June 19, 2018

GOP Gubernatorial

I attended the Western Conservative summit, which was quite impressive (review to follow). I heard George Lopez and Victor Mitchell give their pitches. Lopez was very scripted, Mitchell much better.

Made me think: who do TS'ers like for Guv'nor? I'm guessing Stapleton best meets the "Buckley Rule" of being the most electable conservative?

As an aside, CUT noted how Lafayette tried to pull a fast one on Erie... dirtbag Dems all over again!

Posted by nanobrewer at 12:03 AM | Comments (6)
But jk thinks:

I'll be voting for Doug Robinson in the primary. Then, when he loses by 40 points, I'll suck it up and vote for Stapleton in the General.


Posted by: jk at June 19, 2018 9:44 AM
But jk thinks:

This is based mostly on the Channel-12 debate, which is still available on the PBS app.

Mitchell really rubbed me the wrong way -- going very negative in the debate and on TV, and he comes across as dour. You need a smiley, Cory Gardner Republican to have half a chance.

I liked Lopez, but Robinson hit it out of the park for me on the first question, assessing President Trump quite a bit like I would: very complimentary on deregulation, picks, tax cuts but wary on tariffs and trade.

Posted by: jk at June 19, 2018 9:56 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

I recall liking Robinson's campaign literature - which showed up very early. I'll give him a 2nd look. Et tu, JG?
FYI, CUT gave Polly Lawrence an F- (RINO a la Bernie's spending habits...)

Posted by: nanobrewer at June 22, 2018 12:33 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Yes, Polly is an F.
My favorites are, in order, Lopez, Robinson, Stapleton, Mitchell. The polling order is Stapleton, Mitchell, Lopez, Robinson. Plus Lopez has an embarrassing domestic assault charge deep in his closet. He was cleared, but it's smearable.

Looking like our household will be voting Stapleton in the primary. And Everett for Treas.

Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2018 11:31 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

@JG: why do you like Lopez?

Posted by: nanobrewer at June 22, 2018 11:13 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Hey nb, sorry it took so long, but what I liked most about Lopez was his strong showing at the GOP state assembly and his native Hispanic heritage. I always put too much emphasis on that but the idea of a Republican explaining republicanism in Spanish seems a powerful weapon to me in our state.

Glad Stapleton won, just hope he's got a plan to get pro-America turnout above the anti-Americans.

Posted by: johngalt at June 29, 2018 3:10 PM

September 27, 2015

house freedom caucus; a recipe for GOP dysfunction?

Brother JG notes:

The whole thing is moot, is it not, unless Senate Majority Leader McConnell changes the filibuster rule the same way as his predecessor, Senate Majority Leader Reid.

I would agree that the Iran deal would seem the time and place to go with this, but note that so far even Dingy Harry only sought to circumvent filibuster for judicial nominees. Invoking it for legislation would, in many ways, dramatically change the Senate in many ways, likely permanently. This should be daunting to any leader. A more incremental approach is (and has been) proposed along several lines, yet perhaps doomed by this interesting issue.

Tom McClintock announced Wednesday he was resigning from the House Freedom Caucus, saying the group’s hardball tactics had undermined conservative goals rather than advancing them

He provides specific examples in his resignation letter to Jim Jordan. who leads HFC:

House Republicans attempted to pass a three-week stop gap bill so we could avoid a catastrophic shutdown of our security agencies while continuing to bring public opinion to bear to de-fund the ["amnesty"] orders. At the behest of its board, most HFC members combined with House Democrats to defeat this effort, resulting in the full funding of these illegal orders for the fiscal year.

Last week, the House was scheduled to adopt the Resolution of Disapproval of the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement – the only legally binding action available to Congress under the Corker Act. Once again, the House Freedom Caucus leadership threatened to combine with House Democrats to defeat the Resolution, forcing the House leadership to abandon it in favor of a symbolic and legally meaningless vote.

