared himself pro-life and has repeatedly done so since that time.
For over twenty years, Life Issues Institute has been solely dedicated to prolife education. It has been my primary contribution to the pro-life movement since the 1960s. Our strength comes from the central fact that we are daily changing the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion. And our efforts have greatly be en assisted by science. The tool of ultrasound has resulted in an entire generation having their first baby picture taken within the womb, and it’s greatly impacted people’s opinion on abortion. Every pro-life individual and organization should rejoice when anyone—political or otherwise—responds to the unmistakable fact that human life begins at fertilization and that it should be protected.
Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.
Comal County Republicans leading our State and Party, again!
We have two Delegates and two Alternate Delegates going to the National Republican Convention to represent Congressional District 21.
Out of three Delegates and three Alternate Delegates elected by CD 21, Larry Nuckols has Delegate Place 1, Lisa Allmon Roper has Delegate Place 3 and Sonja Harris will go as Alt. Delegate 3. Our Mary Lou Erben was selected by the National Delegate Committee as one of the Alternate Delegates At Large, representing the CD 35 part of Comal County.
In addition, Patti Johnson was elected to the College of Electors to go to Austin in the Electoral College for our Congressional District’s Presidential candidate, as chosen in November.
For our County to be recognized by the election of so many of our stars in a meeting of the entire CD21 delegation to the RPT (seven Counties!) and by the National Delegate Committee for CD 35,, shows the strength of our Comal County Republican Party. It is the fruit of the labor of all of you who spend hours and days fighting the Conservative fight!
Texas Tribune is hyping their poll as proof that there will likely be a run off in both the Republican and Democrat primary races for US Senator. But the big news should be how well informed and politically involved Texas voters appear to be.
It’s not just the disapproval of Obama (58% total and 46% “Disapprove strongly”) or the probable vote for Mitt Romney in the graphic above. Take a look at some of the information gathering questions.
Out of 800 registered Texas voters, 48% are “extremely interested in politics and public affairs. 32% vote in every election and another 35% vote in almost every election.
73% were able to identify the majority party in the US House of Representatives. (I wish they’d cross-checked that with the same question about the Senate.) 69% correctly stated that it takes a 2/3 vote to over turn a presidential veto. And 66% correctly identified Greg Abbott as our Texas Attorney General.
Yes, we’re probably in for a couple of run off elections, and yes,it will get even uglier. But the voters are better informed than I was afraid.
Dear Governor Mitt Romney,
Congratulations, Sir! You have won 3/4 of the 1150 or so delegates you need to win the Republican Party nomination for President.
Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, haven’t been able to generate much enthusiasm for your campaign. Even with Rick Santorum out of the race, you still barely won a majority of votes in the various State’s Primaries this week. We don’t want Obama to win in November, but there’s still doubts about whether you can win.
Here’s a few things you could do to help win Conservatives’ enthusiasm, in no particular order:
- Don’t talk “strategy.” Talk vision. The common theme of your Conservative opponents over the last year has been the Conservative theme of small government. Just as with the original Tea Party, the threat of increased taxes made us take action. But the growth of laws and regulations that interfere in our homes, business, schools and churches made us ready.
- Study with some hard-core conservatives. Send your “spokespersons” to Conservative 101. Make sure that everyone learns the “code words” that the Left and MSM is always accusing us of using. Learn why we believe what we believe and what those “code words” really mean, so that you can understand and voice our concerns in your own words.Then do it.
- Speak about your religion. We know you’re Mormon and we don’t want you to proselytize . But we do want to be convinced that you believe and practice what you believe. We’d much rather vote for – and will have more trust in – a believer than an unbeliever.
- Pick a Conservative for your Vice Presidential running mate. This is a great way to let us know that you’ve been listening to and learning from us. I know it won’t be easy, because we have so many well-qualified men and women out there. You must not pick a pro-choice, anti-family, big government man or woman.
- Last, but not least: Change that doggone logo! That “R” is too close to Obama’s “O.” Even the colors are similar! When I wear my NO OBAMA t-shirt, I don’t want anyone thinking that it’s a “No Romney” T-Shirt.
