Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia
Ideology, Party Discipline and Campaign Organization
Ideology, Party Discipline and Campaign Organization
This is a long post. It took several hours to write. I hope you find it worth spending 5 minutes to read.
Anyone who scans these forums, even briefly, recognizes Virginia Republicans are engaged in an often painful examination of where we are, how we got here and, most importantly, how do we move forward. Most of the discussions have been useful but there still seems to be something missing. A great deal of discussion has focused on identifying a single cause (and corresponding silver bullet solution) for our declining fortunes in Virginia, particularly in NOVA. Attempts have been made to pin the blame on RINOs, ideologues, party elites, herd mentality by grassroots and sheer incompetence on the part of RPVA. I believe that none of the above are fully responsible for our current situation and all of the above share at least a portion of the blame. We can separate these issues into their component parts, it makes for easier examination; but must conduct a full 360 degree assessment of past mistake (and successes). Only then will we be able to craft a comprehensive plan to change direction.
Ideology -- This is unquestionably the most hot button issue in these forums. Most commentators advocate either compromising core believes to gain votes from moderates or taking an unyielding position in order to avoid losing conservatives. I think we need to reexamine these issue and recognize they can be broken into sub-issues that allow us opportunities to focus on areas where moderate voters may agree with us, seek compromise on non-core sub-issues and even do a little horse trading on some of them.
NOVA moderates who want a variety of government services, particularly enhanced transportation systems, do not necessarily want to pay $1.50 in taxes for $0.75 in services. Many of them also work for small nimble beltway bandits and instinctively understand that a smaller government focused on achieving excellence in providing critical services is more desirable than a large over bloated bureaucracy that tries to do everything. A strident anti government message that dismisses the need for services they value drives these voters toward the Democrats. A message that government cannot only live within its means but deliver a better quality of service in the process will bring them back.
Many voters in NOVA, and increasingly the rest of the state, are more libertarian than liberal or conservative. The want government to stay away from their finances, their gun cabinet and most particularly their family. This means they tend to shut out pro-life messages they perceive as purely anti-abortion intrusions into their personal decisions. But they are also often open to parental rights message that government officials in schools, social services agencies and the courts should not be allowed to insert themselves between parents and their daughters. This issue are was actually something of a success story for Virginia Republicans during the 80s and 90s when many pro-life candidates for State House and Senate races gained support from nominally pro-choice areas by using these sub-issues effectively. These moderate voters also tend to see gay rights issues, including gay marriage, as one of government intrusion into personal decisions. But many of them would be open to a trade-off whereby government recognizes their right to live and marry as they please but school systems are prohibited from advocating lifestyles of any type and government respects parental rights to determine values in their family.
My basic point regarding ideology is that it is more complex than left, right, center / black, white grey / surrender, stand-your-ground, compromise etc. We will never gain votes from hard core liberal ideologues and attempting to run to the left of Democrats is both demeaning and ineffective. But I believe there are actually far fewer of these voters than election returns indicate. Republicans can win NOVA with a basically conservative message if we focus on delivering the message correctly. We need to listen to all voters, determine what is most important to them, identify areas of agreement as well as disagreement, deliver compelling messages focused on areas of agreement, look for areas where we can horse trade without compromising truly core principals, respectfully but clearly articulate the areas where we cannot compromise and offer voters every possible opportunity to support us without compromising their principals.
Party Discipline – (Leaders) We name streets in Virginia after the type of party discipline and unity demonstrated by many of our leaders: “One Way” and “Dead End”. This has been a growing cancer since 1978 when grassroots conservatives not only held their noses to vote for a Senator not of their choosing; but, actively made phone calls, walked precincts and worked polls in one of the most impressive volunteer efforts the state had ever seen and delivered a narrow victory. That Senator returned the favor with lackluster support for RPVA fundraising efforts, tepid endorsements of most conservative candidates, refusal to endorse others even after they had won the nomination, outright opposition to the Republican candidate for Senate in 1994 and a decision to retire when it became clear that he was the only nominal Republican who could hold the seat against the very real possibility of Democrats gaining 60 votes in the Senate. Today he is acknowledged as one of our most honored party leaders.
He has set the example for others to follow. In 1993 when the RPVA funded a three part bumper sticker for the statewide ticked reading “Allen/Ferris/Gilmore” in red, white and blue, Republican party officials in some areas handed out smaller white stickers reading “Beyer” that could be put over the center portion. I remember arriving at a parking lot in Centerville for a percent canvassing effort and being so disgusted by their open opposition to one of our candidates that I got in my car and drove home. In 2001, many of these same so called party leaders openly supported Mark Warner against Mark Early, helping to give Warner a relatively narrow victory in a campaign where he outspent Early 2 to 1, as well as giving the Democrats the opening wedge they have used so effectively in the past 10 years. We have had State Senators give radio interviews in which they proudly stated they were “Republican In Name Only”. More recently we have seen the State Chairman of RPVA encourage, or at least not stop, robo-calls aimed at our candidate for governor. Meanwhile, from last June to April 4th, members of the SCC were spending more time, money and political capital removing the chairman than supporting Republican candidates.