For several months, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have threatened to shut down the government on October 1st unless Congress unleashes another unsustainable cycle of tax increases and borrowing. Last week, the House Freedom Caucus formally vowed to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood.
A common theme through each of these incidents is a willingness – indeed, an eagerness – to strip the House Republican majority of its ability to set the House agenda by combining with House Democrats on procedural motions. As a result, it has thwarted vital conservative policy objectives and unwittingly become Nancy Pelosi’s tactical ally.

So, what has been perceived - certainly by me! - as lack of backbone and/or initiative in the GOP, could be a result of this group blocking many a common sense, procedural-based approach to stopping the Obama train. Why? I would like to know.

Example of common sense approach (from Prof. Steven Hayward):

12 separate appropriation bills for the major government departments, as Congress is supposed to do under the modern budget process. If Congress were doing its job properly, they could threaten to shut down just the Department of Health and Human Services, and/or they could attach Planned Parenthood defunding to all 12 appropriation bills and make Obama issue 12 vetoes ... That would transform the politics of any shutdown radically.

So, we've got Jordan and Mark Meadows [wingnut?, NC]; who are the other eight, and WHAT DO THEY WANT besides defunding PP? I can only guess it's about power. Are they Tea Party-driven or "social issues conservatives"? Still, as Dr. Hayward notes above,

the real failure of GOP leadership in both houses—is that we’re once again looking at passing yet another omnibus continuing resolution

So, HFC could be demanding some sort of idealogical purity, or perhaps just trying to move leadership away from what I've see as a surfeit of what "Beltway Syndrome" aka, we insiders will do as we (incumbents, all) and our lobbyists deem necessary.

I'm puzzled by the backroom deals, and not unhappy to see Boehner leave, but would like to know what's going on: I certainly know that the word "conservative" only meaning when published in the MSM is "them." To me, it means mostly the limited gov't, "Liberty" agenda; is that only me? Certainly Boehner's 1st Lieutenant, Eric Cantor, was defeated (deservedly so, from what I could tell) with Tea Party support as being way too steeped in the ways of Beltway Syndrome.

I'm hoping this is the start of a Gladstonian revolt, and not one leading to a Handmaid's Tale...

Posted by nanobrewer at 1:16 AM | Comments (6)
But nanobrewer thinks:

538 blog has an article on HFC, not answering my questions, but nods at the Gladstone approach, noting

The Freedom Caucus members aren’t homogenous demographically, politically or in their attitude toward Boehner.


Posted by: nanobrewer at September 27, 2015 2:33 AM
But jk thinks:

Very interesting stuff, thanks.

I've been Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell's biggest defenders here (or anywhere else, as near as I can tell). I am willing to admit somebody else could do better, but I watch too much Jon Caldara and his Rule #1, Republicans will mess everything up, will likely unfold here.

Somebody else could be better but will get somebody better? It's not going to be Justin Amash (HOSS MI) or Trey Gowdy (HOSS SC); they don't have the votes and I doubt they have the temperament. And, while I don't want the Tea Party shut out of power, I'm not sure I want them driving the train either. We might miss our internal gridlock, mark my words.

And I strongly oppose any efforts to damage the filibuster. It's our final remaining protection from Democracy. The knowledge that "our guys" would have it a couple years is not worth discarding republican government.

Posted by: jk at September 27, 2015 11:16 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Initially worried by the depiction of the HFC (not by the MSM - they will always be shouting "fight! fight! fight!") but from McClintock's letter.

Still, the we can't work with this dude does make sense now that I pause to remember too, too many stories of Boehner being downright nasty to what seemed to be as basic conservative causes (Hugh Hewitt was also a defender, yet could only come up with "Why?"), and quite vindictive to some of the young bucks. I clearly remember him being ... just ugly when trying to force a vote on immigration reform [comprehensive, of course!]

I've forgotten how many times in the last 12 months, even a centrist GOP like Hugh would say things like 'why hand the opposition this ammunition?'

Here's an example of him being the man that doesn't get it, on Face the Nation.

Our founders didn’t want some parliamentary system where if you won the majority, you got to do whatever you wanted. They wanted this long, slow process. And so change comes slowly. Obviously too slowly for some.

