Archive for October, 2009

Honor And Respect

October 30, 2009

   In the early morning hours of Thursday , President Obama came to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, to be there as some of our fallen heroes were brought home.

  Many have criticised the President for this act. I will not criticise the Commander-in-Chief for having the courage to be present when soldiers who have given the final measure of courage are brought back to their families. And there were family members present also.

  I think it is important that a President understand the cost of our freedom, and I can’t think of anything that could drive that message home more than watching  those Flag draped caskets being carried off the plane. It would be foolish to even think that any American and especially the President would not be moved by such a site.

 And as the President weighs the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan it seems fitting that he honor those who have fallen in the line of duty.

  So I will not criticise the President for honoring those soldiers who were brought home to Dover Air Force Base on Thursday morning.

  I will however criticise the President for his lack of respect for those soldiers and their families, for having cameras present. And please , if the President says no cameras then there would be no cameras. He could have come in and quietly paid his respects to the soldiers and their families and then left. Of course it would have gotten out that the President had been there but , by allowing there to be these images , it gives the appearance that this was a photo-op.

 So for the President paying tribute to the fallen soldiers I give him praise. But for the bad judgement of allowing even the perception of using the moment for political gain , I have to say I find it disgusting.

 And just one side note. Now that the President has come out to welcome home these fallen heroes and to honor them with his presence , will he now be present when all our fallen troops are brought home? And if not how will this make those families feel?

Advertisements

Health Care Experts

October 29, 2009

  During the debate over health care reform , we are hearing from a lot of experts. We are hearing from experts in the medical field, we are hearing from economic experts and insurance experts.

  Basically there are two types of experts, those who are testifying in favor of national health care and those opposed to national health care. Those in favor can be described as government experts and those against as private.

  So who to believe ? As always I am in favor of applying common sense and logic to solving that problem.

  Let us look to what motivates these experts in coming to their conclusions.

  I’ll start with the private side. People in the private sector for the most part are motivated by profit and success. They succeed and earn a profit by producing or marketing a product that the consumers desire and one that suits the needs of the buyer. If the product or service does not meet the needs of the buyers or if it is too expensive then the buyer is free to shop around . The  ability of the buyer to shop around is what should be and is the check and balance of a free market.

 It is the desire to earn a profit that creates competition , and it is competition that keeps down the cost of any product or industry. It is when competition is limited by regulation or un-fair practices that the cost of a product or a service will sky-rocket. If there is only one widget company then they can charge whatever price they choose for their widget.

  So what some may see as greed , others see as profit and the driving force behind innovation and free market competition. It is this so-called greed that drives private insurers to keep the cost of their product as low as is possible in the current climate created by over regulation, that does not allow the buyers to buy health insurance from outside their state . If we are to have real health care reform then it must be in the form of freeing up the private market to allow more competition among the private insurers.

 So that brings me to the government experts. What is their motivation , how do they protect their interest? Remember that because a government agency can not earn a profit , it only  succeeds when it grows, it only grows when it can convince the people that there is a need for the program it supplies. So for a government agency to succeed , it must create more need for the program it supplies, which really means that it must fail at its stated goal. In the case of health care reform , those in favor of a public option say they will lower the cost of health insurance by creating a government-run insurance agency, but because this agency will have the backing of the United States government and its ability to print money it will have an un-fair advantage over the private insurers, which will make competition impossible and run the private companies out of business.

  So the private sector experts wish to create a product that can compete based on it being a good product and a fairly priced product. The decision of which company to buy from, should be up to the buyer , based on their needs and their ability to pay.

  The government experts wish only to eliminate all competition so as to be the only option , and the only option will be a one size fits all insurance plan that will cost whatever the government says. And by mandating that every citizen must buy insurance , it allows the government to use the IRS to enforce the mandate.

 So it comes down to , do you want to choose your own health care , based on your individual needs or do you want health care forced upon you at the barrel of a gun, under the threat of prison ?

The Value Of A Life

October 28, 2009

  Today Pres. Obama signed the Defence Bill, and within it also signed The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Bill.

  This newest hate crimes bill adds crimes motivated by hatred of a person based on gender, sexual orientation or disabilities to hate crime legislation that already covers crimes motivated because of race, colour, religion or national origin.

  Hate crime laws allow prosecutors to tack on additional punishment if the crime was motivated by hatred of a certain group.

  My first point about this is that we as American citizens are already protected by the laws against crimes, be they assault, murder or any number of other crimes that can be committed against an individual.