Our party leaders have evolved from emulating Benedict Arnold to impersonating the Three Stooges. This cannot be allowed to continue. Virginia Republicans enjoyed a steady growth in volunteers, fundraising and grassroots activism from the mid 70s through the late 90s. Since then we have had a slow steady erosion of all three. Prince William County, the second largest in the state, had less than 200 people attend the 2009 county convention. There are no leaders without followers and very few people will follow a leader who is disloyal or incompetent.
We ask a great deal of our grassroots supporters, including voting and working for candidates they may have opposed during the nomination process. We should demand no less of our leaders. Candidates for statewide office should be required to commit to raising $500,000 for the RPVA and $500,000 each for other statewide candidates if they are elected. They should commit to raising lower amounts for Congressional, State legislative local candidates and local party organizations. Similar targets should be established for candidates for other offices. All elected Republican office holders should commit to endorsing the Party’s candidates within 3 days of the convention or primary. Failure to meet fundraising or endorsement commitments should result in a proportional loss of support from the party for the individual’s reelection.
I am about the furthest one can get from a doctrinaire ideologue, often agree with moderates on policy issues and have voted for several moderates in primary elections; but few things make my blood boil more than elected party leaders deliberately undermining the campaigns of Republican nominees or withholding support for party fundraising. If they cannot or will not support the Party, they should not accept its nomination.
Party Discipline – (Followers) Grassroots activists can, should, MUST make their voices heard. They must also recognize they are not the only constituency in the political environment. Donors, who may or may not overlap with activists, have a right to be heard as well. But voters trump all else. Party rules facilitate the ability of small groups of activists to dominate sparsely attended county or state conventions, nominate marginal candidates, pass dogmatic resolutions and issue “interesting” public statements in the Party’s name. It may feel good for a day or even a week but elected officials are in office for 2, 4 or 6 years and nominating a fringe candidate or handing the opposition a resolution/statement that can be used as a club against us is just plain stupid. The sting of the voters’ rejection at the polling place will remain long after the triumph of the resolution in the high school auditorium has faded from memory.
Grassroots activists in Virginia are some of the most sophisticated in the nation, particularly in NOVA. Most of them have been active at some level for decades. Many of them work or have worked for elected officials or government agencies. More than a few of them have held elected office. They read newspapers and public policy journals, watch television talk shows, listen to talk radio and educate themselves about both issues and public opinion. They know very well how most of their neighbors will react to certain candidates, resolutions or statements. Many of them simply don’t care. Too many of our grassroots are more interested in maintaining a dogmatic ideological purity than in advancing a public policy agenda.
Equally important, elected officials cannot, should not, and in most cases will not allow themselves to be dominated by groups that represent a small fraction of 1 percent of voters. The same rules that allow activists to dominate conventions also allow incumbents to bypass them and seek reelection through primaries.
Grassroots activists in Virginia have more ability to determine the Party’s nominees and policy platform than in almost any other state. To my knowledge, only Utah comes as close to empowering the grassroots as Virginia. But with power comes responsibility. The continual efforts to reshape the party as the private play toy of small groups of activists has decimated party organizations in NOVA, driven away many potential voters, donors and volunteers, and culminated in a state leadership fight that may yet cost us the governor’s race.
If these small groups of activists cannot or will not control their desire to “make a statement” regardless of the cost to the party’s ability to win elections and shape public policy, than the SCC should dilute their power by adopting party rules that broaden the nominating base and limit the role of conventions. At the very least, if a convention is called for the purpose of nominating a candidate to local office and does not receive applications for certification as a delegate from at least 5 percent of the Republican vote in the last election, the convention should be cancelled and a primary held in its place.
Campaign Organization – Close examination of statewide campaigns since 2001 indicate Republicans could have and should have survived ideological splits, disloyal leaders and runaway activists while continuing to win a string of state wide victories. All of these factors hurt but none were fatal, individually or collectively. No, we defeated ourselves with some of the worst campaigns in history. Larry Sabato has made a fairly good living chronicling some of these errors. They could serve as textbook examples of how not to run for statewide office.
Mark Early seemed to believe that he would win ROVA as a conservative and NOVA as a native son so he could get by with less than impressive fundraising and wait until after Labor Day to get serious about campaigning. By the time this campaign got started, Mark Warner had already raised twice as much money, albeit mostly from himself, recruited and trained the most extensive field staff the state had seen upto then, and developed a comprehensive list of over 3 million voters complete with contact information and policy preferences. Nevertheless, Warner only won by about 4 percent. If we had actually fought this fight instead of assuming we had it won, Mark would only be remembered as the “other” Warner.
Jerry Kilgore had one of the best and most comprehensive transportation funding proposals ever put forward by a Virginia candidate. You could find it about 6 levels down on his website and there was a passing reference to it in one of his brochures. When I asked his NOVA field rep when or if they would hand out copies of the transportation plan at slug lots, she asked “what is a slug lot?” She had however already lined up her next job as a field rep for Jim Nussle’s campaign for governor of Iowa. He also lost. Meanwhile, the Kilgore campaign poured limited resources into an easily dismissed commercial about the death penalty. The same field rep told me this was because over 80 percent of voters in Va. supported the death penalty. It’s called preaching to the choir. In Virginia the ACLU supports the death penalty. No one ever believed a Virginia governor would try to repeal it, Kaine promised to apply it, end of debate.
