To David A. Keene, Chairman and Dennis E. Whitfield, Executive Vice President
American Conservative Union
From Ned Barnett, Conservative Republican and ACU Member
We cannot have another straw poll like we had at CPAC last weekend; I think I know what happened (and why), and I believe I have a solution - sure to be controversial - but a solution nonetheless.
I joined the ACU after watching Rush Limbaugh's stirring Keynote Speech at the 2009 CPAC meeting; this year, I was able to attend CPAC myself. It was a wonderful experience, a clear and brilliant example of a republic's electorate in action.
One thing that filled me with a sense of pride was the remarkable number of students in attendance at CPAC. When I was a college student the Vietnam war was in full flower, and even in the Deep South, it seemed that college students were more liberal than conservative. There's nothing like the thought of a Draft that would pluck you from your comfortable life and send you to the world's most hellish jungle to die in a war the President had already admitted was something we refused to win.
That attitude didn't deter me from seeking and earning an Annapolis appointment - and, when I failed the eye test, an Air Force commission through ROTC (with the same result). So I am always glad to see conservative college students - I know the pressures they face holding true to their beliefs.
At CPAC, I met and talked with many students, and was honored to shake the hands of West Point cadets, thanking them for their service to our country. As a former college professor and the father of another college professor, I am always grateful to see students who've become politically active and who've embraced a conservative philosophy.
However, as pleased as I was to see so many students there, I believed that they were there to learn from the incredible brain-trust assembled at CPAC. I certainly did not expect them to lecture us. However, that's exactly what they presumed to do - to lecture us, the adults who've spent their lives involved with politics, how we should believe. It was the Children's Crusade - or America's Vietnam anti-war movement - all over again.
I spoke to a number of students, and among them, their sandbagging of the straw poll by their mass votes was a frivolous game, if not a joke. Their support was for a man - one who no scientific poll suggests he's even in the race, let alone the leader - who even they know isn't a viable conservative candidate. He is and always has been a Libertarian (which is not the same thing as a Conservative); he signed on as a Republican because, in our two-party political system, it's almost impossible for a third-party candidate to hope to win. However, that "flag of convenience" party affiliation doesn't make Ron Paul a conservative, or, really, a Republican.
I have nothing against Ron Paul. I work amicably and in close concert in a grass roots Republican Party organization with men and women who call themselves "Paulistas." However, I do not kid myself into thinking that Ron Paul is either a real Republican or a viable Presidential candidate. And I know as surely as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning that Ron Paul is not THE candidate of the membership of the ACU, or of the majority of attendees at CPAC.
We, the members of ACU, were sandbagged by guests - students - we invited in to learn more about politics, and to begin the process of being involved in a lifetime of conservative political activism. Our mistake was in allowing these guests (students were given a significant discount ($25 vs. $175 for adult members, and to me, that doesn't - and shouldn't - make them full voting members).
If we allow students to vote in future straw polls, this will happen again. We will be embarrassed again by another sandbagged vote for a fringe candidate who doesn't represent Conservative and Republican values, this time in the year when Presidential primaries are beginning.
Which is why I recommend this, to you - the leaders of the ACU - to either do away with straw polls entirely (a mistake, in my opinion), or we limit voting to full registered attendees, and not allowing our student guests to vote.
They had their chance, and they blew it.
I don't expect this to be enthusiastically received by those who see any kind of judgment based on age as being discriminatory ... which is NOT the way I encourage you to look at this. Rather, we say to students, "when you're ready to pay your own way, you're ready to be a fully-participating and voting member of ACU - but as long as you're our student guests who pay only 14 percent of what our full members pay, you do not have the right to vote in our straw poll."
Respectfully submitted
Ned Barnett
Conservative and Republican
Las Vegas, Nevada
You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:
1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog
Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
First National Primary - Nevada 2010
By Ned Barnett
The Capitol Curmudgeon
The Nevada primary is leading up to the general election to unseat Harry Reid - and this is the only National election in the U.S. this year. Harry Reid is facing an uphill battle to hang on as Senator and Senate Majority Leader.
No other national official, no other individual in line of succession to the Presidency, is facing a seriously-contested election race. So the importance of this election is all out of proportion to the size of Nevada's population. This means that Nevada will be in a spotlight of surpassing intensity - and every candidate for the Senate (and, because they might be indicators of the outcome, every candidate for any U.S. House seat from Nevada), will be under an electron microscope. Their every utterance since grade school will be examined for consistency with the new grass roots orthodoxy, the new emphasis on constitutional conservatism.
This is good and it's bad, since the national media will try - as they successfully tried with John McCain - to anoint Nevada Republicans' choice for candidate, and to tell Nevada's voters who they really want in Washington. Which means, the media being what they are, that the media's darling for the Republican nominee will be the most pragmatically moderate rather than the most dogmatically Constitutional. All the candidates will be claiming to be conservatives - to determine who's telling the truth, look at those candidates that the out-of-state mainstream media tries hardest to ignore.
This also means that there will be dozens (or more) outside political action groups - each with their own axes to grind - descending on Nevada, pumping money into ad campaigns advocating one candidate or the other ... with no real concern about Nevada. All they care about is their cause; which means the political discourse in Nevada between now and the first Tuesday in November will be fragmented - maybe even fractured.
For candidates who know it's important to stay on messages, this will be a huge challenge. Others, purportedly supporting them, will be using their own messages, and tying those messages around candidates necks like long-dead albatrosses. You've already seen some of this - ads that say, "call Harry Reid and thank him for ____ (fill in your own radical left message)." This will start hitting Republican candidates soon, and they'll wind up having to answer to the media for ads and messages that did not come from their campaigns.
