The Iowa Caucus: Just Some Random Thoughts and Frustrations

I love Holiday Meals!

In our house we look for ham on Easter, turkey on Thanksgiving and prime rib on Christmas.  But it isn’t just the main course that we, as Americans, enjoy.  It is the pure gluttony of those meals.  The massive amounts of food we consume.  The choice between the elastic waistband or simply unsnapping the top button or two on our pants to allow us to force down the pumpkin pie.

But there is another part of holiday meals that make them stand out.  Those meals are different.  Sure we can have turkey anytime.  But do we normally go to the extent that we do on Thanksgiving?  I love our Christmas prime rib but reality is, at $6.00 a pound, once a year is about all I can afford.  On the opposite end of the spectrum I love my wife’s homemade mac n’ cheese but if you have it every week it would become common place.  Boring.  Uninspiring.  It would be just another meal.  But holiday meals are different.  Holidays meals are special!

Like many American’s I am not exactly looking forward to the start of “caucus season”.  But it all starts today in Iowa.  Woo Hoo!

Is there truly any excitement for the start of “caucus season”?  Maybe a little, but not much.  Why, because we, as American’s, want a holiday meal.  We want something special.  We are looking for the full blown turkey dinner or the spiral cut honey ham that can feed two armies or that slab of prime rib.  But instead, once again, in Iowa we seem to be getting hot dogs and french fries.  Sure they are good.  They will do what is required.  But they likely won’t excite us.

Welcome to Iowa, land of hot dogs and fries.  But don’t despair.  Soon the hot dogs will be in New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina and, oh yes, Nevada.  Now that we have seen Herman Cain leave the race and Gary Johnson bolt for the Libertarian party we are left with Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, Bachman, Perry, Santorum and Paul.  That group is not exactly sending a Keith Olbermann tingle up my leg.  It feels like the same ol’ same ol’.  We’ve been here before.  Paul, Gingrich and Romney (the front runners) have all tried this dance once or twice.  Santorum is gaining some traction but does he really offer us anything new?  The rest would be best served to pack up their tents and spend some time with their families. 

Now don’t get me wrong.  I’m not attacking any of these players.  There are enough so-called “conservative leaders” doing that already.  In my opinion those leaders are being extremely short sided in their attacks and forgetting that one of these seven will be counted on to remove President Obama from office.  And it may not be the one they support.

 All the candidates have good points, some more than others.  They also all have bad points.  But is their truly anything that different?  Maybe you can make a case for Dr. Ron Paul being “different”.  The problem is that Paul’s type of different, specifically foreign policy, is far outside mainstream thinking.

I believe in the NFL they call this parity.  The idea that all the teams should be equal.  That way every fan of every team has hope at the start of the season of making the playoffs.  But that also means every team has an equal chance at failure.  Maybe that system works in the NFL as they try to generate more money buy it is not a good policy when trying to take back the Whitehouse.

The Iowa Caucus situation wouldn’t be so worrisome to me if not for two reasons. One, it marks the fact that in about one month Nevada will be Iowa.  We will be the ones facing a plate full of hot dogs with no prime rib in sight and two that I don’t have an idea as to which hot dog I will choose. 

I guess I can take solice in the fact that ANY one of the Republican Seven would be a far cry better than the current administration.  Even Mitt Romney (sorry Judson).  But the truth is simple.  One can only be a better President than Obama if one is elected to be President.  And there is the fly in the ointment.  Will any of these candidates be successful enough to get the opportunity to prove it?

(sigh!)

QUICK HITS: Citizen Outreach Foundation Complaint Filed (See Here)

Tis true.  As Jon Ralston tweeted earlier Battle Born Politics (i.e: Robert Hastings) has filed a complaint with the IRS regarding the promotion of a candidate participating in an election by the Citizen Outreach Foundation.  That would be a violation of the COF’s 501(c)(3) status.  Copies were also sent to the Nevada AG and SOS.  Now there are only two things to do:

1) Wait for the IRS to rule

2) Wait for Chuck Muth to attack and tell me how wrong I am and how I don’t understand

Read the complaint here: http://bit.ly/trYQY6

QUICK HITS: A Funny Thing Happen To Me on the Way to the GOP Meeting

QUICK HIT #1: Saturday morning was our monthly Lyon County Republican Central Committee meeting.  The room was packed as in addition to all the regular attendees we had several candidates or their representatives for upcoming elections on hand.  After our first two speakers, Dan Schwartz (CD04) and Jim Wheeler (Assembly District 39), our Chairman once again moved to the front.  Dr. Titus then announced that speaking for Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich was none other than Tiffiny Ruegner (better known to me as the Field Director for the Tea Party Express).  I thought young lady looked familiar but had no idea this was “Tiffiny”.

For those who have not followed BBP very long let me fill you in.  I have written many articles about the Tea Party Express.  They are the PAC that brought you Sharron Angle, another 6 years of Harry Reid, Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell and many more.  The TPX is a group that on the surface appears to be upright and working for the cause.  Unfortunately when you get down to the reality of it they are a front group for Russo, Marsh and Associates who are doing nothing more than lining their pockets at the expense of the real Tea Partiers.  I only wish Tiffiny was able to stick around longer.  That could have been a fun conversation.