Seems oblivious to it's Obama who's been ushering change in avalanche by executive order, in disregard of the founders system. He apparently believes that it’s members of his caucus who are at odds with the founders’ vision.

Or, he's just saying what he thinks needs to be heard to stay on the cocktail circuit and be in line for the next juicy lobbyist post. Time may tell. Good riddance, and here's hoping anew, that next is better!

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 28, 2015 12:13 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

The "him" I refer to in the Face The Nation appearance was Boehner, not Hewitt.

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 28, 2015 2:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I'm on record as a defender of republicanism, however, the Republican party shows no sign of doing anything to prevent Democrats from eschewing the filibuster again, or for broader purposes.

Hayward's department by department budget idea is a good one. One can only wonder why the previous leadership passed omnibus spending bills for the last 6 years. Hardly the doing of the House Freedom Caucus.

Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2015 3:14 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

@JG: Heh, pick your whinge: [then] We need the Senate! [now] We need the presidency! [soon] We need veto-proof majority!

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 28, 2015 5:54 PM

August 21, 2012

.Romney Calls for Fed Audit as Party Mulls Platform Plank

D'y'all see this?

"I would like to see the Fed audited," Romney said today. Still, he cautioned that Congress shouldn’t be given the authority to run the central bank.

"I want to keep it independent," he said. "There are very few groups that I would not want to give the keys to. One of them is Congress."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:42 PM | Comments (7)
But Bryan thinks:

I agree!

Legalize competing currencies and get the government out of it all together :).

Posted by: Bryan at August 21, 2012 3:53 PM
But jk thinks:

The Federal Reserve? Didn't you hear? Todd Akin (R - MO) thinks that a woman doesn't get pregnant if she's raped. Don't you have Facebook?

The Federal Reserve...

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2012 3:55 PM
But jk thinks:

Brother Bryan: the Everyday Economist turned me on to George Selgin and I agree that what he calls "Free Banking" is the best way. DO you find that consistent with Article I Section Eight's "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin?" Would this require amendment (probability 0.0000000000000015%) or simple statue (probability 0.0000055%)?

(Me negative?)

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2012 4:20 PM
But Bryan thinks:

I am by no means an expert on "free banking" but from what I have read about it, I would not complain if that were the primary banking system of the United States.

But then again...I like complaining :)

Posted by: Bryan at August 21, 2012 4:30 PM
But Bryan thinks:

As to the legality, I would argue that you could implement a "free banking" solution without statute or amendment.

I think this system would create itself if the government simply revoked the Fed's charter and repealed legal tender laws. You could certainly codify it into law, but I don't think it would be needed for this system to function.

Posted by: Bryan at August 21, 2012 4:35 PM
But dagny thinks:

Todd Akin (R-MO) is the kind of person that makes me want to turn in my R membership card. And, unfortunately for the R's this year, many other women feel the same way.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2012 4:43 PM

March 30, 2012

The Colorado Republican Party Resolves...

Now that Republican Party resolutions have been nominated and voted on at the county level, state party Chairman Ryan Call invites (via email) every Colorado Republican to "weigh in, and provide your input and comments directly on the initial draft of proposed resolutions and platform planks that have been prepared for the Resolutions Committee to consider."

My purpose is twofold: To alert those who may be interested such that they may get involved, and to highlight the open and transparent approach that is now being used to shape our party's platform - at least in Colorado.

This is the first time the Colorado Republican Party has ever solicited such broad input and participation in the development of our Party Platform in this way, but your opinion as to what we stand for is important to me.

In this historic election, I believe we must involve everyone who wants to have a seat at the table in helping decide what we stand for as a Party. And we must build and grow our Party, not narrow it.

And that’s why I’m asking you to give us your thoughts and opinions regarding the draft resolutions that will provide the basis for the development of our Colorado Republican Party Platform.

I recognize that not every Republican in Colorado will agree on every single one of these proposed resolutions, or with every plank in the eventual Republican Party Platform.

But I do believe there is at least one thing upon which we can and must all agree: that if we want to preserve an America that is full of freedom and opportunity, we must work together to make Barack Obama a one-term President.


Ryan R. Call, Esq.