George Allen truly was coasting to reelection. So his campaign decided to conduct a series of grueling bus trips around the state in August where he would get little sleep, be constantly moving, give the same basic speech till saying anything different to spice it up seemed attractive and just to make it interesting, the staff would feed him some of the jokes they told about the “monitors” the Democrats were sending to his events. Instead of responding to the inevitable gaffe with a quick apology and the sacrifice of the staffer who provided the wrong name, the campaign decided to conduct a case study in how to make a bad situation worse.
By 2008, the damage had been done. Nothing Gilmore, or anyone else, could have done would have changed the outcome. He and his campaign went through the motions and made fewer mistakes than his predecessors but it was obvious their hearts weren’t in it.
Two common threads run through all these races. Excessive reliance on paid staff who were unfamiliar with the state and an attempt to apply a cookie cutter campaign plan that had worked previously in some other place and time. Mark Early more or less tried to repeat Gilmore’s successful gubernatorial race based on following a popular incumbent and running against a weak self funding opponent with next to no base outside NOVA. That plan worked well in 97 against Don Beyer. It failed miserably in 2001 against Mark Warner. Kilgore tried to repeat George Allen’s successful race using the death penalty instead of parole reform and substituting Tim Kaine for Mary Sue Terry. Again, worked well in 93 and failed in 2005. Allen was trying to recreate his own successful statewide wins with the help of the campaign manager who had defeated Tom Daschle in South Dakota. There is no question; Tom Thune beat Daschle with a combination of an early campaign start, grueling bus tours across South Dakota, hard attacks and shoot from the hip tactics. All of which were particularly ill suited to an incumbent sitting on a double digit lead against an opponent with almost no name recognition.
The instructor at the College Republican Field-rep School I attended in 1977 told us there are no cookie cutter campaigns. Each race is a unique event in time, location and personalities. Every campaign must be approached as if it were the first ever to be conducted. The planning must be meticulous and based on a comprehensive analysis of the state or district which must be conducted anew for each and every race. The manager must learn and know every item of quantitative or qualitative information available regarding the district and the field staff must become as familiar with their assigned areas as they are with their home towns. This is the bare minimum required to even have a chance of winning. That instructor was Karl Rove. His weekend seminar still stands as the best I’ve ever attended.
We need to insist our candidates apply these lessons in Virginia. No funding without a detailed campaign plan. Staff must commit to learning their assigned regions quickly and demonstrate they have done so early in the campaign. Most importantly, each candidate must clearly articulate who will vote for them and why with minimal dependence on voting against the opponent or force of habit.
This is a long post. It took several hours to write. I hope you find it worth spending 5 minutes to read.
Anyone who scans these forums, even briefly, recognizes Virginia Republicans are engaged in an often painful examination of where we are, how we got here and, most importantly, how do we move forward. Most of the discussions have been useful but there still seems to be something missing. A great deal of discussion has focused on identifying a single cause (and corresponding silver bullet solution) for our declining fortunes in Virginia, particularly in NOVA. Attempts have been made to pin the blame on RINOs, ideologues, party elites, herd mentality by grassroots and sheer incompetence on the part of RPVA. I believe that none of the above are fully responsible for our current situation and all of the above share at least a portion of the blame. We can separate these issues into their component parts, it makes for easier examination; but must conduct a full 360 degree assessment of past mistake (and successes). Only then will we be able to craft a comprehensive plan to change direction.
Ideology -- This is unquestionably the most hot button issue in these forums. Most commentators advocate either compromising core believes to gain votes from moderates or taking an unyielding position in order to avoid losing conservatives. I think we need to reexamine these issue and recognize they can be broken into sub-issues that allow us opportunities to focus on areas where moderate voters may agree with us, seek compromise on non-core sub-issues and even do a little horse trading on some of them.
NOVA moderates who want a variety of government services, particularly enhanced transportation systems, do not necessarily want to pay $1.50 in taxes for $0.75 in services. Many of them also work for small nimble beltway bandits and instinctively understand that a smaller government focused on achieving excellence in providing critical services is more desirable than a large over bloated bureaucracy that tries to do everything. A strident anti government message that dismisses the need for services they value drives these voters toward the Democrats. A message that government cannot only live within its means but deliver a better quality of service in the process will bring them back.
Many voters in NOVA, and increasingly the rest of the state, are more libertarian than liberal or conservative. The want government to stay away from their finances, their gun cabinet and most particularly their family. This means they tend to shut out pro-life messages they perceive as purely anti-abortion intrusions into their personal decisions. But they are also often open to parental rights message that government officials in schools, social services agencies and the courts should not be allowed to insert themselves between parents and their daughters. This issue are was actually something of a success story for Virginia Republicans during the 80s and 90s when many pro-life candidates for State House and Senate races gained support from nominally pro-choice areas by using these sub-issues effectively. These moderate voters also tend to see gay rights issues, including gay marriage, as one of government intrusion into personal decisions. But many of them would be open to a trade-off whereby government recognizes their right to live and marry as they please but school systems are prohibited from advocating lifestyles of any type and government respects parental rights to determine values in their family.