QUICK HIT #2: It was good to hear from some of the lesser know candidates on Saturday.  Dan Schwartz was in attendance with his team as he works towards a CD04 bid.  My friend, Jim Wheeler, was there as well.  Jim is running in the primary for State Assembly District 39 currently held by Kelly Kite.  I encourage everyone to listen to all candidates.  You never know what you might learn.  In listening to Jim I found out a couple things I didn’t previously know.

QUICK HIT #3: Getting back to the Tea Party Express and their “ka-ching” money making, everyone should be aware that they have started yet another PAC.  That’s right, the Tea Party Express (Russo, Marsh and Associates) have the newly developed Defeat Barack Obama PAC up and ready to take your hard earned cash.  Of course the claim is that the TPX and the Defeat Obama PACs are completely separate but a quick look at the leadership teams of both show a great deal of co-mingling.  Just one more nightmare, er fantasy, brought to you by Sal Russo, Joe Wierzbicki and all their friends.

QUICK HITS: Why Does The GOP Keep Losing?

So you want to know why the GOP continues to struggle.  Let me give you one example.  Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips just couldn’t help but put a nail in the GOP coffin.  Phillips, once a supporter of Herman Cain, apparently has become frustrated with his former choice and Cain’s many missteps.  So what did Phillips have to say?

“I was wrong about Herman Cain…I said originally that Cain could stay on message better than almost any other candidate. His 9-9-9 plan was all he would talk about and I attributed that to good messaging on his part. I was wrong.”

And if that were not bad enough he followed those statements up with:

“Herman Cain needs to leave the race because he is not qualified to be President. The video is painful to watch. It is obvious Cain is in over his head and simply clueless.”

Now I’ll admit Mr. Cain has not helped himself.  But he is also not dead.  There is still a chance he can redeem himself and get the GOP nod.  And my question to Mr. Phillips is, should that happen how long before the Dems create a commercial with the leader of one of the largest Tea Party groups calling Cain “clueless” and saying he’s “not qualified”.

I guess Mr. Phillips sees 4 more years of Obama as a better option than Herman Cain!!!

Like the NFL the RNC Needs a Cut-down Day

Are you ready for some Politics? Re-pub-li-can Party…..

As I lay around last week trying to recover from the flu I did what many American’s do on a Sunday?  I watched the NFL.  The National Football League.  I also ponder the NRCC meeting I attended the day before.  But as I pondered my mind wandered to a BIG PICTURE, the Republican Presidential Primary.  Just five days prior Las Vegas hosted what had been the most entertaining debate to date.  It had a bit of everything.  But despite the debates entertainment value I was still disturbed by the sheer volume of candidates.  Remember, Gary Johnson was not even invited and Jon Huntsman’s campaign could not afford a plane ticket – I mean he was boycotting.  Even with those two on the sidelines there were seven participants.  That to me is about four too many.  So I thought deeply about how we could fix this problem.  Then it struck me. It struck me like my wife does when I’m snoring.  It was right in front of me.  The NFL!!! Treat the Republican Presidential Primary as if it were the NFL pre-season.  Brilliant!!!

For those of you who may be less than football aficionados, here is what the NFL does.  Every year in August all the teams go to training camp.  This is where they get in shape from a summer of corn dogs and beer.  In addition, over the course of time, the teams play “practice or pre-season games” with other NFL teams.  At the start of training camp a team can have as many players report as they want.  I heard of teams inviting in excess of one hundred players to camp.  As they go through their workouts and their practice games the coaches evaluate the talent before them.  Now, as I said, they can invite as many players as they choose but eventually the NFL states how many players you can have at a given time.  As an example, in the last training camp, all teams were required to have their rosters down to 80 players no later than August 30.  Then they were required to have their roster to a final number of 53 by September 1.  These days in the NFL are known as “Cut-down Days”.  You don’t want to be called to the head coach’s office on cut-down day.  It usually isn’t good news.

So what if we apply this concept to the Republican Presidential candidates.  As “training camp” (i.e. campaign season) starts we can have an unlimited number of candidates trying to make the team.  Much as we do now.  But then we have a schedule that the RNC players must abide by.  As an example the “RNC team” must be down to no more than 6 candidates by November 15, 2011.  Let’s face facts; chances are if you are not in the top six by November 15^th – you are likely not going to make the team.  Final cut-down day is December 31.  If you are not in the top 3 at this point we say buh-bye!!!

Now some will argue that cutting the field to three makes it too small.  There is always a chance that a fourth candidate could sneak up in the primaries and caucuses.  That is very true.  But it is a risk I am willing to take for the sanity of our nation.  Having the field paired down to three allows for a real chance to meet and get to know the candidates.  And all before the ever important primaries and caucuses start.  Imagine having a presidential debate that allows every candidate to be in a camera shot and still be big enough on the screen that you can identify each of them.  Imagine not hearing someone off screen yelling “Anderson, Anderson, Anderson” in an attempt to get three seconds more of television time.

I’ll admit my plan needs work.  First of course is who gets to choose who stays and who goes.  Who is our “head coach”?  Well, we could make it Reince Priebus and the rest of the RNC team.  But I see that going down in flames.  Can you imagine if two candidates are close in the third and fourth positions?  Reince and the RNC are dead no matter who they pick.