There is a full and an abbreviated online poll, and there will be two Resolutions Committee Webinars, on Saturday March 31 at noon and Tuesday, April 3 from 6 to 8 pm. Email me or Chairman Call for the web links.

UPDATE: I wanted to mention the Weld County resolutions at the open of this post but did not have a copy of them with me to embed. Click 'continue reading' to see them. They were voted on at County Assembly last Saturday but the results were never announced. I suspect 100% of them passed despite my not voting for most of the "Amendment to the Constitution" resolutions.

UPDATE 2: Weld County 2012 Resolution vote results. (The heading may temporarily read 2010 but that will be corrected soon.)

at the
Weld County Republican Party
County Assembly
March 24, 2012

(*The figures at the end of each resolution signify the number of precincts that submitted the resolution over the percentage of the 90 of 109 precincts that submitted resolutions.)

1. The Weld County Republican Party supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring Congress to operate the federal government under a balanced budget annually, and further, the Party supports the reduction of government regulation, taxation and spending, and the elimination of government waste. (83/92.2%)

2. The Weld County Republican Party resolves to support only Republican candidates and elected officials who oppose all forms of gun control and uphold the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (51/56.7%)

3. The Weld County Republican Party opposes public funding of abortion and fetal or embryonic stem cell research, and further, the Party supports the passage of a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the right to life applies equally to all innocent persons at every stage of development. (39/43.3%)

4. The Weld County Republican Party resolves that all government employees and elected officials must conduct their duties in strict accordance with both the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions as amended, particularly in respect to protections for individual liberty and property ownership. (37/41.1%)

5. The Weld County Republican Party supports affordable health care based upon the free-market system and therefore calls for the repeal of the Patient Protection Affordability Act, also known as “Obamacare”, and further, the Party encourages the Colorado Attorney General to use every legal means to block its mandate upon Colorado citizens. (26/28.9%)

6. The Weld County Republican Party supports the right to exercise religious freedom in America as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the free and public expression of Christianity. (21/23.3%)

7. The Weld County Republican Party supports fully securing and controlling all U.S. borders to stop illegal immigration and terrorist infiltration, and further, the Party supports a simplified foreign worker program but opposes all non-emergency government benefits, amnesty and sanctuary programs for illegal immigrants. (21/23.3%)

8. The Weld County Republican Party resolves that Congress make no law that applies to U.S. citizens that does not apply equally to Congress and conversely, that Congress make no law that applies to Congress that does not apply equally to U.S. citizens, and further, the Party resolves that Congress be limited to receiving the same Social Security and Medicare benefits as all other private U.S. citizens. (16/17.8%)

9. The Weld County Republican Party supports maintaining a strong, well trained and equipped national military force, providing good benefits for those who serve and have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, and further, the Party supports defensive military alliances to deter hostile action against America and its foreign allies, including the state of Israel. (13/14.4)

10. The Weld County Republican Party supports amendments to both the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions that restrict the legal definition of marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. (12/13.3%)

11. The Weld County Republican Party supports the requirement of the presentation of valid, government-issued, photo identification by every person desiring to participate in any public election before being allowed to vote. (9/10.0%)

12. The Weld County Republican Party supports less regulation of the U.S. energy industry to encourage domestic energy production and decrease America’s reliance on foreign energy sources, and further, the Party resolves that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. (7/7.8%)

13. The Weld County Republican Party supports the elimination of state and federal income taxes in lieu of a fair tax in the form of either a flat tax and/or a consumption tax. (6/6.7%)

14. The Weld County Republican Party supports an amendment the U.S. Constitution limiting the duration of Congressional terms. (6/6.7%)

15. The Weld County Republican Party supports entrepreneurial equality through free-market capitalism and rejects any business subsidization or favoritism by government at any level. (5/5.6%)

16. The Weld County Republican Party endorses a Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that may not be infringed by any law or treaty. (4/4.4%)

17. The Weld County Republican Party resolves that all non-federal government officials within the State of Colorado shall assert Colorado’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution. (4/4.4%)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:11 PM | Comments (4)
But dagny thinks:

My Dear jg is too modest. He worked very hard on the county/district resolutions committee in drafting those resolutions.