My basic point regarding ideology is that it is more complex than left, right, center / black, white grey / surrender, stand-your-ground, compromise etc. We will never gain votes from hard core liberal ideologues and attempting to run to the left of Democrats is both demeaning and ineffective. But I believe there are actually far fewer of these voters than election returns indicate. Republicans can win NOVA with a basically conservative message if we focus on delivering the message correctly. We need to listen to all voters, determine what is most important to them, identify areas of agreement as well as disagreement, deliver compelling messages focused on areas of agreement, look for areas where we can horse trade without compromising truly core principals, respectfully but clearly articulate the areas where we cannot compromise and offer voters every possible opportunity to support us without compromising their principals.
Party Discipline – (Leaders) We name streets in Virginia after the type of party discipline and unity demonstrated by many of our leaders: “One Way” and “Dead End”. This has been a growing cancer since 1978 when grassroots conservatives not only held their noses to vote for a Senator not of their choosing; but, actively made phone calls, walked precincts and worked polls in one of the most impressive volunteer efforts the state had ever seen and delivered a narrow victory. That Senator returned the favor with lackluster support for RPVA fundraising efforts, tepid endorsements of most conservative candidates, refusal to endorse others even after they had won the nomination, outright opposition to the Republican candidate for Senate in 1994 and a decision to retire when it became clear that he was the only nominal Republican who could hold the seat against the very real possibility of Democrats gaining 60 votes in the Senate. Today he is acknowledged as one of our most honored party leaders.
He has set the example for others to follow. In 1993 when the RPVA funded a three part bumper sticker for the statewide ticked reading “Allen/Ferris/Gilmore” in red, white and blue, Republican party officials in some areas handed out smaller white stickers reading “Beyer” that could be put over the center portion. I remember arriving at a parking lot in Centerville for a percent canvassing effort and being so disgusted by their open opposition to one of our candidates that I got in my car and drove home. In 2001, many of these same so called party leaders openly supported Mark Warner against Mark Early, helping to give Warner a relatively narrow victory in a campaign where he outspent Early 2 to 1, as well as giving the Democrats the opening wedge they have used so effectively in the past 10 years. We have had State Senators give radio interviews in which they proudly stated they were “Republican In Name Only”. More recently we have seen the State Chairman of RPVA encourage, or at least not stop, robo-calls aimed at our candidate for governor. Meanwhile, from last June to April 4th, members of the SCC were spending more time, money and political capital removing the chairman than supporting Republican candidates.
Our party leaders have evolved from emulating Benedict Arnold to impersonating the Three Stooges. This cannot be allowed to continue. Virginia Republicans enjoyed a steady growth in volunteers, fundraising and grassroots activism from the mid 70s through the late 90s. Since then we have had a slow steady erosion of all three. Prince William County, the second largest in the state, had less than 200 people attend the 2009 county convention. There are no leaders without followers and very few people will follow a leader who is disloyal or incompetent.
We ask a great deal of our grassroots supporters, including voting and working for candidates they may have opposed during the nomination process. We should demand no less of our leaders. Candidates for statewide office should be required to commit to raising $500,000 for the RPVA and $500,000 each for other statewide candidates if they are elected. They should commit to raising lower amounts for Congressional, State legislative local candidates and local party organizations. Similar targets should be established for candidates for other offices. All elected Republican office holders should commit to endorsing the Party’s candidates within 3 days of the convention or primary. Failure to meet fundraising or endorsement commitments should result in a proportional loss of support from the party for the individual’s reelection.
I am about the furthest one can get from a doctrinaire ideologue, often agree with moderates on policy issues and have voted for several moderates in primary elections; but few things make my blood boil more than elected party leaders deliberately undermining the campaigns of Republican nominees or withholding support for party fundraising. If they cannot or will not support the Party, they should not accept its nomination.
Party Discipline – (Followers) Grassroots activists can, should, MUST make their voices heard. They must also recognize they are not the only constituency in the political environment. Donors, who may or may not overlap with activists, have a right to be heard as well. But voters trump all else. Party rules facilitate the ability of small groups of activists to dominate sparsely attended county or state conventions, nominate marginal candidates, pass dogmatic resolutions and issue “interesting” public statements in the Party’s name. It may feel good for a day or even a week but elected officials are in office for 2, 4 or 6 years and nominating a fringe candidate or handing the opposition a resolution/statement that can be used as a club against us is just plain stupid. The sting of the voters’ rejection at the polling place will remain long after the triumph of the resolution in the high school auditorium has faded from memory.
Grassroots activists in Virginia are some of the most sophisticated in the nation, particularly in NOVA. Most of them have been active at some level for decades. Many of them work or have worked for elected officials or government agencies. More than a few of them have held elected office. They read newspapers and public policy journals, watch television talk shows, listen to talk radio and educate themselves about both issues and public opinion. They know very well how most of their neighbors will react to certain candidates, resolutions or statements. Many of them simply don’t care. Too many of our grassroots are more interested in maintaining a dogmatic ideological purity than in advancing a public policy agenda.