 We also have the Fourteenth Amendment of The Constitution to make sure that we all get treated equally under the law.

 My major problem with sort of political pandering to special interest groups is that it sends a message that the property, person or life of a certain group of people , due to their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation , is some how more valuable then that of someone else that falls outside these narrow hate crime laws.

 What these laws say is that if a white man beats or kills a black man then he can be punished twice as severely then would be a black man who kills another black man. If a straight man commits a crime against a homosexual he will be punished more than if he were only to commit the same crime against another straight person. If a Christian is murdered by a Muslim then the Muslim, oh sorry I lost my mind there for a minute.

 The point is that by passing these laws we are extending special protection to certain groups that is not given to other groups. This goes directly against the Fourteenth Amendment.

  We have laws against harassment, how is anyone served if we punish the person who harasses a homosexual more than someone who harasses a straight person. We have laws against murder, again who is served if we say that the killing of a white person by a black or hispanic person is somehow a larger crime. 

 If we prosecute all crimes based on the law and the evidence, it should not matter whether the victim was a member of one of these special victims groups . Justice is supposed to be blind.

  When we elevate these special victims groups by tacking on extra punishment , for crimes committed against them, we de-value the lives of the groups that have not be raised to this special victims status.

  The life of a homosexual man is no more valuable than that of a heterosexual woman, a Muslim has no more rights under the law then does a Jewish person, race should never enter into the deliberation of a crime or its punishment.

  The push for these so-called hate crime laws , I believe is motivated by people trying to legitimize themselves . They feel that if there are extra consequences for crimes committed against their special victims group , then  somehow that makes them a part of the whole of society. The trouble is that every time a group identifies itself by race or religion or now sexual orientation and gender, they actually drive a wedge between themselves and the society they wish to be a part of.

 Instead of creating more special victims groups , what we should be working for is the abolition of hate crime laws and assuring every citizen equal protection under the law, no matter of what narrow sub group of society they happen to belong to.

Is It A Movement Yet ?

October 27, 2009

  A recent Gallop poll is showing for the first time since 2004 that conservatives out number moderates .

  The poll shows that of those polled forty percent identify themselves as being politically conservative, thirty-six percent call themselves moderate and twenty percent liberal. Last year conservatives and moderates were tied at thirty-seven percent.

  It would seem that conservatism is making its biggest gains from Independent voters. Thirty five percent of Independent voters proclaim themselves to be conservative, this is up from last years number of twenty-nine.

  Among Republican voters seventy-two percent identify themselves as conservatives , up from last years seventy-one percent.

  On issues such as government regulation of business forty-five percent up from thirty-eight percent have conservative views.

   Now the question is does this trend constitute a movement towards conservatism?

  Well I guess that would depend on which definition of conservatism it is that you prescribe to and which definition those polled  identify with.

  But let us assume that those polled all agree on what it means to be conservative. This is highly unlikely as many of my post and your responses demonstrate. But for the sake of argument we’ll go with it anyway.

  What does this mean for the future of the Republican party ? I ask this because the GOP holds itself up to be the party of and for conservatives.

  So what can we as registered Republicans expect from the party and what can those polled and those they represent hope to see coming from the GOP in 2010 and future elections?

  Will the GOP see this trend and respond in kind by endorsing and supporting with the full strength of the party candidates that also identify themselves as conservatives, or will the GOP continue to put forth candidates who hold to the moderate mantra. Will they give us candidates who will reflect the views of the American people or will they give us candidates such as Mike Castle who votes contrary to the wishes of the people of his party and also that of many Independents.

 If this Gallop poll demonstrates a real move to the right , that is a good thing. If it is just a knee jerk response to the policies of Pres. Obama, well that isn’t a bad thing. The question still remains though, what form of conservatism are those polled identifying with. Lately conservatism has been watered down and parsed to the point that you could ask a hundred different people what is conservatism and most likely get seventy to eighty different answers.

  In the weeks and months to come until the election of 2010 , it will be up to the voters to mandate that the GOP put forth a united conservative front and give up this misguided belief that they can out ” moderate ” the Democrats. The GOP must seek out and support candidates that can hold to a straight line conservative message, that is the only way they will win back control of the future of this nation.

Is The Sky Really Falling ?

October 25, 2009

 It was announced Saturday Oct. 24th that Pres. Obama had signed an executive order  (his favorite thing ever to do by the way) declaring the H1N1 or swine flu outbreak to be a “NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!!!!!!!”.