Hopefully the stamp of jg and Three Sources remains as the resolutions move from the local to the state level.

Posted by: dagny at March 30, 2012 3:11 PM
But jk thinks:

I second the props for our blog brother.

Working for today's webinar, but will certainly do the poll and catch the next one.

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2012 8:12 AM
But johngalt thinks:

It was a labor of love. The level of influence* I was able to impart left me very satisfied. I intended to attempt the same feat for the State Resolutions Committee but this new process brings it right to my livingroom - and yours.

* My greatest single accomplishment was successfully lobbying to include resolution 15, originally below the cutoff of 6 precincts having put it forth. This led to the inclusion of 16 and 17, both of which also have merit - particularly 17. (On first review of the State Resolutions I noticed that the 10th Amendment issue in our #17 is asserted in #2 on the state roster of 60 resolutions. It is clearly a widely held principle among Colorado Republicans.)

Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2012 11:49 AM
But Craig Buckley thinks:

Spurious lien filed on Longmont family's exempt personal property (HOME)by former employers. Weld County District attorney Ken Buck arrests fraudulent lien victim for harassment for having demanded lien be removed. Of the lien Weld DA Ken Buck stated to victim, You just need to get over it and move on with your life. There is nobody in this office who will help you.


Posted by: Craig Buckley at August 9, 2012 10:50 PM

February 7, 2012

JG's Bi-Annual Exhortation to Resolutions

The non-binding Presidential Preference Poll is getting all the Publicity but for my money, the most important way for individual caucus-goers to be influential in party politics is to help shape what the party stands for. A significant part of this is the party platform. We're familiar with this at its completed stage but it has its origins at the most basic level of self-governance: the individual party member.

The process begins with individual "resolutions" being submitted tonight at each neighborhood precinct caucus meeting. Each and every resolution is accepted and, after a process of aggregation and distillation, voted upon at each county's party convention. Approved resolutions are advanced to the state convention, re-aggregated and re-voted, with the approved resolutions going on to the national convention for their final votes.

If one of your aims in "getting involved" is to help shape the values and positions of the party then this is your most urgent action item: Draw up the ideas that are important to you and hand them to your precinct captain tonight. If your idea is clear and compelling and popular with your fellow party members it could make its way to the national convention and help guide the thinking of current and future office holders. (I'll promise you more influence than possible from your single vote on election day. How much more I shall not promise.)

The formulation is usually, "The _________ county Republican Party resolves (or supports, affirms, opposes, etc.) ...

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:39 PM | Comments (7)
But johngalt thinks:

Excellent kickoff. And I add my offerings, borrowing heavily from JK's comments to the TEA Party Platform.

Everyone please borrow from everyone else. These should all be submitted in every one of our precincts. Resolutions appear higher on the list in their rank of precincts submitting them.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that the United States Constitution remains the best example for a self-governing people in the history of mankind.

The Weld County Republican Party affirms that Constitutional limits upon government powers are sacrosanct and if not respected by the various branches and agencies of federal government must, in turn, be protected by the people and the governments of America's individual states.

The Weld County Republican Party will not tolerate political favoritism or "crony capitalism" on the part of any of its elected or appointed members, and exhorts those members to oppose and defeat such favoritism when exerted by members of any other political party.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that The US Constitution and all ratified Amendments must be followed scrupulously by all branches of the Federal Government.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that any federal legislation that exceeds Constitutional purview is to be voted against or vetoed by every elected Republican.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that Executive actions that exceed Constitutional purview shall be investigated and censured by Republican legislators in Congress.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that Judicial decisions that exceed Constitutional purview will be swiftly met with clarifying and remedial legislation by Republican legislators.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that Judicial nominations will receive Senatorial consent from Republican legislators only after demonstrating a full understanding and willingness to adhere to a strict reading of the Constitution.

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that all elected or appointed Republican officials shall voluntarily swear to craft and approve all future legislation expressly to restore and protect our rights as granted in the Bill of Rights.