Having a full blow vote would be near impossible.  So my choice for head coach would be the group Public Policy Polling.  On each cut-down day they will run a nationwide phone survey of Registered Republicans. Granted they will have to do a very large cross section – maybe 10,000 people.  But for the publicity they receive I’m sure they can make it happen.  They will then produce the results and those who make it through cut-down day will be known and will continue on. Those that fail can go back to their day jobs or try and hook up with another team.   

Now don’t get me wrong.  I know this isn’t a perfect plan.  But reality is I developed the plan while watching a single football game.  The NFL has been around since the 1920’s and they still have issues to solve.  And no we will not use instant replay. But I do think it’s a great start.  If nothing else cut-down day would at least make life in politics a little more interesting.

NOTE: Watch for my next article: “Republican Players on the Trading Block, Watch-Out Sharron Angle!”

Nicely Played Mr. Gardner But We Know What You Did

Courtest of Politico

bul·ly-NOUN: A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people. 

Nicely played Mr. Gardner but we know what you did.

Bill Gardner, Secretary of State for New Hampshire, played it well.  He managed to engage in a game of chicken and win.  Gardner seemed to know what he was doing.  For him the best part was he was playing with the houses money.  He wasn’t going to lose no matter what.  He had the law on his side, even if it were only New Hampshire law.  He also had (I’m tearing up) tradition on his side.  That tradition dated back to the 1920s.  Like Bobby Fischer he played the perfect chess match.  First he allowed the”other state” to set their date less than seven days after New Hampshire.  He then quoted New Hampshire law:

653:9 Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any “other state” shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.

Then Mr. Gardner, along with his friends, started leaning on the candidates.  Pressuring them to step away and boycott the “other states” function.  One by one the candidates did.  Eventually, seven of nine candidates walked away from the “other state”.  With virtually no one participating in the “other states” function Mr. Gardner coyly declared that the events were not the same.  He then took his original date and proceeded.  In the process he made that “other state” virtually inconsequential.  Nicely played Mr. Gardner.

I would like to say this was the events we all have heard about and discussed over the last week.  But it is not.  In fact, this event happened fifteen years ago in 1996.  The “other state” was NOT Nevada but Delaware.  That is right.  This is a familiar power play by Mr. Gardner.  The only difference was the contest that Delaware was to hold was also a primary.  Mr. Gardner was able to justify that a primary in New Hampshire and a primary in Delaware were not “similar elections”.  Yet in 2011 Mr. Gardner now claims that a New Hampshire Primary is the same as a Nevada Caucus. That is some serious tap dancing.  Nicely played Mr. Gardner.

I suspect that was his goal in Nevada all along.  Declare the contest to not be “similar elections”.  But that wasn’t good enough.  So he began making threats about December.  He was even bold enough to push the envelope.  He didn’t talk about an end of December primary.  He instead invoked December 13 or (gasp!) December 6.  But reality is, I believe, the date in his mind has always been January 10^th.  His only job was to destroy Nevada and get them out of his way in the process.  New Hampshire would take the main stage and NO ONE would get in their way.

You see, as soon as the battle started if you recall, candidates were being put in the middle and having to make a choice.  Side with Nevada and go against an “American Tradition” or side with New Hampshire.  One by one they fell. Huntsman, Santorum, Bachman….  Then came the capper.  Herman Cain suggested he too would boycott Nevada.  One of the top three was out.  Gardner knew the likelihood of Perry bailing was slim because of his relationship with Governor Sandoval.  But they did, according to accounts, begin to put heavy pressure on Mitt Romney.  If they could get to Romney they would remove two of the top three candidates and make Nevada irrelevant.  Then, like with Delaware, Mr. Gardner would say Nevada was not a “similar election” and move into that January 10^th date. Nicely played Mr. Gardner.

One would have to ask why?  I believe it is simply ego.  Mr. Gardner was appointed Secretary of State some 35 years ago.  Some see him as a god.  I believe he sees himself as quite powerful.  He has power and he knows how to prove it. Nicely played Mr. Gardner.

Some would say that Governor Sandoval and the Nevada Executive Board are folding.  They talked tough early but seemed to lose their steam.  I would suggest that is right for some.  I believe some decided to step aside because it was easier.  Others wanted to fight on because to them this was about right and wrong.  Those that decided to step aside lost their fire, if they ever really had it.  We can blame Governor Sandoval and the Executive Board, and they do deserve some blame, but personally I feel there is a bigger problem here.

I believe that the biggest issues are those that were brought on by the complete lack of control by the Republican National Committee.  You see they set the rules, they worked with the states and they came up with the plan.  The plan was that New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada would be the first four states.  They put in some rules about breaking the rules but when Florida decided to thumb their nose at the rest of the nation – the RNC was powerless to act.  This set the stage for a whirlwind of activity I’ll call “Caucusgate”. 

I believe that the RNC knew it was their failures and short-sidedness that brought this on.  They did not believe any state would go against them so quickly.  So they waited.  The RNC hoped that it would all go away quickly and quietly.  And they remained silent.  Then came along Mr. Gardner.  He refused to set a date assuming that everyone would do as he desired for he was “King Gardner ruler of the Primary”.  He demanded that Nevada set a date instead. And they did.  But to Mr. Gardner it was an unacceptable date.  But Mr. Gardner was too quick for the RNC.  By the time the RNC could even think to react New Hampshire had pulled many of the candidates to their side.  What could the RNC do?  They could not back Nevada and seem to ignore tradition.  But they could also not back New Hampshire while knowing full well that Nevada was in the right.  They also could not call out the candidates and appear they were telling them they were wrong for their boycotts.  So more RNC silence.