  By declaring a “NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!!!!!! ” the President has now given the Health and Human Services Secretary , Kathleen Sebelius the authority to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as tents just for the treatment of H1N1. Declaring a “NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!!!! ” also allows hospitals to modify patient rules , for example , requiring them to give less information during a hectic period. Oh! I don’t know like maybe residency questions or ability to pay ? 

 We should also be concerned with what other special powers this declaration may bestow upon the Secretary. Think of this as the President declaring  “Martial Law”.

  Okay, so is the H1N1 outbreak truly a “NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!!!” or not ?

  Or is it just one of those opportunities that can’t be passed up by a federal government bent on increasing the size and scope of government. Are we seeing the Obama administration ramping up public hysteria over the possibility of a serious outbreak or are they only trying to be pro-active. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that there is most likely an equal share of both.

  The President surely doesn’t want to be in charge during some sort of history making death toll, so I’m sure that he and his administration are truly trying to stave off, or lesson the effect of this virus. That being said , I am also sure that the President and his administration are aware of how this outbreak , if handled properly, could also be used to demonstrate the need for national health care. In politics , timing is everything.

  So , do current events rise to the level of being a “NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!!!!”?

  Well let’s start with the fact that we here in the United States  have just passed one thousand deaths, of people who had been diagnosed as having the H1N1 virus. Compare that number with the CDC ‘s estimate of approximately thirty-six thousand deaths  a year linked to the seasonal flu. Also taking into consideration that many of the past flu deaths may have been  undiagnosed H1N1 cases and also taking into consideration that due to a heightened awareness and more testing , it is not un-usual to be seeing an increase in H1N1 reported cases.

 But the real tell I believe is the number of people who have died after being diagnosed with the H1N1 virus , or who it was found after their death that they had the virus, who also had underlying health issues already.

  We have all read the headlines “Person Dies of the H1N1 Flu” , and then buried in the story we find that they had some more serious condition to begin with.

  Examples :  From Minnesota , the A.P. and the Star Tribune of St. Paul, Minn.

   Of the ten deaths in Minnesota that can be linked in any way to H1N1 , eight of them had underlying conditions raging from asthma and obesity to immune and neuromuscular disorders. The latest was an eleven year old boy by the name of Oliver Finley who suffered from cerebral palsy and other physical and mental disabilities , who died Saturday after being diagnosed with H1N1. Maybe the most tragic is the story of a five-week old boy who died on Oct 15th, yes he was diagnosed with H1N1, but he had been born with critical heart and lung ailments that had left half of his heart underdeveloped.

  From the Emporia Gazette , Oct. 24th.  Lyon County, Kansas has its first reported death related to the H1N1 flu. This brings the total number of deaths in Kansas to nine. The Lyon County death was that of a sixty-two year old man who had underlying health conditions that put him at serious risk of complications from the virus.

  The Kalamazoo Gazette , reports that a woman in her fifties died this week of multiple underlying conditions , including H1N1.

  Even right here in Delaware we have had our first death that can be related to H1N1. But the patient also had other health issues.

  So what is my point you may ask ? Well I bring this up not just to beat up on the administration , though that is one of my favorite pastimes.

  The question should be asked, does creating hysteria benefit the country or just the administrations push for nationalized health care?

 The fact that the H1N1 virus alone kills very few people , when compared to the way that the lap dog mainstream media is reporting the story , leads one to believe that there is a clear attempt to create a sense of fear . I will admit that this sense of fear can lead to more people receiving the vaccine and possibly reducing the spread of the virus , especially among those most at risk of complications and death.

  I also believe it is dangerous to cry wolf. When we have the media and the government shouting that the sky is falling this season and it doesn’t, it means that in a season or some future emergency , people will be less likely to take the reports seriously. In other words when the administration plays politics with issues of national health and safety , they lose their credibility.

 My advise to everyone is to use your own common sense and do the things that you mothers taught you when sick, and if you are a high risk person with underlying conditions then seak the advise of a doctor you trust.

Things To Come ?

October 23, 2009

  Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has mandated three-minute showers for all citizens of that oil rich nation. Due to electric and water shortages the thug dictator has told the people that three minutes showers are the communist way to a better world.