The Weld County Republican Party affirms that the term "right" or "rights" does not apply to the involuntary redistribution of the property of one or more Americans from their ownership to others.

Posted by: johngalt at February 7, 2012 3:57 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Nearly missed this one: COEXIST

The Weld County Republican Party reaffirms, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, that peaceful coexistence among free peoples requires a fastidious respect for the religious freedom and the property rights of each and every citizen.
Posted by: johngalt at February 7, 2012 4:06 PM
But jk thinks:

Wow. Blog readers who know me from my big talk may be unaware of the depth of my shyness in person.

Do you really intend to present that many? I can see myself doing two. Three if I have Scotch.

Posted by: jk at February 7, 2012 4:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Sure! They'll all fit on one page. With yours it's an even dozen, or just one per quarter since The Otastrophe began.

Posted by: johngalt at February 7, 2012 4:56 PM
But jk thinks:

One suggest: I would roll your #4 and #5 into a single planque:

The Weld County Republican Party resolves that The US Constitution and all ratified Amendments must be followed scrupulously by all branches of the Federal Government and that any federal legislation that exceeds Constitutional purview is to be voted against or vetoed by every elected Republican.
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2012 5:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Copied from a later post: Our composite resolutions were quite popular in Boulder and Weld counties:

My brother co-opted our 11 3Srcs resolutions for his Boulder County precinct. They voted also - all 11 (and loads more from the Longmont 9/12 and Boulder County TEA Party) passed unanimously.

I showed my preprinted list to a few voters as an example. They wanted to read them. Then their neighbor, and their neighbor. Two copies made it around the entire table. The comments I received were universally favorable. A pastor in my precinct asked if he could keep a copy! "You wrote these," he asked? "You really wrote them?" As I recall, he agreed with every one.

Posted by: johngalt at February 8, 2012 2:06 AM

April 5, 2010

'Leave Us Alone' -

'Getting the government's hands off our money, our guns, our lives.' The 2008 Grover Norquist book by this name posited a future politics driven by the "Leave Us Alone Coalition" on one side and the "Takings Coalition" on the other. This dovetails nicely with our recent discussion and Norquist apparently addresses the social values schizm toward the end of the book [Craig Matteson review]:

If I disagree with Norquist on anything it is his rough dismissal of social conservative issues towards the end of the book. However, I understand his emphasis on economic issues and their rough correlation with social conservative issues. That is, if you look at all economic conservatives in the Republican party, they will also include almost all of the social conservatives and some of those who are more liberal on social issues. So, we get more voters to help us win our issues with economics. This ignores the reality that for social conservatives, some issues are so vital that sitting home or creating a new party would be better alternatives than letting them slip out of the public debate.

If there is anything that religious leaders can do to help save America and the American way of life it is to disabuse their flocks from keeping social issues in the public political debate. Take them back to the public moral debate where they rightly belong.

And "Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally" is a good place to start.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:47 PM | Comments (0)

April 22, 2009

King Obama Decrees

Neither Holman Jenkins (or his illustrator) have quite gotten the message of Hope and Change:

So King Barack the Mild is finding as he tries to dictate the terms of what amounts to an out-of-court bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM. He wants Chrysler's secured lenders to give up their right to nearly full recovery in a bankruptcy in return for 15 cents on the dollar. They'd be crazy to do so, of course, except that these banks also happen to be beholden to the administration for TARP money.
They've already seen that the rights and privileges of shareholders are not worth diddly when the king is throwing his prerogatives around. He dispensed with the services of GM chief Rick Wagoner, though the king owned not a single share of GM stock at the time. His minions communicated the king's pleasure that GM consider discontinuing its GMC brand, maker of pickups and SUVs that offendeth the royal eye -- though these vehicles earn GM's fattest profit margins.

His minions haven't asked GM to give up the Chevy Volt, even after determining it will be a profitless black hole, because of the king's fondness for green.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:54 PM | Comments (4)
But Keith thinks:

I just wish it wasn't the hard-earned green in my wallet that Obama had such a fondness for.

Posted by: Keith at April 22, 2009 2:58 PM
But Russ Shurts thinks:

Good stuff.