Until this week at the Western Republican Leadership Conference.  All the big players would be there.  All except Mr. Gardner.  This gave the RNC ample opportunity to schmooze, coheres and trample the Nevada GOP.  The RNC knew they had nothing on Gardner.  He would, like in 1996, never budge.  The only hope for the RNC was to force Nevada to step aside.  And the one thing the RNC did right in this whole mess was to never tilt their hand publicly as to who they backed.  If Nevada decided to stand too firm the RNC would be able to come out publicly and talk about how inflexible Nevada was.  Then any hope of significance in this race for Nevada would be gone.

So here we are.  It looks like there will be a date change for the Nevada caucus.  But be careful where you lay the blame.  Sometimes those that get the most blame are the ones who tried the hardest to do the right thing.  And sometimes those who win are not the ones who deserve to win, but instead the ones who play the game well and do so with the houses money because they have the least to lose.

Again I say, well played Mr. Gardner.

New Hampshire SOS Gardner Shovels the Manure

LETTER:

 To: New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner

Re: Caucus Dates and State Laws

Mr. Gardner –

Please see the attached link I have provided (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/Index.cfm).  This link will take you to the website for the Nevada Revised Statutes.  This we believe will help you in the future as it is now a requirement that New Hampshire follows Nevada state law.  We appreciate the fact you brought this to our attention.  Until now we were unaware that one state could unilaterally impose their laws on another state.  We must have missed that in the Constitution.  We would like to caution you that in any area where current New Hampshire law and Nevada law conflict we must insist that Nevada laws prevail.

