You know, for the first time I agree with that Trotskyite, Shopshire, who spends his taxpayer paid office time blogging.
In a post regarding the credentials committee decision to change the rules to favor the meme that Romney carried the day February 28, RM's post invited lefty love. Kevin Shopshire, alias Communications guru, who often lashes out (thats really ALL he does) at republicans and conservatives frequently, made like a broken clock, and may have found a point where he is right for the second time in his life. Shopshire made a valid point unfortunately:
Communications guru said...
Is anyone really surprised Republicans are dishonest? They should have just saved taxpayers $10 million and gave Romney the delegates. This is such a waste of time; all we are doing is deciding who is going to lose to President Obama in November.
3/01/2012 3:40 PM
Republican Michigander said...
Personally I'd rather have the caucus even if the results would have been more favorable to Romney. Unfortunately this [expletive deleted] gave you a great talking point to use against us.
3/01/2012 4:04 PM
Communications guru said...
Talking point? It's not a talking point; it's about the basic dishonesty of your party.
3/02/2012 8:08 AM
The point he makes is that the Republican leadership, framed the election in such a way as to ensure Mitts selection here, and when THAT wasn't as clear a win as they would like, it was obvious the rules were changed to make it more so. And that Michigan Taxpayers, including Democrats (at least those who really work for a living) are footing the bill for this Kabuki theater presentation.
The "basic dishonesty of the party" meme is getting harder to defend so long as we have continued dominance by an establishment that operates not in a conservative fashion, but in one that continues to elevate those who play for power, not the good of the people.
Its dishonest to be a Republican and claim some faux conservative credential while adding social programs which add to the burden our children forever. It is certainly dishonest to ignore good public policy such as right to work, for the fear of losing politically in the house. It is dishonest to cry foul over the deficit, yet beg for more grants from the federal government and further perpetuate the problem.
And it is simply outright corruption to change the rules for a different outcome at the game's end in a political contest.
The Democrats are expected to be crooked. we KNOW that is how they play the game. But the willingness to descend into their shadowed ways has begun to reach a crescendo as this political opera continues. Republicans now play the same game, and join in the manner that drives so many away from the political process. Making opaque, that which ought to be clear divides those who wish for transparency from those who want the power.
And perhaps driving honest conservatives away is the point.
The four on the credentials committee who voted for the change in rules continue to stonewall the call for a change back. A concerted effort to spin it in a way that gives them some cover is believed by some until they hear the audio tape of the MiGOP chair explaing that those last two delegate applications WILL BE PROPORTIONAL. Some believe the spin because of Saul's explanation. Some because of the responses like this one from Schostak himself In a letter to a concerned Republican friend):
Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me and expressing your concerns. Please know that no rules were changed or modified contrary to what you may be hearing. Sadly, this is presidential politics at its worst.
The credential committee met Wednesday evening to affirm the intent of a memo that was submitted to the Republican National Committee on February 7. Again, no rules were altered, no changes were made and no votes were ignored.
The original credentials committee met and voted on February 4 and it was unanimous. Candidates that receive 15% of the statewide vote total will be allocated delegates proportionally starting with the candidate who wins the majority of the statewide votes. The intent of the committee is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the interpretation of the memo sent on February 7. On February 29, the committee met via phone conference and again voted to implement the same process to at-large delegates. The majority of the committee voted the original intent was to give candidates that receive 15% of the statewide vote total delegates proportionally starting with the candidate who wins the majority of the statewide votes.
Some have widely misinterpreted what is a complicated process. Others are intentionally muddying the waters to benefit other campaigns. Again, thank you for taking the time to reach out.
And Saul, in his newsletter, plays the deflection game of "Santorum did something bad so, so, so .." :
Romney Sweeps Michigan, Arizona & Washington State
In an impressive show of strength and organizational prowess, Mitt Romney pulled off an impressive "come back" victory in both Arizona and Michigan. Then last night he won Washington State's caucuses! Romney's message on jobs and the economy resonated with voters. Even with a not so covert effort on the part of liberal Democrats to "hijack" our primary in favor of their perceived weaker candidate, Romney won convincingly amongst Republicans, Catholics and others parts of our coalition.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, but I was surprised to see Santorum openly accept and encourage Democrats, labor and liberal to join his coalition in OUR PRIMARY to support his candidacy. With over 100,000 Democrats voting in Michigan's Republican Primary, Democrats supported Santorum over others by a 3:1 margin, clearly boosting his efforts in many congressional districts across the state. Republican should nominate our Republican nominee...and Democrats should nominate their own nominee. We then fight for the hearts, souls and votes of swing and cross-over voters in November.
Closed Primary & Party Registration
I think given the fact over 100,000 Democrats came over and tried to hijack the Republican primary to support our perceived "weaker" candidate, we should have an open discussion about changing the way we run our primaries.
I like primaries over caucuses because it encourages greater participation. If we had party registration, partisan voters could pick "their" nominee in the primaries and then compete for independent and cross-over votes in the fall.
Maybe an idea whos time has come???
Michigan's broken Republican Primary
"Had the post-primary story been that Romney swept both Arizona and Michigan, it would have been more difficult for Santorum and Gingrich to be perceived as credible candidates and talk of a brokered convention would have been put to rest. Instead, Romney & Co. will continue to spend millions and attack each other at least through Super Tuesday. Once again, Democrats gain from how the Republican nominee is chosen in Michigan.
It is not clear how to solve the problem of an open primary - but surely if a political party is going to pick its nominee it should do it in a way that ensures it is picked by members of its own party rather than members of the opposing party. My first inclination is to make people declare what party they wish to participate in and to do so far enough ahead that they don't know whether or not there will be a contested race in the primary election or caucus. Regardless, it is time to think about how to have political party nominees be chosen by members of that political party."
"Nearly 1-in-10 voters in the Michigan Republican primary identified with the Democratic Party. These Democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Santorum...By comparison, Romney defeated Santorum among the 59 percent of Republicans casting ballots by a margin of 48 percent to 37 percent and independents by a margin of 35 percent to 34 percent. If the Democrats had not crossed over and voted in the Republican contest, Romney would have won the Michigan Republican primary by 8 percentage points, in the process changing the characterization of the result from a close race to a comfortable victory."
Change the subject distract the reader.
There is really no evidence other than a few people saying they were going to vote for Santorum who claimed to be Democrats. The fact remains, Romney did best in heavy Dem districts and Santorum more so in the conservative republican ones. Anuzis spins the lies repeatedly, and hopes this is turned into a thing against Santorum to obfuscate the corrupt activities he has pursued in the credentials committee process.
Saul Anuzis' as a fox guarding the hen house did his job admirably. As a defender of Republican values however, he gave the left more talking points on the ability to prevaricate by the Republican party. And while Anuzis is hard at work trying to save his political hide through mis-direction his actions should be thoroughly ejected from party politics permanently. He is NOT the Republican party but rather a player who apparently will use any means necessary to control its ends. His pursuit of this is a part of why grassroots distrust the party.
This issue is less about Romney, Santorum or even Democrats who vote in an open primary process they pay for as well. It is about truth in process. Mike Cox and Eric Doster understand it.
Shopshire's concern over our dishonesty may be that the Democrats are supposed to have a monopoly on it. Its THEIR game.
Unfortunately some of those in our leadership are showing they all too good in the competition.