These commentators are being far too kind to our new president. He has dictator written all over him. But he's actually the best thing to come along in many years...because he has so very nicely crystallized everything so people can see the true differences between altruism and egoism.

Posted by: Russ Shurts at April 23, 2009 8:49 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Hmmm. There's that d-word again.

Posted by: johngalt at April 23, 2009 12:36 PM
But jk thinks:

I'm still not quite to the d-word, jg, but if the Administration carries through with show trials for Bush Administration officials on torture, you'll have me.

Posted by: jk at April 23, 2009 1:37 PM

February 17, 2008

All Politics is Local...

On "Super Tuesday" johngalt and dagny caucused in Weld County, CO for Mitt Romney since Fred Thompson had previously abandoned the campaign. At that caucus jg threw his name in the ring as a delegate to the district meeting 2 weeks later and was elected as one of 4 alternates to our 4 delegates. That district meeting was held yesterday morning and although jg was only an alternate he was still eligible to stand as a delegate nominee for the Colorado GOP State Convention. After nominating himself he stood in front of the 27 assembled neighbors, said a few kind things about John McCain and Fred Thompson, disparaging things about Boulder County and the Democrat candidates, and got himself elected again - this time as a full fledged credentialed delegate.

Having been caught flat-footed at the caucus when policy ideas were solicited for consideration as planks to the party platform, and in support of HB's lament that 'The Republican Party Has Left Me,' johngalt hereby creates a new subcategory to 2008 race called "GOP Planks." He invites suggestions from all corners. The first idea on the list has to be jg's comment from 'Let the Libertarians Go' earlier today:

Huckabee and his staff are not conservatives, because they do not hold private property rights as an absolute. His Christianity-inspired egalitarianism and altruism tell him it is morally justified to take one man's property and give it to another, as long as the first man has more to start with. That puts him on a par with the Edwardsesque rhetoric we all tired of through the early primary campaigns.

As an "economic libertarian" I appeal to my Christian brothers to examine the teachings of their faith and recognize the difference between two like intentioned but fundamentally different processes: One one hand, individuals (and their voluntary congregations) doing charitable works and on the other hand, the heartless, soulless, ignorant servants of government attempting to be charitable with the conscripted wealth of others.

Governor Huckabee doesn't seem to recognize any distinctions between these two methodologies, but economic libertarians do.

Posted by JohnGalt at 7:02 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

I don't want to take anything away from your victory. And I applaud your service. My precinct was reduced to begging someone to accept a delegateship (now, had they offered superdelegatism...)

I wanted badly to accept, but the caucus itself was on the second floor of a large high school and I was still in pain from the icy trek through the parking lot and the lengthy walk through the school and up the stars. I did not know whether I would be able to serve. I did sign up as an alternate, so if my nice neighbor's feet get a little cold, I may see you at State. [And yes, you may think less of me for wussing out.]

We were not solicited for planks but we voted on a dozen the county GOP had submitted and one of our members had brought his own, typed as a resolution.

His was to reject mandates for health insurance a'la RomneyCare. It passed unanimously among a spirited group that had questioned every resolution to some extent. I asked how come six members voted for Governor Romney and yet every member rejected his health care plan. The candidate vote was secret ballot and no one volunteered.

Consider me tagged, jg. I will post a plank or two. I like the idea of planks but am not certain I am sold on the one you proffer. By rejecting Governor Huckabee, I suggest that your plank has been de facto adopted.

Posted by: jk at February 18, 2008 5:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Good point on the rejection of Huckabee, JK, but I think it's important to elucidate just what it is about Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism" that has so enraged conservatives.

Don't worry old friend, I'm not taking this stuff as seriously as it sounds. I'm just saying I'm at least as well qualified to do this stuff as any of my neighbors are, and that the ideas discussed on this blog belong in the GOP platform.

"Wussing out?" You've got an excuse. A co-worker with strong 2nd Amendment interests left his caucus early because it was disorganized and he got bored. THAT's wussin' out.

Posted by: johngalt at February 19, 2008 1:57 AM