Yours truly,

The people of the great state of Nevada

~~~~~

Ridiculous, I know

First, I must point out.  Unlike Mr. Gardner who is at present trying to blame Nevada for everything and throw us under the bus I don’t hold he and New Hampshire completely responsible.  In fact a large part of the problems were caused by the selfish actions of Florida.

When the 2012 caucus rules were set by the RNC and agreed upon by the states there were a couple things that were made crystal clear:

1) Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were the only states who could hold their primaries/caucuses before March 6.  This gave those four states priority status and more influence during primary season.  But they could not move into January without penalty. 

2) Anyone choosing to ignore the RNC agreed upon rules would be penalized by loss of half their delegates as well as other sanctions at the National Convention.

That is when Florida stepped in.  Florida, despite the noted sanctions chose to move their primary to January 31.  This of course caused a domino effect.  Florida already had secured the National Convention and this was just one more way to flaunt their power.  

This decision caused the other four states to react.  Almost immediately all four states declared they too would move their dates to protect their “first four” status.  But again this would then have them incur penalties.  The clearest statement came from Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn when he stated that the four states will “move together if necessary to ensure the integrity of order” as set by the RNC. 

So to this point it was clear the issues were created by Florida’s decision and the blame was squarely on their shoulders.  But then things got really interesting.  The four states now needing to change their dates had lots of work to do.  Simply, they needed to move to a date before Florida but all wanted to also avoid moving back too far.  

The first state to react was South Carolina which chose to set their caucus date on January 21 of 2012.  This is where the debate between New Hampshire and Nevada heated up.  Nevada had initially set a rule that their caucus would follow New Hampshire by four days.  So the stand-off began.  Nevada did not want to set their date in hopes they could follow New Hampshire and New Hampshire would not set their date as they were required by their state law to be at least 7 days prior to any similar contest.  What isn’t clear is why it took to this point for New Hampshire to make their law known.  It didn’t seem to be an issue prior to the Florida change.  

On October 3, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner appeared on Face to Face with Jon Ralston.  Gardner made it VERY CLEAR that he would not set a date until Nevada had chosen (you can get to the Oct. 3 F2F video through this link http://bit.ly/nJ8hJj).  It was a political game of chicken.  Because Gardner refused to set a date there was nothing that Nevada could do other than move forward.  Chairman Tarkanian of the Nevada GOP called the Executive Board together on October 5^th to discuss the options.   At that time it was determined that Nevada would hold their caucus one week before South Carolina on January 14, 2012.  This would allow a few things to happen: 

1) Nevada’s caucus would be prior to South Carolina allowing us to remain in the third overall spot.

2) Nevada would not be required to share a date which had always been part of the RNC plan

3) Nevada’s caucus would remain on a Saturday.  With caucuses the time line can be up words of 2 hours.  A weekday caucus statistically does not draw as well.

4) This would allow New Hampshire plenty of time to set their primary date and fulfill their 7 day requirement. 

According to a letter issued by SOS Gardner that only leaves January 3^rd as a possible date for the primary and Iowa had already tentatively took that date.  Gardner’s claim therefore is he is left with no alternative but moving the primary to either December 6^th or 13^th of this year.  That is a month or more before Nevada.  Be my guest!!!  Mr. Gardener has decided this is an issue created and perpetuated by Nevada and has essentially called Nevada on the carpet.  But Mr. Gardner is failing to recognize that his law is not Nevada’s issue.  He also, in only calling out Nevada, has failed to recognize that the original issue was created by Florida and that Iowa chose the 3^rd of January.  That again was not Nevada’s choice. 

Now for some reason Mr. Gardner believes he can yell loud enough and bully Nevada into a change.  He has issued long winded press releases that drips of “patriotism”.  So much so you can almost hear the Star Spangled Banner play in the background.  He also sent a letter to the Nevada GOP demanding a date change.  Really?  Demand? His letter to the GOP never addressed Iowa or Florida, just Nevada.  Gardner’s constant “lip service” caused Politico to write an article titled “N.H’s Bill Gardner to Nevada: Drop Dead”.  Well I can assure you that if anyone is going to “drop dead” it won’t be Nevada. 

After the latest press release by Mr. Gardner on Wednesday the Nevada Executive Board along with the county chairs had a conference call to discuss the situation.  The result – Nevada stands by its January 14^th date.  Workers in caucus training were assured the date is and will remain January 14^th.  In addition, the decision was confirmed and backed by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval.  

Mr. Gardner can stand on HIS state law but he must also remember that none of the other forty-nine states are bound by his law.  He must also accept that he had the opportunity to work with other states towards a resolution but continually made himself unavailable to those working towards a resolution.  Maybe Mr. Gardner sees this as his opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame.  But any way you slice it one thing is a fact: 

Nevada will hold its caucuses on January 14, 2012.  Deal with it!!!

TRUNC: Attacking the Nevada GOP One Vendetta at a Time

“Recognizing we are a two-party system, we must work within that structure. TRUNC intends to unite all like-minded conservatives who believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes & who are “pro” constitution under the umbrella of the Republican Party in Nevada, agreeing to disagree on peripheral issues for the purpose of defeating liberal & socialist candidates and their agenda” 

That is the Mission Statement for the Nevada Conservative Group TRUNC (Tea Party and Republicans Uniting Nevada Conservatives).  It is such a wonderful sentiment – if only TRUNC believed and lived by their own words. 

The two phrases that jump out at me are “unite all like-minded conservatives” and “agreeing to disagree on peripheral issues”.   On Saturday September 24, 2011 these parts of their mission statement were ignored as they issued a Press Release attacking the Nevada GOP Executive Board, making unsubstantiated claims, giving incomplete information, making personal attacks against Chairman Tarkanian and even resorting to thinly veiled threats.  All of this controversy over the potential of “same day voter registration at the February 18^th caucuses”.  Now I agree this is an important issue but for the GOP I still consider this a “peripheral issue”.  You know the issues we agree to disagree on. 