Equally important, elected officials cannot, should not, and in most cases will not allow themselves to be dominated by groups that represent a small fraction of 1 percent of voters. The same rules that allow activists to dominate conventions also allow incumbents to bypass them and seek reelection through primaries.
Grassroots activists in Virginia have more ability to determine the Party’s nominees and policy platform than in almost any other state. To my knowledge, only Utah comes as close to empowering the grassroots as Virginia. But with power comes responsibility. The continual efforts to reshape the party as the private play toy of small groups of activists has decimated party organizations in NOVA, driven away many potential voters, donors and volunteers, and culminated in a state leadership fight that may yet cost us the governor’s race.
If these small groups of activists cannot or will not control their desire to “make a statement” regardless of the cost to the party’s ability to win elections and shape public policy, than the SCC should dilute their power by adopting party rules that broaden the nominating base and limit the role of conventions. At the very least, if a convention is called for the purpose of nominating a candidate to local office and does not receive applications for certification as a delegate from at least 5 percent of the Republican vote in the last election, the convention should be cancelled and a primary held in its place.
Campaign Organization – Close examination of statewide campaigns since 2001 indicate Republicans could have and should have survived ideological splits, disloyal leaders and runaway activists while continuing to win a string of state wide victories. All of these factors hurt but none were fatal, individually or collectively. No, we defeated ourselves with some of the worst campaigns in history. Larry Sabato has made a fairly good living chronicling some of these errors. They could serve as textbook examples of how not to run for statewide office.
Mark Early seemed to believe that he would win ROVA as a conservative and NOVA as a native son so he could get by with less than impressive fundraising and wait until after Labor Day to get serious about campaigning. By the time this campaign got started, Mark Warner had already raised twice as much money, albeit mostly from himself, recruited and trained the most extensive field staff the state had seen upto then, and developed a comprehensive list of over 3 million voters complete with contact information and policy preferences. Nevertheless, Warner only won by about 4 percent. If we had actually fought this fight instead of assuming we had it won, Mark would only be remembered as the “other” Warner.
Jerry Kilgore had one of the best and most comprehensive transportation funding proposals ever put forward by a Virginia candidate. You could find it about 6 levels down on his website and there was a passing reference to it in one of his brochures. When I asked his NOVA field rep when or if they would hand out copies of the transportation plan at slug lots, she asked “what is a slug lot?” She had however already lined up her next job as a field rep for Jim Nussle’s campaign for governor of Iowa. He also lost. Meanwhile, the Kilgore campaign poured limited resources into an easily dismissed commercial about the death penalty. The same field rep told me this was because over 80 percent of voters in Va. supported the death penalty. It’s called preaching to the choir. In Virginia the ACLU supports the death penalty. No one ever believed a Virginia governor would try to repeal it, Kaine promised to apply it, end of debate.
George Allen truly was coasting to reelection. So his campaign decided to conduct a series of grueling bus trips around the state in August where he would get little sleep, be constantly moving, give the same basic speech till saying anything different to spice it up seemed attractive and just to make it interesting, the staff would feed him some of the jokes they told about the “monitors” the Democrats were sending to his events. Instead of responding to the inevitable gaffe with a quick apology and the sacrifice of the staffer who provided the wrong name, the campaign decided to conduct a case study in how to make a bad situation worse.
By 2008, the damage had been done. Nothing Gilmore, or anyone else, could have done would have changed the outcome. He and his campaign went through the motions and made fewer mistakes than his predecessors but it was obvious their hearts weren’t in it.
Two common threads run through all these races. Excessive reliance on paid staff who were unfamiliar with the state and an attempt to apply a cookie cutter campaign plan that had worked previously in some other place and time. Mark Early more or less tried to repeat Gilmore’s successful gubernatorial race based on following a popular incumbent and running against a weak self funding opponent with next to no base outside NOVA. That plan worked well in 97 against Don Beyer. It failed miserably in 2001 against Mark Warner. Kilgore tried to repeat George Allen’s successful race using the death penalty instead of parole reform and substituting Tim Kaine for Mary Sue Terry. Again, worked well in 93 and failed in 2005. Allen was trying to recreate his own successful statewide wins with the help of the campaign manager who had defeated Tom Daschle in South Dakota. There is no question; Tom Thune beat Daschle with a combination of an early campaign start, grueling bus tours across South Dakota, hard attacks and shoot from the hip tactics. All of which were particularly ill suited to an incumbent sitting on a double digit lead against an opponent with almost no name recognition.
The instructor at the College Republican Field-rep School I attended in 1977 told us there are no cookie cutter campaigns. Each race is a unique event in time, location and personalities. Every campaign must be approached as if it were the first ever to be conducted. The planning must be meticulous and based on a comprehensive analysis of the state or district which must be conducted anew for each and every race. The manager must learn and know every item of quantitative or qualitative information available regarding the district and the field staff must become as familiar with their assigned areas as they are with their home towns. This is the bare minimum required to even have a chance of winning. That instructor was Karl Rove. His weekend seminar still stands as the best I’ve ever attended.