Conservatives are at it again: shooting our own.
When Conservatives decide not to vote for Republican candidates, Republicans lose. Conservatives lose. The Democrats, socialists, and atheists win. Obama wins.
Where Republicans voted in 2008, we won new offices. Where they voted in 2010, we won majorities. Conservatives made the difference in the winning races and in the lost races. Not only did we have fewer Republican victories in those races where Conservatives didn’t vote, the races were decided by the least knowledgeable among us or by the Dems.
More than before, in conservative blogs and forums, I’m reading good men and women declare that they will never vote for Romney if he’s nominated. They remind me that they were the ones who refused to vote for John McCain in 2008, or who (like me) voted for Sarah Palin and McCain just benefited as a side effect.
I certainly wish that Conservatives had found themselves working hard to force McCain to keep his promises for that last three years instead of watching Obama keep his.
And here come the third party rallies!
The problem is certainly the “GOP elite,” and their support for Romney — that’s why Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum couldn’t get a foothold, right? And why Newt Gingrich is still so far behind?
How many votes do you suppose the “elite” have, anyway?
Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yesterday, Rush Limbaugh warned Conservatives what may happen if the Republican nominee doesn’t win. Yes, he titled the post of the segment “A Warning to the Republican Establishment,” ending with a prediction that the Republican Party might never recover if “they screw this up.”
The warning to the rest of us is ignored:
If this doesn’t pan out to big-time electoral victory the way the establishment has it figured, then what will their excuse be? And I think I know. I think that if this campaign goes on and if it results in Obama winning, I think what the establishment is going to do is blame us. They’re gonna blame us conservatives for once again being too rigid and too demanding and too narrow and unrealistic and all this, and telling us that we’re the reason that Obama won.
Why not? That’s exactly what happened in ’06 and ’08. (And don’t forget Rush’s own Chaos.) The media and the Left ate it up! The lesson learned was that no one can count on Conservatives. That’s why we repeatedly watch people who should be our champions “pander” (Rush’s word) to the “middle,” the “undecideds,” the independents.
Why not learn instead from successes, like the 2000 election, a victory that the Dems never saw coming? A good friend recommended that I re-read David Horowitz’ “How to Beat the Democrats.” One of the lessons is,
Lesson 3: There Is No Natural Conservative Majority (But You Can Create One through Political Action). The critical role Republican unity played in the election leads to a third lesson: There is no “natural” conservative majority.
. . . Such facts are no cause for conservatives to despair. What they are is a reality-check. If the conservative mission is to restore basic American values, the way conservatives fight the political battle will determine its outcome. There may be no current conservative majority in America, but there is a potential majority, if Republicans have the will and intelligence to create one.
David Horowitz (2002-10-06). How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas (Kindle Locations 842-843, 861-863). Spence. Kindle Edition.
Do we have the will? The intelligence? Can we forget the animosity we have had for each other the last year? Are we willing to say, “Let him who never had a change of heart cast the first stone?”
An estimated 56% – give or take – of the Republican National delegates have been decided, but 44% have not. The numbers aren’t set in stone, yet, depending on what happens to the delegates who went to candidates that dropped out or in States like Iowa, where the actual choice will be made at caucus in June. “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
I’m sure that I won’t see Conservative blogs pulling their anti-Romney posts, but I hope to see a few willing to be positive and work together to ensure Primary victories for the remaining Conservative in the Republican Primary, in order to deny Romney an easy nomination. Is their motto, “Anybody but Romney,” or is it, “Anybody but Obama?”
I believe that Governor Sarah Palin had the potential and many opportunities over the last 3 years to unite us in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he built his coalition between 1976 and 1980. The fact that she did not isn’t because Governor Palin herself is divisive, but because we Conservatives are a cantankerous and factious bunch who tend to eat our own and fight over degrees of commitment to the principles we hold dear.
“We’ll keep our God, we’ll keep our guns, we’ll keep our Constitution.”