In the first paragraph of the Press Release (which can be found online), referred to how the Executive Committee “kept secrets” regarding a vote on same day voter registration at the caucuses during their meeting back in July.  Now let’s look at this realistically.  The Executive Board has nearly a dozen members.  In addition the there are other members of the Nevada GOP that attend the meetings as required.  Not everyone on the Executive Board supports the same day initiative.  But we are now to believe that, despite the obvious disagreement regarding this issue, the Board determined they would vote behind closed doors and the results would be kept a secret.  Even the possible dissenters agreed to keep quiet.  This sounds like a scandal straight out of a Hollywood movie script.  I would like to remind the TRUNC folks that Amy Tarkanian’s maiden name was Hanson – NOT Gotti. 

Reality is, at the time the Executive Board felt they received additional information and they re-addressed the question in July.  Yes, at that time they determined that voter registration at the caucus only was warranted.  This is not unprecedented.  I suggested that you look at the rules for the states such as Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and Rhode Island.  Throughout history one of the purposes for caucuses was to fundraise and register voters.  

Now some claim that this issue has been discussed at length and that allowing same day voter registration at the caucus violates the party plank. Maybe – maybe not.  If you review the party platform, by-laws and rules you will find that interpretation can allow the Executive Board to make the decision that they did without A) a violation of the party plank and B) without compromising the GOP.  Here are the facts: 

If you review the 2010 Party Platform under “Citizenship” it states: 

“We oppose same-day registration and voting. We demand proof of U.S. citizenship and residency at the time of registration and authentic government issued photo identification at the time of voting.”

It seems clear but the question becomes – is a caucus a vote?  The argument against is simple.  First, it is not a vote; it is a PPP “Presidential Preference Poll”.  Polls are clearly different from a vote.  We all remember when some counties wanted to take a vote regarding the GOP candidates for CD2.  We were clearly told to NOT have a binding vote but instead have a non-binding preference poll.  That is clearly different from a vote. 

Now I also have argued that a reason to not consider this a vote is because it is non-binding.  Some have argued this point with me.  There are two pieces of evidence I would like to share:

NRP – Presidential Preference Poll Rules for 2012:

Section 3 – Statement of Policy – Selection of County Delegates

It is the express intent and policy of the Nevada Republican Party that County Delegates not be bound by the results of the Presidential Preference Poll in their respective Precinct Meetings, but that binding shall occur during the election of National Delegates at the Nevada Republican Convention. This policy is promulgated for the following reasons: …..

and

NRP – Delegate Binding Rules for 2012:

Section 5 – Binding of National Delegates and Alternates

All National Delegates and Alternates, ex efficio, At Large and Congressional District, shall be required to vote for the Presidential Candidate to whom they are bound.  This requirement applies only to the first vote at the Republican National Convention.

Now I believe this clearly shows that delegates assigned at the precinct caucuses on February 18 will NOT BE BOUND.  Therefore is cannot be considered a vote.  Now you may interpret this differently than I but please at least acknowledge that there is a reasonable train of thought.  Also that using this train of thought the Executive Board did nothing outside of its purview.  They were not looking to harm the GOP.  They were simply trying to do the best with the information they were given.

But there are a couple of things that truly bother me about this controversy.  First in reading the TRUNC Press Release it is clear they attempt to single out Amy Tarkanian several times.  This is unfortunate since all decisions made were done by vote of the Executive Board which includes Heidi Smith, Dave Buell, Bob List, Carol DelCarlo, Sherry Dilley, Wes Rice, Dave Gibbs, John Chachas, Lynne Hartung and Amy Tarkanian.  In fact, since the Chris Comfort fiasco of a few years ago the Chairman’s position has been stripped of much of its power.  Nearly all decision must go through a full vote of the board.  A bit ridiculous for a state chairman but that is an argument for another day.  But it is clear to me that TRUNC has a personal issue with Tarkanian and are trying to use the Press Release as a way of attacking her.

Another reason I found this odd is that Amy Tarkanian has tried to help the TRUNC group.  Following the Sharron Angle defeat to Harry Reid, TRUNC was having a hard time gaining traction for their group because they were seen as nothing but “Sharron Angle Cronies”.  In fact one person close to the Angle campaign said to me “good luck finding a picture of the TRUNC ladies that doesn’t include Sharron”. After speaking with TRUNC in May, Amy Tarkanian approached me with a request for a personal favor.  She asked if I would interview the TRUNC ladies (Laurel Fee and Jeri Taylor-Swade) and print an article to allow them to gain some positive traction.  I reluctantly did so.  That article did extremely well both on my website and at the posting on www.redcounty.com.  Ironically I just looked back at this article and this caught my eye:

BBP: In Nevada, the Republicans seem to be very fractured.  With all of the factions (conservatives, moderates, Tea Party, Libertarians) do you see us ever pulling together and acting in unison?

TRUNC: Only if we all agree to disagree on peripheral issues and stop the back biting and backstabbing and betrayals like happened with Bill Raggio.  We really absolutely do see all of us working together and that’s our goal.  All of the groups you mention here.  We all have several key components in common.  We want smaller government, lower taxes, we believe in the Constitution.  If we focus on those things we have in common I think that we can pull together and do what is right. 

Wow it sucks when your own words come back to haunt you.

But despite all of the arguing here is where we stand.  Yes there was quite an uproar regarding the vote taken by the Executive Board in July.  When that surfaced the Executive Board, as a whole, unanimously voted to set aside their earlier decision and bring it to the whole body on October 22.  In addition there will be a panel to discuss the options – both pro and con.  I’m not sure how bringing more information to us all is an issue?

Now I don’t know why TRUNC decided to act as they did.  I don’t know why they chose attack rather than discuss.  I don’t understand why they would go public to the media (that we all trust so much) and I don’t know why they have made personal attacks and accusations regarding the GOP Chairman.  What I do know is they really need to re-read their Mission Statement.  They also need to work harder at getting the whole story before attacking.  Below is letter written by Clark County Republican Party Chairman and Executive Board Member, Dave Gibbs.  It outlines the facts.  I am printing it in its entirety with Mr. Gibbs permission.

I would also give one last piece of advice to TRUNC.  If in the future you write a Press Release and the first thing that happens is Jon Ralston quotes it, writes an article about it and uses it to try and create a divide in the Nevada GOP – you might want to consider that you may have really screwed up.