We need to insist our candidates apply these lessons in Virginia. No funding without a detailed campaign plan. Staff must commit to learning their assigned regions quickly and demonstrate they have done so early in the campaign. Most importantly, each candidate must clearly articulate who will vote for them and why with minimal dependence on voting against the opponent or force of habit.
Views: 109
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Constitutional Reset AKA Russell on
-
Peter Sperry, your long post was well thought out and well worth the read.
Your sense of history is very valuable to people like myself who are recently provoked into political activity by the necessity of reversing this country’s rapid decay.
Yet, the new comers, the grass roots people, the tea party people present values to the Republican party that if adopted can prevent a repeat of past declines. The Republican Party must find a way to understand why it is that these independents have become so vigorous and embrace the practical truth in that so that it becomes their own.
Our founding father warned of the toxic nature of party and faction.
Yet, the forces that bring political parties into being cannot be successfully denied.
Our only adequate answer now is to FIX the toxic tendencies of parties within the Republican Party.
Do this and we will remember who we are and find that the enemy’s power is only as great as we permit by our own untended weakness.
The strength of party and its individuals can only achieve its optimal maximum if certain hygiene and trust issues are properly handled.
Consider it this way: A great meal that has been fouled becomes inedible.
Surely, we can learn to take due care so that we don’t drive voters away with behavior and results that CANNOT BE STOMACHED willingly.
Wishful thinking in this regard only sows the seeds of defeat.
There is nothing really difficult or expensive about giving due recognition to what is already true is no matter what we say about it.
Consider how much more trustworthy the Republican Party would become;
Consider the immediate and sustained high level of dividends that can come to the Party from something as simple as if each member of the Party took a vow or oath like the following:
“I, _______, do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitutions of the United States and Virginia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; AND
(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States and Virginia when required by the law, or
(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or
(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
(D) In particular I will diligently perform my obligations defined by 18USC4 and VA18.2-482
And that I take this vow freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of citizen and voter; and trusting with firm reliance on the Providence, Witness and Counsel of "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" I pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor. "
The vow is an amalgam of US and VA laws for oath of office & citizenship with particular reference to two particular laws establishing that we are LOYAL PATRIOTS and bound by law to zero tolerance of misconduct that is probably defined as a felony by US or Virginia Law. Also note the vow's essential repetition of the vow taken in our nation's birth certificate by its duly-authorized sovereign legislative authority.
Such a vow could serve to weld the members of a political party to an honor which includes zero tolerance of criminal misconduct by their associates.
-
-
Peter Sperry,
Thank you for that very results oriented, practical post.
The history gave your words a context that made them more understandable. Yes, I am new at this.
I was wondering, Would you please make an addition to your post covering recent events like Bob McDonnell's campaign and the Tea Party and 9/12 movements?
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Sperry on
-
First -- I was thrilled this fall to see that after several cycles of cookie cutter campaigning, Republicans broke the mold to run uniquelly targeted individaual campaigns based on the differring circumstances facing them in Va. NJ and Mass. Bob McDonnell did not try to replicate anyones pervious success, he bulit his own. So did Chris Christie and Scott Brown.
Second -- Conservatives overcame ideological purity reservations and rallied to the most conservative candidate who could get elected IN THEIR UNIQUE STATE. Chris Christie and Scott Brown would NEVER be acceptable in Va. (they might even be too liberal for Fairfax County) but they represent the most conservative candidates who can win in NJ and Mass. Conservatives recognized this and rallied to them. Deedee Scossafova on the other hand may have been conservative by NY General Assembly standards but there were many more conservative candidates who could have easily held that congressional seat. Conservatives recognized this and righfully rejected her.
Third -- I'll let you know what I think of the Tea Party movement in 5 years if it is still around. I've been involved with public policy for over 30 years and lost count of the one election cycle flash in the pan movements. Does anyone remember the Perotistas? I hope the Tea Party movement can transform the noise and rhetoric into something positive and long lasting. But an awful lot of what I hear from them are demands for simplistic quick fix solutions, many of which are contradictory. If you do not want a government or insurance company beauracrat deciding whether Grandma gets a heart transplant, then pay for it yourself. Our state and nation needs public policies that work, which requires time and commitment. Feel good bumper sticker slogans may be quick and easy but they rarely deliver results.
Finally, I am pleased to see that McDonnell, Christie and, to a lesser extent, Brown delivered a message that government should be smaller, not because government is inherantly evil or incompetent, but because smaller organizations are by nature more focused and effective. Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility by demonizing government rather than criticizing bad government. Which would you trust with your healthcare, a doctor who demonizes medicine or a doctor who criticizes quacks? McDonnell and Christie broke away from this mold and convinced voters they could make government more effective precisely by making it smaller. It is a good message and one that is easily understood. Voters recognize that relatively small, tightly focused private sector organizations deliver better results than many of their larger diversified competitors. Starbucks does not sell steak. Apple does not build cars. GE has a corporate policy that if it cannot be deliver the first or second best product in a market niche, it gets out of that particular business. People see specialization all around them and will (did) respond to the message that goverment which tries to everything for everybody is ineffective.