Palin gave what should be a unifying, landmark speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). She warned against turning on our candidates,
“We know that the far left and their media allies can’t beat us on the issues, so instead, they distort our records,” she said. “They’ll even attack our families. Let’s not do the job for them. OK, Republicans? OK, independents?”
The news contains report after report about Palin’s passionate speech to an overflow crowd who cheered her with even more passion. Human Event’s Tony Lee is not the only one who asked, “. . . how many who were listening to the speech were coming to the realization that Palin should be the GOP nominee for president?”
The problem is that Palin refused to be the candidate. Worse, she still has not supported any of the candidates, and her words at CPAC are being used to “do the job.”
Palin delayed her announcement about whether she would run for too long, adding to – or at least enabling – the very division and conflict within the Conservative movement that she told us to avoid in her CPAC speech.
While Mitt Romney,Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were visiting Iowa and New Hampshire long before announcing their candidacies, Palin coyly deferred any commitment to running. The very loyal and enthusiastic Palin supporters went on the attack against anyone who looked like a possible candidate in their hope that she would run. The rhetoric continued even after the announcement that she would not run, with those same supporters interpreting Palin’s comments to justify building up or tearing down through many re-shufflings of the front-runners.
And now, rather than calling for unity among Conservative voters, Palin seems to be supporting a brokered convention. Well, just as I called for her to make a decision about running for President, I’m asking her to use her power and skills to bring us together behind one of the Conservatives, whether an announced candidate or not.
I have a little crush on Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart. In “The Undefeated” documentary on Sarah Palin that was released last year by Steve Bannon, Mr. Breitbart chastised the rest of the Republican men for their failure to defend and protect Governor Palin. And Mr. Breitbart delivered my favorite line of the entire week in his speech on the “silver pony tail gang,” that morphed from the anti-war movement to the Occupiers : “Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate!”(full video here)
Governor Palin, please join Mr. Breitbart and me in our march against the Occupiers and Barack Obama.
Please, pay attention, people!
Sensing a possible victory, Paul hosted a party in Portland on Saturday evening. After the results were announced, he told supporters that Romney’s margin of victory was so small, “it’s almost like we could call it a tie.”
Paul also forecast that when Maine’s delegates were finally assigned, “we will control the Maine caucus when we go to Tampa” for the Republican convention in August.
I have a new expletive or two for really, really, really bad “screw ups”: one is CPAC and the other is the name of one particular rude CPAC staffer I encountered.
I’ve had a miserable time at CPAC, the only shining moments were Governor Rick Perry’s speech, Andrew Brietbart’s rant about Obama and the “silver pony-tail gang”, and the Presidential Banquet with Paul Ryan’s talk and the privilege of meeting some wonderful Conservatives. I was especially struck by one panelist’s comment that the proof that faith and family are priorities and that the proof is that the TEA Party hasn’t literally formed a third party.
I’ll complain about the Convention itself later, but, first, the Politics!
Here at CPAC, virtually everyone who finds out I’m from Texas told me they were rooting for Perry and/or that he was their first choice. The exceptions were one who switched over from Sarah Palin, two that were interested in Cain, and one Ron Pauler; all but the Pauler had supported Perry while he was in the race.
Governor Perry’s speech was extraordinary and had more passion and truth than all the current candidates’ speeches. He gave the boldest speech so far.
For the Powers That Be, all the candidates should have acted like they were at CPAC. Early in the speeches, we needed to hear their conservative ideas, social issues, and self-criticism of their past mistakes, preferably with a passionate conversion story, preferably one that made us all know how strong and permanent the change has been. At CPAC convince us that you could smell the brimstone and feel the singe of the heat.
Instead: We got Santorum’s very sad-faced family and 20 minutes of foot-stomping and whining without any substantial plan, Romney’s wide-eyed gaze at us, and his assumption that he’s already won and we’d better study his 50 page plan. Newt not only had his friend introduce Saint Calista, but Newt himself gave us big government plans to *replace* the EPA with a new Federal bureaucracy and *reform* the FDA, both of which should be abolished and their regulations returned to the States.