People – calm down.  The party is making headway.  We are moving forward and we are getting stronger.  Don’t let petty accusations and partial truth destroy what we are building.

DAVE GIBBS LETTER: 

Greetings CCRCC Members: 

A lot of concern and misinformation about the Nevada Republican Party pushing through same day registration for the Feb. 18^th Presidential Caucus has made its way around by email over the last few days.  Much of it is inaccurate.  The diatribe from TRUNC is full of inaccuracies and insults, and I have responded to the authors telling them so.  I hope the next time they put out a press release they will take the time to write one that is logical, accurate, and, most of all, respectful to the people with whom they are disagreeing.  We should be able to disagree without becoming insulting.  I mean, after all, we are not Democrats. 

Here is the straight story.  On July 20^th the State Executive committee met for its monthly telecom.  There was a discussion of providing same day registration at the caucus and how successful the Democrats had been in registering new voters in 2008.  There was nothing written in the rules either way about registration.   The Committee discussed it and voted to allow it as part of the caucus.  After so many voiced their concerns, the Committee agreed to reconsider the motion and voted unanimously to withdraw the July 20^th motion and put this item on the agenda at the Oct 22^nd NRCC meeting, so that you could all hear  the same information the committee received. 

Until then, let me clear up some of the misinformation that has been sent out in emails: 

1.  This was done in secret and is being rammed down the State’s throat by outside operatives.                   

Not true.  This was done in an open discussion at an open committee meeting.  There were no “outside operatives” in attendance. 

2.  The state is taking over the caucus, disregarding the precinct meetings and also using it as a fundraiser for the NRP. 

Not true. There is a draft of a proposed caucus plan.  Each Board member was asked to submit comments.  I submitted 28 general and specific comments about the draft plan, pointing out conflicts with the NRP bylaws and the rules agreed to by the NRCC.  Others submitted their comments along the same line as well.  To put you at ease, all three of the county chairmen who sit on the committee are on the same page when it comes to the caucus, so there will be major changes to that draft.   

3.  The rules have already been sent to the RNC and can’t be changed.  Therefore, same day registration is a done deal. 

Not true.  The rules that were submitted to the RNC were the ones approved in Carson City in April.  Voting to include same day registration would actually have to be done after the deadline and taken into consideration separately by the RNC.  It is not a done deal.  

For some reason, there are folks who prefer to react to rumor and partial stories without taking the time to gather all the facts, then present a logic-based, factual, unemotional opinion that backs their position.  There are others who see sinister motives and plots behind every effort.  It’s easy to throw mud balls, but it doesn’t solve problems.  It eventually causes more and diminishes trust in those who are working for the right cause for the right reasons.  No one wins.  Your Executive committee is engaged in making sure Nevada has a successful caucus.     

From here forward, I ask that you stop the accusations, finger pointing, and rush to judgment and tale the time to get all the facts on the issue.  Please continue the great work you all are doing.  The CCRP did a great job with the CD2 election.  The leadership is working on the political plan for 2012.  CCRP members have been to three very successful outreach events, registering new voters, recruiting candidates, and meeting contacts to work with.  We have great candidates who are already being trained.   I am very actively involved in all that is going on at the state level, and I have Clark County’s interests Number One on my priority list.  I thank all of you who provide inputs to me on this issue.  Your voices were heard. 

I encourage all who are NRCC members to attend the meeting on October 22^nd at the Venetian.  Those who are not members are welcome to attend as guests. 

Let’s keep up the great work! 

Dave

Getting Conservative: Ya Can’t Hit A Six Run Homerun

I have shared many times that I am a HUGE baseball fan.  I have spent 40 years of my life playing, coaching and watching the sport.  I’ve seen an awful lot in that time.  I have seen grand slams and unassisted triple plays.  I saw home plate stolen by a 12 year old to win a county tournament.  I remember when that ball rolled through the bowed legs of Bill Buckner.  I was there when Will Clark singled up the middle off of Mitch Williams and again when Dave Dravecky returned after a year of fighting bone cancer in his pitching arm.  I was in the upper deck as Candlestick rocked in 1989.  Last year I finally saw my beloved Giants win a World Series.  It won’t be repeated this year.  But for all the things I have seen in baseball one thing I have never seen is a six run homerun. 

As I said I have coached many teams over the years.  I have been on the losing side of some big loses.  But when we were down by a lot of runs I would caution my players – “you can’t tie it up with one swing”.  I don’t care if you are the best player on a team.  When you are down by several runs you must be patient.  You must build momentum.  Too often the guy who tries to do something spectacular strikes out and ends up hurting his team.  You must take the approach of the tortoise in the Tortoise and the Hare.  Slow and steady wins the race.

It’s the same in politics.  We as Republicans and we as conservatives want to hit the six run home run.  But we can’t.  We tend to think that a mere single is not good enough.  But a single builds momentum.  String a few singles together and you score a run.  Throw in a few more singles and a double or two and the game is tied.  Get your opponent on their heels and soon you will win the game.  Sure your opponent may lead in the second inning but the only thing that matters is who leads when the last out is recorded.

As I said we too often in politics are impatient.  We want Obama gone and Reid and Pelosi.  While we’re at it take out every “not conservative enough” Republican we can.  Sure they are more conservative than the Democrat but surely they are not conservative enough for me.  We see that attitude here in Nevada.  The most glaring case is that of Congressman Joe Heck.  After six years of district three being held by Jon Porter, Porter was defeated Dina Titus y’all.  Titus held the seat for two years until Heck came along.  Heck fought a tough fight.  Heck was clearly more conservative than Titus.  Of 267,874 votes cast, Heck won the district by a mere 1748 votes.  That comes to .65% of votes cast.

Now, one year later, we have the uproar of those who are unhappy with Heck.  He is not as conservative as they would like.  Some of his votes defy the Republican Party stance.  I agree.  Joe Heck hasn’t always voted the way I want him to.  At times his votes have infuriated me.  But here is a little secret – ssshhhhh! Dina Titus y’all was FAR worse.  Where Heck occasionally upsets me, Titus constantly upset me. 

Ask yourself this one question:

 In today’s climate could a person more conservative (at least in their voting record) than Heck have won district 3? 