Russell Patton Davis said:Peter Sperry,
Thank you for that very results oriented, practical post.
The history gave your words a context that made them more understandable. Yes, I am new at this.
I was wondering, Would you please make an addition to your post covering recent events like Bob McDonnell's campaign and the Tea Party and 9/12 movements?
-
-
Peter Sperry, thank you, twice again, for you insights.
I read your reply covering recent events at least four times over the week and likely will again.
Can I ask you one more question?
Here is the question's background:
Even though I intend, and am Steele-ing myself, to be come a fully engaged Republican, for most of my life those who have spoken to me in ways that actually reached me and provoked me to new understanding
were either Libertarians, Constitution Partiers, jbs'ers, Tea Partiers or on the Christian Right - Oh, Oh, and Ronald Reagan, thought it wasn't until he took a bullet like Teddy Roosevelt that I realized he was not acting. Forgive me, OK, I am a late bloomer.
Right or Wrong they are almost always authentic in their struggle to understand what is true and act on it. They earned my respect. Apparently those groups earned each other’s respect – for they all find themselves at home in the alliance that is the Tea Party, at least in Hampton Roads, Virginia. There is a lesson here for the Republicans:
* * * Mutual respect is the only durable foundation for rapport. * * *
Yet, those ‘independent’ thinkers, who are so pivotal in the coming election, are taking to an idea that may sound good but makes me very uncomfortable. It is GOOH.com for ‘Get Out Of Our House’ movement.
Peter Sperry, do you think you could analyze GOOH, include why people are passionate about it?
I feel that I need to be able to address GOOOH as it is a diversion of interests away from objectives of election 2010.
But I cannot do that successfully without giving the reason for their interest respectful satisfaction. I must talk their GOOOH issues first before I can bring them the business at hand. It is a matter of maintaining rapport – otherwise I will be dismissed as just another fooled or fooling Republican – and that is a fact – have seen it happen to others more than once.
The most impassioned reference to GOOH came up in the context of a respectable silver-back alpha male who obviously though ruling was his due – big mistake – no matter how useful silver-back alpha’s can be. The underlying issue may have been elitist disenfranchisement. GOOH seems to own that issue right now – and ownership by default appears to be an obstacle to saving our republic in election 2010.
But GOOOH feels more dangerous to me than the mere danger of diversion – GOOOH creeps me out for some reason.
Yet a direct attack on GOOH’s faults would not answer the reasons for GOOOH’s appeal. GOOOH’s drain on patriot resources will not end just by exposing GOOH’s faults – take this last sentence and replace the word GOOH with DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN and it will be just as true. The Republican Party may find its key to a more substantial victory if it can one-up its product on GOOH appeal. The Republican Party may even find itself more Republican as a result.
-
-
Election 2010 can be ours. Practically A Shut Out
ELECTION 2010 is coming fast and The Republican Party is still unprepared.
That is, as a party, it does not appear know who it is or what it is doing - Yes, it is getting there and obviously it needs the wisdom of their people to guide them - perhaps even this may serve.
Advance commitments to particular policies get complicated, dangerous and divisive.
For immediate purposes it seems that simpler is better when the simpler truth is still absolutely true.
Simple truth of great beauty is hard to attack successfully,
will not likely trap us in vain labor,
and will not sow unnecessary division.
If we can find 'Simple truth of great beauty' to rally 'round we will surely prevail in the elections AND have our nation's sight set on higher ground.
It appears that the duties and rights that the new 'Contract with America' would establish HAVE BEEN OUR LAW for at long, long time. A rock solid affirmation ascribing to WHAT IS ALREADY TRUE should give the GOP both the wisdom and rapport with the People that the GOP needs to earn leadership and then actually lead.
My ignorance and my relatively new interest in politics makes me very hesitant to open my mouth very far on this issue - But WE need to get it right and soon. So, I will put my quarter baked thought out there hoping that I will provoke someone who knows better to speak up.
Let's start by laying out a map of our form of government and how that fits with the human experience and history -
Consider the 10 minute video on Our " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE American Form of Government " and its human history context. Its explanation of the 'political spectrum' cuts through a great deal of confusion. BUT IS IT RIGHT?
If so, then uniting the Republicans and the Independents may be simple. Disorganizing the Democrats may be even easier.
By our constitution's requirement of a "Republican Form of Government" it defines Republicans as THE constitutional party. Democrats, socialists and fascists have aspirations that have nothing to do with fulfilling their oath to our constitution. Some in the Republican Party have though that compromise was necessary and even good. But it was not always constitutional.
A violation of oath to support our constitution by officers of the executive, judicial and legislative branch when communicated by mail or wire is a FELONY. Much more need be detailed about that - but later.
So for this 2010 election every candidate must be challenged to take a toothy oath. Publically Take it with the Tea Party Movement & crew on Tax Day and July 4th.
Say something a bit like:
"I, _______________, affirm that I will always support and defend my Constitution of the United States, and Virginia, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
AND to to bear arms or to perform noncombatant service on behalf of the United States and Virginia when required by the duly authorized law.