In addition, and even more important, the run up to the election to dethrone Harry Reid will be, in essence, the first Presidential Primary of 2012. Not officially, of course, but the election to replace Ried will be, de facto, the first presidential primary. This will focus even more national media attention on Nevada's elections. It will also focus national money as never before - but with that money will come the media (who always follow the money), who'll be busy telling us poor ignorant back-woods (or back-arroyo) Nevada Republicans who we should support.
All of the serious national presidential candidates-to-be will see this primary and subsequent general election as a beauty pageant. They'll be eagerly showing the national media that they can attract crowds, raise money and motivate volunteers - all the things necessary to win primaries and the Presidential election.
Obama is going to be here later this week (as I write this). Tim Pawlenty will be here shortly. Mitt is certain to drop by, and Sarah will be here on March 27th. Chairman Steele has been almost commuting here ... the writing's on the wall.
This is a great opportunity for Nevada conservatives - especially those who are part of the authentic tea party/grass roots/constitutional conservative movement - to influence national politics. Not only will we be working to replace Harry Reid, we will also be helping to shape the media and voting public's perception - nationwide - of the strengths and weaknesses of the likely (and not so likely) 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. In effect, we may help influence whether or not President Obama is a one-termer like Jimmy Carter or a two-termer like Bill Clinton. It's a heady opportunity, and a heady responsibility - one that no other state shares with us.
Which means that we'll have to decide - do we support a conservative on principle, or do we go with the person the media tells us is most likely to be selected in the primary (because he or she is the most likely to retire Harry Reid in the fall). Which is more important - electability or principle.
For me, I'm tired of the lesser of two evils, and after John McCain, I'm mortally tired of the national media telling us who ought to be our Republican candidate. However, I only have one vote. I'll make mine count - but if you're a grass roots conservative, I ask you to be sure to make yours count, too.
Ned Barnett
ned@barnettmarcom.com
You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:
1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog
Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com
The Capitol Curmudgeon
The Nevada primary is leading up to the general election to unseat Harry Reid - and this is the only National election in the U.S. this year. Harry Reid is facing an uphill battle to hang on as Senator and Senate Majority Leader.
No other national official, no other individual in line of succession to the Presidency, is facing a seriously-contested election race. So the importance of this election is all out of proportion to the size of Nevada's population. This means that Nevada will be in a spotlight of surpassing intensity - and every candidate for the Senate (and, because they might be indicators of the outcome, every candidate for any U.S. House seat from Nevada), will be under an electron microscope. Their every utterance since grade school will be examined for consistency with the new grass roots orthodoxy, the new emphasis on constitutional conservatism.
This is good and it's bad, since the national media will try - as they successfully tried with John McCain - to anoint Nevada Republicans' choice for candidate, and to tell Nevada's voters who they really want in Washington. Which means, the media being what they are, that the media's darling for the Republican nominee will be the most pragmatically moderate rather than the most dogmatically Constitutional. All the candidates will be claiming to be conservatives - to determine who's telling the truth, look at those candidates that the out-of-state mainstream media tries hardest to ignore.
This also means that there will be dozens (or more) outside political action groups - each with their own axes to grind - descending on Nevada, pumping money into ad campaigns advocating one candidate or the other ... with no real concern about Nevada. All they care about is their cause; which means the political discourse in Nevada between now and the first Tuesday in November will be fragmented - maybe even fractured.
For candidates who know it's important to stay on messages, this will be a huge challenge. Others, purportedly supporting them, will be using their own messages, and tying those messages around candidates necks like long-dead albatrosses. You've already seen some of this - ads that say, "call Harry Reid and thank him for ____ (fill in your own radical left message)." This will start hitting Republican candidates soon, and they'll wind up having to answer to the media for ads and messages that did not come from their campaigns.
In addition, and even more important, the run up to the election to dethrone Harry Reid will be, in essence, the first Presidential Primary of 2012. Not officially, of course, but the election to replace Ried will be, de facto, the first presidential primary. This will focus even more national media attention on Nevada's elections. It will also focus national money as never before - but with that money will come the media (who always follow the money), who'll be busy telling us poor ignorant back-woods (or back-arroyo) Nevada Republicans who we should support.
All of the serious national presidential candidates-to-be will see this primary and subsequent general election as a beauty pageant. They'll be eagerly showing the national media that they can attract crowds, raise money and motivate volunteers - all the things necessary to win primaries and the Presidential election.
Obama is going to be here later this week (as I write this). Tim Pawlenty will be here shortly. Mitt is certain to drop by, and Sarah will be here on March 27th. Chairman Steele has been almost commuting here ... the writing's on the wall.
This is a great opportunity for Nevada conservatives - especially those who are part of the authentic tea party/grass roots/constitutional conservative movement - to influence national politics. Not only will we be working to replace Harry Reid, we will also be helping to shape the media and voting public's perception - nationwide - of the strengths and weaknesses of the likely (and not so likely) 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. In effect, we may help influence whether or not President Obama is a one-termer like Jimmy Carter or a two-termer like Bill Clinton. It's a heady opportunity, and a heady responsibility - one that no other state shares with us.
Which means that we'll have to decide - do we support a conservative on principle, or do we go with the person the media tells us is most likely to be selected in the primary (because he or she is the most likely to retire Harry Reid in the fall). Which is more important - electability or principle.
For me, I'm tired of the lesser of two evils, and after John McCain, I'm mortally tired of the national media telling us who ought to be our Republican candidate. However, I only have one vote. I'll make mine count - but if you're a grass roots conservative, I ask you to be sure to make yours count, too.
Ned Barnett
ned@barnettmarcom.com
You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:
1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog
Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)