And now, to my own rant about the Conference: I have a new expletive or two for really, really bad times: one is CPAC and the other is the name of the incredibly rude staffer I encountered on Thursday
My husband and I have attended several very large conventions (The Texas Straw poll in ’07, the Value Voters Summit in DC in ’08, American Academy of Family Physicians with up to 10,000 in attendance, the National Pawnbroker’s Convention, and the Texas Republican State Convention, etc.) The system and facilities for CPAC2012 are the worst I’ve ever experienced.
The Marriott’s too small, the ballroom was set up wrong, and no one could have designed a more dangerous traffic pattern, even without the Mormon missionaries standing shoulder to shoulder, blocking traffic in the halls and lobbies.
I could never recommend that anyone pay for “Platinum Package.” Several people have said that they should have saved the money and gone “Diamond.” And it turns out that there’s another level of Very, Very Important People, but none of the rest of us get to even glimpse them.
I’m told that all previous CPACs offered less security rules and presence and more access to the Candidates and celebrities. That access was exactly why I asked my husband to buy me the “Platinum Package” tickets for my birthday this year. I also signed up for Blogger credentials (free), as well.
Well, there was no access.
The bloggers were divided weeks ago into the in-crowd and the rest of us.
And money can’t buy happiness, either. I’ve been in more lines this week than I thought possible, and there has been very little of the promised “special lines.” Even the “VIP entrance” is a joke: I’ve been stopped more than half the time and then still fight the fire-hazard crowds in the single in/out aisle. On the first day, I couldn’t find and empty chair in the “Platinum/Diamond” area until after noon. The Platinum Balconies offer little or no view and the food is available for very limited times.
The opportunity to hear the 3 main candidates in one day and to meet some great Conservatives is the only benefit I’ve seen this week at CPAC. (You can follow my tweets @bnuckols )
I’ll give you something to be hysterical about: Rosanne Barr has filed the paperwork to run as a candidate for President. For the Green Party. We can laugh all day about her taking votes from Ron Paul AND from Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, I don’t mean hysterical-funny. I mean the more common definition of a psychiatric condition involving emotional excesses.
We don’t have a vaccine for hysteria, although Michael Fumento called for one back in 1999 in his op-ed on the hullabaloo surrounding the anthrax vaccine. I used the reference when writing about the HPV vaccine, back in October, 2011.
Now that we’re getting down to the pure, partisan politics in the Republican Primary election for Presidential candidate, I think we all need to take a look at the destructive nature of hysteria on our Conservative priorities. We want a President and Congress that will cut spending, cut government interference in our lives and businesses, and protect our inalienable rights. It is still absolutely true that the worst of the Republican candidates will be much more likely to give us what we want than Barack Obama.
The Conservatives I know fall into two camps, both of which are inappropriate in my opinion. Either they believe that Mitt Romney already has the nomination for Republican candidate sewn up or they’re angrily vowing not to vote in the Primary or the November election.
Dr. Jack Kelly at the To The Point blog (behind a pay wall) is in the first camp. He’s already moved on to nominating the future Romney Administration VP (Marco Rubio) and Secretary of State (John Bolton).
Over at FreeRepublic.com, there are plenty of FReepers in the second group. They have spent months vowing not to vote for Romney if he’s nominated. “No Romney, No Way!” and “FUMR!” are all over the place.
Let’s not forget that we still have a long Primary season ahead of us. Less than 5% of the 1100 eventual delegate votes are determined. We should each remember that Obama is much more our enemy than any of the Republican candidates. We should also each continue to support the candidate that best reflects our values, even if it’s our own version of “FUMR!”
Or 97%. This may be the year the “97%” – Republican Primary voters – force a brokered convention that makes our choices known. A very small percentage of voters were allowed to choose the candidates for the rest of us will have to consider, based on the allocation of less than 5% of the total 2244 delegates that could vote at the Republican National Convention next August.