If not Heck the alternative would be another few years of Titus.  The problem is we allow ourselves to get caught up in the wrong battles.  Why are we focused on Heck?  Shouldn’t we be focused on those who are far to Heck’s left?  And while we sit here and go after the Joe Heck’s of the world – the Democrats laugh.  They know what many of us haven’t figured out yet.  They know that every dollar spent to “defeat” Joe Heck is one dollar not spent on defeating a Democrat.  They know that every minute a Republican focuses on defeating a Joe Heck is one minute they are not focused on defeating a Democrat.  Oh and did I mention, they laugh.

In Nevada we have a whole lot of people who need to be defeated long before Joe Heck.  How about Catherine Cortez-Masto, Shelley Berkley and I am sure at some point a woman named Dina Titus y’all.  What about Kate Marshall.  We now see John Oceguera and Steven Horsford vying for higher office.  The list of those we SHOULD focus on is long and liberal.

Now don’t get me wrong.  By no means am I saying we should give up on our conservative values.  By no means am I saying “be happy with what you got”.  I understand there are some “R”s that are not “R” enough for us.  But they are often times better than the alternative.  If we are so intent on making the big play, the big splash we can often times make the big mistake.  It’s time we slow down.  It’s time to look at the big picture.  Don’t look to move the party right in one fell swoop.  Look to move the party one step at a time.

Remember the moral of the tortoise and the hare – “slow and steady wins the race”.

The Political Pitfalls of Walking with the Devil

I am just curious.  Have you ever heard of the band the “Mucky Pups”? Me neither.

The Mucky Pups were a thrash band in the 1980’s and 1990’s.  They had some limited success in Europe and the US.  That explains why I never heard of them.  They are not my cup of tea.  But as I was doing a little research I came across the lyrics of a song they did.  The song was called “Walking with the Devil”.  Not the more famous “Runnin’ with the Devil” from Van Halen.  This is how the lyrics start:

Went walkin’ with Devil,
walkin’ in his shoes,
went walkin’ with the Devil,
thought I had nothing to lose,

Isn’t that how we all think it is?  We have this grandiose idea that we can “walk with the Devil”.  We see the Devil as someone who, as long as we are aware of whom he is, we can outsmart him.  Now I’m not necessarily going to focus on “The Devil” of the Bible.  This is more the concept or idea of evil.  Aligning ourselves with those we don’t believe in or don’t trust for expediency and to promote our own cause. So the question becomes, do the ends justify the means?

In my mind the answer is clear – NO.

First you have to pay attention to the facts.  We believe we can avoid the pit falls of “evil” ourselves by simply knowing that the “evil” exist.   That is a very nice thought that brings about visions of unicorns and rainbows.  We paint ourselves as just a little too good to be deceived into bad actions.  Where this notion falls apart is in the fact that those who we classify as “evil” don’t have the same behavioral limits we do.  “Evil” is deceitful.  For those who are NOT “evil” there is a point at which we will stop.  We will go no further.  We will not risk doing “evil” even for our own benefit or to promote our cause.

“Evil” on the other hand has no limits.  It (they) will do or say anything it feels is necessary to promote itself or its cause.  “Evil” has no problem with stretching, twisting, manipulating what is right as long as their desires are fulfilled.  “Evil” will sit you down at its dinner table, feed you the finest meal, give you their finest wine and give you the nicest gifts but will also discard you and stab you in the back at its first opportunity should you no longer be of use.

When it comes to “Walking with the Devil” there are three possible scenarios.  The first is when we are confronted by “evil” and we simply turn away.  Now understand I am not making this a Republican vs. Democrat thing.  Are there “evil” Democrats?  Yes there are.  But there are also “evil” Republicans and Independents.  I’m not talking of those who have a strong belief in what they do and follow that path.  Those who believe what they are doing is truly the right thing even if they have a different thought pattern than us.  They may be misguided or misinformed but they are not “evil”.  I am speaking of those who know their position is flawed (i.e. evil) but will move forward in order to promote their desires.  They are driven by their own greed.  If we see and know “evil” is present you should walk away.  That is the easy answer

Scenario two is the situation where we don’t know we are “walking with the Devil”.  We are unaware that those around us, those we are reliant on are “evil”.  They simply have us fooled.  First, there is some innocence for us in that ignorance.  If we are “unaware” of the “evil” nature of those around us we get somewhat of a pass.  But it also does not exonerate us from the need to always be looking.  Plenty of people have started out with good intentions only to see the power and influence turn them to the dark side.  We see this in politics often.  People who start out strong but eventually get caught up in the hysteria.  We cannot forever use the excuse of having blinders on.  If we have those blinders on it is because we allowed them to be put on.  We must always be open to the potential change in those around us, even those we call friend.  We must always strive to be diligent. 

The last, and least forgivable scenario, is when we know we are “walking with the Devil” and choose to continue on.  We have that belief that we can control what is happening.  It is the belief that we can walk with “evil” but not be influenced by the same “evil”.  That we can move forward and assume that what we do is not, nor will ever be, tainted by the wrong things. That is simply a fantasy.  The fact that you would allow yourself to “walk with the Devil” is the first step on that very slippery slope.  That is the slope that will allow you to make flawed decisions to move your voice or your cause forward.  The best way to avoid this scenario is to simply not take that first step. 

This may all seem a bit cryptic but in reality it is not.  It is a simple warning to all.  Democrat, Republican, Independent….  If you see and choose to associate knowingly with “evil” regardless of your own honorable desires, you risk being tainted.  You also risk being taken advantage of.  But most of all you risk being found “guilty by association”.  Once you have chosen to associate with an evil person or group – the bell is rung and it cannot be un-rung.  You will forever have that association.  Think of it as getting a divorce when you have young children.  Sure you can split from the person, you can move, you can desire to never see that person again.  But with kids involved you will forever be associated.  There will be weddings and funerals, grandchildren and the list goes on.  You will never be able to get completely away. Your choices contain lifetime risks.

So here is my advice.  Avoid “evil”.  Even to the point of avoiding potential “evil”.  We as individuals and groups must choose our “friends” carefully.  If we choose to risk what we believe in for the easy path by trying to “walk with the Devil” the “Devil’s” deception will eventually capture us.  We can believe with all our heart that, as the song says, we “thought we had nothing to lose”.  But reality is we have everything to lose.  Especially the respect of those who we actually trust.