AND diligently perform my duty defined in The Code of the United States of America http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004... 18USC4 “Misprision of Felony ”
such that crimes arising from alienation shall become scarce, particularly, that felony against MY Constitution and its duly authorized law known as " http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001341... US Swindles & Frauds" effected by “Resisting the execution of the laws under the color of its authority”, defined by http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-481 Virginia’s Treason and http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-111 Embezzlement Statutes .
I affirm this duty freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of citizen, voter and candidate; and trusting with firm reliance on the Providence, Witness and Counsel of "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" I pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.”
Knowing and willing acknowledgement of our Constitutions, and
Knowing and willing acknowledgement of our laws as they EXIST now, such that every time
Our Constitutions are treated by officers of our governments as mere living document, giving guide lines, not absolute constraint;
that treatment is cause for criminal indictment and civil remedy on the perpetrator's personal capacity.
My understanding is that criminal intent should be established.
Else, at least under English Common Law (which is statutory in Va.) the lack of damnable criminal intent:
is excuse for a failed criminal remedy upon favored persons and
is excuse for a failed tort remedy upon favored persons
by granting the favored person sovereign agent immunity for acts
that their Sovereign explicitly proscribed in penal code.
Any criminal or tort trial on these matter would also be a political trial subject to every spin that can be got away with.
Pre-empting spins and excuses is ONE intent of the oath acknowledging the EXISTING laws.
Under the rule-of-law the EXISTING laws bind officers of the law who, by their special standing, are deemed to know and be bound by the EXISTING law whether or not they have acknowledged the EXISTING laws with particularity.
The most important purpose of the oath is to proactively prevent our government officers from trespass against our Constitutions and laws. We do not have time to punish every trespass and wrong.
The oath can also set the grounds of ELECTION battles to that most favorable to Constitutional Conservatives. Constitutional Conservatives never have cause to skirt the duly authorized law and be called into account to justify that their action (or intended action) is NOT a trespass against the constitution and its duly authorized laws.
Also election battles may be staged to provoke felonious intent 'progressives' into openly witnessed attempt to perpetrate felony. My take is that 'progressives' want to take that bait. Let them - Help them. Indictment can precede election day.
In a 'progressive' trending district, a Constitutional Conservative can double team with a more electable Constitutional Moderate or Constitutional Commonwealth Activist. Constitutional Conservative can serve to both take out the felonious 'progress' and speak the Constitutional Conservative gospel. The Republic's team wins practically everywhere.
BUT DON'T MAKE A DIRECT LEGAL ATTACK ON BHO - YET.
Attacking that alpha of any pack only rallies an otherwise divided pack. Face off with the alpha, yet no matter how weak looking the apha, turn the attack to a vulnerable third in command. Fear and internal jealousies will prevent the pack from moving to save the attacked third in command until it is too late. Repeat as often as necessary to so DIS-organize the pack that they abandon the assets of contention. Victory while taking assets as whole as possible with minimal cost is true victory. Striking even a bad shepherd will only so scatter the sheep that the value of the sheep that might be had by victory is largely lost and the next bad shepherd will be encouraged by that gift.
In this BHO+ particular, the shell game by the DNC makes each of its operatives in the act (in all 50 states and DC) perpetrators of 18USC1341 Swindles and Frauds felony or at least accessory to that felony.
But don't make a serious attack on BHO yet.
That would rally the Democratic troops and/or replace BHO before he can be replaced with a constitutional conservative.
If every executive order & law BHO signed is proved unsigned by a valid POTUS we have immediate rollback - but only if the constitutional conservative control either the W.H. or the legislature.
DISORGANIZE THE DEM PARTY BY INDICTING ITS OPERATIVES!
Election 2010 can be ours.
The political, identity and character weaknesses of the Republicans and their natural allies may not be fixed in time for the 2010 election.
That would be a great flaw - that can be offset somewhat by DISorganizing the Dems with indictments.
Both issues need to be attacked with as much vigor and wisdom as possible.
If all the Republican party members publically affirmed the oath, then they would be giving the nation assurance that each of them would not tolerate the kind of truly criminal misconduct that has been considered a prerogative of ruling in the recent past. Then the Republican could have the trust, rapport and teamwork of the Tea Partiers, the Constitution Party, the Libertarians and the independents.
-
-
Please join a continuation of this discussion at
http://www.rpvnetwork.org/forum/topics/bring-conservatism-back-to-t... on the "Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia".
-
-
Russell Patton Davis said:
How about this?
"I, _______________, affirm that I will always support and defend my Constitution of the United States, and Virginia, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
AND to to bear arms or to perform noncombatant service on behalf of the United States and Virginia when required by the duly authorized law.
AND diligently perform my duty defined in The Code of the United States of America 18USC4 “Misprision of Felony ”
such that crimes arising from alienation shall become scarce, particularly, that felony against MY Constitution and its duly authorized law known as "US Swindles & Frauds " effected by “Resisting the execution of the laws under the color of its authority”, defined by Virginia’s statutory Treason 18.2-481(5)n and http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-111 statutory embezzlement.
I affirm this duty freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of citizen, voter and candidate; and trusting with firm reliance on the Providence, Witness and Counsel of "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" I pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.”
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2022 Created by Tom Whitmore.
Powered by