  Venezuela is one of the largest oil exporters in the world, and yet the power grid of that nation is failing because of a lack of investment. What ? You mean to tell me that private companies and people don’t want to invest their money into a project, in a country where the government could come in at any moment and take it over. Don’t be surprised to see Chavez nationalize all of Venezuela’s energy industries in the near future , including all water sources.

  This is what you get when you allow socialism and fascism a foot hold in a country.  Just look at some of the energy proposals being made by the current administration here in the United States through cap-and-trade. We have already seen our toilets regulated and also what type of light bulbs we will be able to buy, so is it so far-fetched to think that we could also see a time when we are limited to a three-minute shower?

  Could we see a time when we no longer have thermostats in our homes , but instead have pre-set heaters and A/C units, that is if we are allowed to have A/C at all. Rolling brown outs are already being predicted in the very near future. Why ? Lack of investment in new infrastructure. We are not seeing new coal plants being built because why build something that current trends are attempting to regulate out of business ? No nuclear plants because they were demonized years ago. And even if there are some investors out there willing to invest in proven energy generating sources, well they find themselves up against a government machine that work’s counter to progress. They find themselves fighting the permitting process for years before they can so much as turn a shovel full of dirt.

 So is Venezuela’s present , our future ? Could be, if we don’t vote out the raging environmentalist in congress who put there misguided beliefs ahead of the welfare of this nation. The ones who vote against domestic drilling for oil, the ones who vote for cap-and-trade that will further retard our energy production and drive the cost of every product that is manufactured and transported within this nations borders  beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. The ones who still hold to the misguided belief in global warming, even as studies are beginning to show that we are on the leading edge of a thirty or more year cooling trend.

 We must vote out those who would run our lives through over regulation of our most basic needs, not because of their concern for our standard of living , but for the power it gives them over us.

This One Is For meatball

October 21, 2009

  A regular visitor and one of the few who actually comments took an interest in my post about Pres. Obama being awarded The Nobel Peace Prize. It would seem that meatball took some offence to my reference to Norway as being euro -trash and socialist.

  Mr. meatball made several post defending the great nation of Norway, giving examples of how well socialism is working for them. He also made reference to the fact that they share many of the same freedoms as Americans.

  I must say I was curious , so I looked up the Norwegian Constitution. This constitution was laid down on May 17,1814 and while the wording is different there are some similarities to our own, and it was last amended on Feb. 20,2007.

  I will link to the constitution at the end of this post, but I just have to point out some of the high points that struck me and made me wonder if it were these that would draw a freedom loving person such as meatball to favor a Norway style of government over our own.

  The Norwegians wasted no time in stating that their’s was a country that guaranteed the freedom of religion, they did this in Article 2.  Also in Article 2 , they state that the Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall be the “official” religion of the state and that inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same. Now that is some kind of religious freedom. But I’m sure that meatball will tell us that it doesn’t mean what it seems to mean.

  In Article 3 we find out that the King or Queen is the Executive power within the country. And yes this is a hereditary monarchy. So are we to assume that our good friend meatball would be in favor of a King Obama and then allowing his descendents to assume the throne?

  Article 5 states that the King may not be censured or accused. Wow that does sound familiar, we already have that here in the states, if you disagree with Pres. Obama you are labeled a racist .

  Article 12 set the rules for how the King may select his Council of the State, Pres. Obama just calls them Czars. In Norway at least half of the Council of the State must be made up of people who profess the official religion of the state, there is that freedom of religion again.

  Here is one I’m sure meatball was really in favor of , and I know he took the time to read this constitution before he started praising the Norwegians. Article 109 mandates service in the armed forces of Norway by every citizen, that’s what Jane Fonda would call the draft.

  I won’t even try to explain Article 110b , but I recommend that you check it out, it has to do with the country of Norway guaranteeing each citizen a clean environment, Al Gore eat your heart out.

  So meatball was it one of these , or was it one of the other Articles that has you packing your bags to move to that freedom loving nation of Norway?

   To read the entire text of the Norwegian Constitution here is the link

   http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution/

What Have We Become ?

October 19, 2009

   What has become of America ? I don’t know about all of you, but I know there are people out there that grew up in the same times as did I .

  I grew up in the sixties and seventies , got married in the eighties , started raising my daughter in the nineties. I remember an America where anything was possible through hard work and determination. Where as kids we were told that we should not ask what our country could do for us , but what we could do for our country.

  Don’t get me wrong I know for example that the sixties were turbulent times. We had the war in Vietnam, we were in a cold war with the Soviet Union. I can remember duck and cover drills in school. We had riots in the streets of America , we had visions of the war in Vietnam coming right into our living rooms.