In fact, only about 3% of the Republican Primary delegates have been voted on. All of the Primaries so far were conducted under penalty of the Republican National Committee’s “Sanctions,” meaning that those States lost half of their possible delegates. In addition, Iowa’s caucus results are not binding on the State Republicans, who will determine the actual allocation of delegates in June. (Santorum won the vote at the Caucus I attended in West Des Moines, Iowa, but they elected the representatives of Paul and Romney as delegates to the County convention, where the final delegates to the State convention will be chosen.)
Take a look at the breakdown of the “2012 Chronological Cumulative Allocation of Delegates” and the actual dedication of those delegates, here.
I spoke as a surrogate speaker for Governor Rick Perry at a small precinct caucus in West Des Moines, Iowa, tonight. The 72 voters who came to the little elementary school gym weren’t representative of the “undecided” that I’d been hearing about all week. The neighborhood caucus goers had come ready to vote. Unfortunately, the tally came down to Romney/Santorum/Paul/Gingrich and then one little old vote for Governor Rick Perry. To give me credit, the lady who said she voted for Perry wouldn’t have if I hadn’t been there.
As of 9 o’clock, it looks like Iowa has decided not to decide, with the top 3 slots getting just under 25% each and Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry vying for 4th slot. I’m disappointed in the outcome, but only surprised that the Ron Paul crowd is so strong and the Iowa voters seem so fickle.
(I was treated to classic Ron Paul voter behavior: half the signs I’d put up were knocked down and the surrogate speaker was told to behave when he snorted at me when my candidate got few votes.)
Sounds like there may be a chance for more than 2 Republican candidates on the Primary ballot in Virginia. (That Rick Hasen mentioned below owns the “Election Law Blog.”)
U.S. District Court in Virginia Expedites Rick Perry’s Ballot Access Lawsuit, December 29th, 2011
U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney of Virginia has set a hearing in Rick Perry’s presidential primary ballot access lawsuit. He will consider Perry’s request for injunctive relief on January 13. In the meantime, he has established a briefing schedule, and also has instructed attorneys for Perry to communicate with all other Republican presidential primary candidates who had filed a declaration of candidacy, to explain to them how they may intervene in the lawsuit. This shows foresight and thoughtfulness on the part of the judge. The case is Perry v Judd, 3:11-cv-856. Judge Gibney is an Obama appointee. The issue is the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.
I’m a big believer in following the rules, but the rules shouldn’t be arbitrary and they must be published well in advance and offer equal opportunity. The Virginia GOP rules were evidently changed just last month, either to make it easier by encouraging padding the numbers to exceed 15,000 signatures submitted, or to make it harder for candidates to get in by introducing an unprecedented scrutiny for those who turned in less than 15,000 signatures. (There are even accusations that the number was pulled out of the air after Mitt Romney reached 15K.)
Well, for one thing, I’m sure that it’s not ethical to make a public spectacle out of turning on your candidate just six days before the caucus. And it’s certainly not cool to break up via text message.
Kent Sorenson, an Iowa State Senator who endorsed Michele Bachmann back in March, and who became Chair of that State’s Bachmann campaign for President, evidently attended a Bachmann rally in his hometown of Indianola on Wednesday afternoon, hen let his former campaign know of his intention to switch his endorsement from his car on the drive to a Des Moines, Iowa Fair grounds rally for Ron Paul .
Seriously,how did he do it? With a “CUL8R MB”?
Sorenson then made a pretty spectacular announcement at the Paul rally (video, here).
We’re now seeing the “he said/she said” accusations that Sorenson betrayed Bachmann for money offered by the Paul campaign. Sorenson, Paul and Bachmann should all realize that we will eventually see any donations or payments made to Sorenson or his future campaigns by the Paul campaign.
Just to make sure that this is not about Romney, the Boston Globe dedicated the second part of the report on the defection to Bachmann’s criticism of Governor Rick Perry. Even if we Republicans didn’t “shoot our own,” the media will skew the story for maximum circular firing squad effect.