  The seventies weren’t much better . Drug use was rampant in the schools, trust me I know. We saw the first oil embargos which sent not just oil prices through the roof but also inflation. We saw people taken hostage by hijackers,and we saw American citizens taken hostage right inside our own embassy.

 The eighties saw a growth of prosperity, though as a result, a whole generation became known as the “me generation”.  During the eighties we started to see a trend towards a political division that deepened with every election. I believe it was in the eighties that we began to see the beginnings of a class warfare in America.

  Little changed in the nineties, it seemed that nothing could stop the economic growth that we were experiencing.

  During these decades of change we suffered many trying times , and challenges from within and from without. We were attacked and we often attacked each other. But through it all there was always a sense of America. There was always that feeling that no matter what we had each others back as Americans.

  This I believe came from the fact that we shared in the belief that we were part of the greatest nation on the face of the earth. That we shared common goals and dreams. That we all believed that we could achieve the ” American Dream”, and that dream was whatever we wanted it to be.

  For the most part we didn’t feel that one person had to sacrifice their dream so that we could achieve ours. In other words there was an unlimited number of dreams out there just waiting to be dreamed.

  So what has happened here in this , the greatest nation on the face of the earth?

   Well , though it may have already been in the process before, after 9/11 this nation has not been the same.

   Some will naturally blame this change on the way Pres. Bush handled the crisis in the days and years following that tragic event. Some will blame those on the left that seemed to not support the nation in its war on terror. Clearly those who perpetrated the attack deserve most of the blame.

 But when I look around I see a cultural shift , I see the class war being expanded. I see leaders who are telling some of our citizens that they have somehow been cheated out of the American dream. These same leaders are telling us that , yes after all , some of us are expected to sacrifice a part of ,or all of our dream , so that someone else can have it. They are telling us that there are only just so many dreams to be had.

  These leaders are going even farther , and telling us exactly what it is we are expected to dream. That part of the dream is health care , not by choice but by mandate. They dare to tell us that our dream car must not exceed a certain size, that our dream home must not exceed a certain square footage. They tell us that we must not earn over a certain amount , or it somehow robs another of their  chance . These leaders promise to take care of our every need , whether we have asked them to or not. They tell us that our father’s dream of success should not be ours, they tell us that our fathers were greedy and selfish.

  These leaders tell us that they will somehow guarantee equal prosperity for all, when all we have ever wanted was an equal chance for prosperity.

  Are these leaders souly to blame? No ! The true blame for this cultural shift lies directly at the feet of every voter who chooses to vote for leaders of this type. Voters who sell their dearest right, the right to vote. Voters who do not take the time to read and watch, who follow the instructions of either the media or some party leadership. Voters who actually sell their vote to the highest bidder, the candidate who promises to bring back tax dollars that were stolen from the voters in the first place, or like in Detroit , where money is being handed directly to citizens who did not earn it.

  Every time we vote for this type of candidate we weaken the nation and we weaken our culture. When we are willing to cast an uninformed vote, or a vote that we slavishly cast by order of some party leadership, or if we cast it for purely selfish reasons, then we have wasted our right to vote.

  Until we break the cycle of voters such as this, until we educate our young voters as to the seriousness of the act of voting, and until we somehow instill once again in the American psyche , the sense that we as a whole are only as strong as each individual and that there is an unlimited number of dreams to be dreamed , until that time we are doomed to continue to elect these weak leaders who do not lead , but merely pander to the voter’s most base desires.

  If we are ever going to find better leaders , then we must first look within ourselves and ask , what is my dream and how can ” I ” achieve it.

Asking For Help

October 17, 2009

  I am linking to the Delaware code Title 15 , which covers elections within the state. I am asking for help. I have gone through all relevent parts concerning primaries and nominating candidates. I  can find nothing that says that parties must hold a convention and nominate  candidates prior to holding a primary. I have found numerous times where the word “may” is used and of course there are filing deadlines, but I can find nothing that mandates that the party must endorse a candidate , and said candidate can then and only then be challenged in a primary.

  So for anyone out there who believes that the GOP is conducting their nomination process the only way allowed by law, please lead me to chapter and section in the code.

 http://delcode.delaware.gov/title15/index.shtml

Can We Fix It ? Yes !

October 15, 2009

 For the past several years I have spoken out against the current system being use by the GOP of Delaware for nominating candidates to run for elected office.

  First let me catch new readers up on what it is that I see as being wrong with the current way that things are done.

  Currently the GOP of Delaware uses a convention style for nominating candidates for the GOP . This requires delegates to be nominated and voted on at the county and state level meetings. These meeting are made up of those who happen to show up that month. Granted that you would expect these to be the most motivated members of the GOP if they take the time to show up at all.

  Party leadership then canvases for potential candidates from within the party for whichever offices may be open that election cycle. The party then holds its convention , where the delegates decide who will be the endorsed GOP candidate for the upcoming election.

  Let me be clear that the monthly meetings are open to everyone, so that means that anyone can come and vote , and so one could say that at the very basic level anyone can have a voice in the process. But as the process continues , it becomes more and more removed from the control of the rank and file GOP voters and more a matter of party leadership making the big decisions, such as who will be the final candidate for any given office.

 There is a certain hierarchy built into the system that tends to exclude the people who have jobs and children. We tend to see a system that chooses candidates based on , “whose turn is it this time or who has paid their party dues over the years?” An old boys network if you will , where a candidate may be chosen just by who they knows within the party and not because the voters will respond to him or her.

  So at this point what we have are candidates that the rank and file voters had very  little , if any , choice in nominating . This system also tends to leave highly motivated and equally qualified candidates feeling fustrated  and wronged along with their supporters.

  But wait because the GOP of Delaware does have a primary system to solve this problem. If, after the big celebration they call the convention , where they  coronate the  heir to the throne, if another candidate wishes to “FORCE” a primary against the endorsed candidate , then the GOP holds a primary.

  This is where I feel the GOP of Delaware has gone wrong. To hold a primary after the party has endorsed a candidate , puts the challenger at a distinct disadvantage for at least two reasons. They will be perceived to be a trouble maker for not towing the party line and your lock step GOPers will vote in the primary for the endorsed candidate just because the party tells them to.

  I believe this convention first , primary second system also puts the GOP at a distinct disadvantage in the general election as well. I believe that by “forcing ” a primary the party actually creates an environment for a much more bloody primary due to the fact that the challenger must fight harder to over come not only their opponent, but also the endorsement of the party. This makes it harder to heal the wounds and to move the party as a whole towards the general election.

  It is my feeling that the best thing that could happen for the GOP of Delaware is for the rank and file members to demand a change to the system , that would put the power of choosing candidates in the hands of the voters where it rightly belongs.

 I believe we should do away completely with the state convention . We should set up a primary system that will allow all would be candidates to throw their hats in the ring and then to be judged by the voter and without any undue bias. This would allow candidates to take their cases directly to the voters and remove the need for the back room party dealings. It would I believe , also reduce the contention among the opposing candidates’ camps, making it easier in most cases to bring the party back together so as to fight the Democrats in the general. This would also give the party more time to mount the campaign against the Democrats. Right now as it is, if there is a primary , it shortens the time frame for executing a run in the general election.

  I feel that if we were to go to a strictly primary style for nominating candidates it could turn the GOP around in Delaware. It would put all would be candidates on an equal playing field, so that during the primary one would not be perceived as the “challenger”. It would give  a sense to the rank and file that they are actually involved , and anytime you feel involved you are more likely to be involved. This would also create a climate that I feel would allow the GOP members to then pull together for the general election if they feel that their candidate had gotten a fair shot and had been defeated fairly within a process that allowed all voices to be heard and not just party leadership.

  Now I have made these points in the past and many people from within the party have told me you can’t do it because the state has deadlines. Well the state does have deadlines for when names must be turned in , when candidates must have been chosen , so as to be on the ballot. But the state does not decide how a party chooses its candidates, that is up to the party. The Democrats use a primary system, and as much as it pains me , on this they got it right. The opposition to changing the way we choose candidates comes from party leadership who do not wish to give up the power it bestows upon them. To change the system it will require that the GOP voters demand it be changed.

 The party should be there as a vehicle for candidates to move forward, to assist candidates chosen by the voters to win elections. The party must trust the voters , it must include the voters in the process , or the voters will stay home if they feel that they have no real say in the matter. We have been doing it this way long enough and we have been losing long enough, it is time to make real change in the way we are choosing candidates.

 We must as a party, who claims to be for the rights of the individual, amplify the voice of the individual , we must make every member of the GOP actually feel as if they are of equal value to the party. We must if we want them to be involved at the voting booth , involve them throughout the process.