In 2009/2010, my frustration was with the national Republican Senatorial Election group, which was trying to raise funds in Nevada to support Senatorial election campaigns around the country.  This was frustrating because we had a shot in 2010 of defeating Harry Reid – which certainly seemed to be a national priority for Republicans and Conservatives, but one that was very much dependent on our ability to raise funds to go head-to-head with the man Rush Limbaugh calls “Dingy Harry.”  In fact, we never did raise enough money to defeat the well-funded and media-backed Majority Leader, and I have to wonder how much of that could be ascribed to the financial drain that came from out-of-state groups poaching on our fund-raising ability here in Nevada.

At the time, I wrote to the National Republican Senatorial Committee suggesting that they limit their fund-raising to the the states which didn’t have a contested senatorial campaign needing local support – not surprisingly, I never got even the courtesy of an answer. When it comes to fund-raising, there is no party loyalty, there is no “professional courtesy,” there is only “gimme, gimme, gimme …”

Which brings to mind what triggered this blog.  I am represented by a one-term Congressmen, Dr. Joe Heck (R-NV) who, as with all low-seniority Congressmen, is more vulnerable than others who might be running.  In addition, my Senator, Dean Heller (R-NV) was named to fill the remainder of the term of disgraced former Senator John Ensign (R-NV), who resigned “one step ahead of the sheriff” for – while married – having an affair with a staffer (who was also the wife of a staffer) then having his wealthy Casino-owning parents pay off the irate husband, in what is clearly an ethics violation as well as a betrayal of the voters (like me) who’d worked hard to put Ensign in office.

So I’ve got two short-tenure, highly-vulnerable Republicans representing me in the House and the Senate, and – logically – if I have any financial resources I’m willing to invest in electing people to Congress, you’d think I should focus on my own representatives. Right?

Well, apparently not according to one-time Presidential candidate and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman (R-MN).  It appears that Congresswoman Bachman is being Gerrymandered out of her Congressional seat – her district has been redrawn so that she no longer even lives in what’s left of the District she’s served – she now lives in a District represented by a six-term Democrat. So she’s ignited a flurry of fund-raising efforts to raise money to help her remain in Congress.

I’m sorry to hear that the Congresswoman got Gerrymandered, but I’m not surprised.  Redrawing districts every ten years is the reward for winning control of the state legislature in every election year which coincides with our every-ten-year national Census, as mandated by the Constitution.  In her email (below) she blames Liberal judged, and I suppose there could have been a legal challenge that went against her, but it’s the state legislatures that redraw districts, and I can only assume that Minnesota went Democrat in 2010, giving that party the Constitutional right to redraw the districts.

It appears that the Congresswoman is running in her old district, without (apparently) moving to live in that District.  That’s legal, but not optimal, and I’m not sure I’d even vote for a Congresswoman who didn’t live in my District, no matter how much I like her politics – it’s both traditional and important, in my opinion, for a Representative to live in the District she represents.  As someone who’s managed media and strategy for Congressional and Senatorial campaigns for many Republicans, I would have advised her to move her legal residence – but I’m not advising her, and she didn’t ask me for my opinion.

But she did ask me for money – a lot of money – and this is why I’m writing this blog, why I’m concerned about Electoral Hubris.  It has gotten more and more common for candidates for office to reach out – outside of their districts or states (or, as Obama did in 2008, outside of their country) – to raise money for their campaigns.  Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) did that very effectively when he ran to replace Ted Kennedy’s hand-picked successor in the US Senate – I even contributed to him (but it was an off-year election, and he didn’t siphon money I would have given to a local Republican, so I have less of a problem with that).  And Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has done so, in his own off-year battle over recall.  Those made a kind of sense, since they were, in effect, off-year “national” elections.

But there are many more, “in-season” elections in which local or state candidates who seem to be able to reach a national following reach out for money.  Rand Paul did this – not surprising, as he tapped into his father Ron Paul’s (R-TX) national base of passionate supporters.  But so did Marco Rubio (R-FL), who’s got no real claim (yet) to a national constituency), and now we see Congresswoman Michele Bachman doing it.  As you can see in the email below, which she’s sent me at least three times in the past week, she not only lays claim to being a “national candidate,” but she also asks me for $2,500 – three times.

As an aside, and speaking as a long-time political fund-raiser, I can tell you that this shoot-for-the-moon strategy ($2,500 is the most you can give to a candidate under Federal Election laws and regs – Super PACs are a different story) is not a sound one.  As Howard Dean demonstrated in 2004 (thanks to the genius of Joe Trippe), $25 is a good number to ask for.  Ten times that is going to scare off many more than it attracts, and that – along with poaching out of your district – is where my title, “Electoral Hubris,” comes from.

It takes big brass ones to ask strangers for that kind of money – no brains, but big brass ones.  Michele, it won’t work, and frankly, it shouldn’t work.  You ought to stick to your own district, or – if you’re going national, ask a lot of people for a small amount of money – a sum they can afford to ‘throw away” on a campaign that won’t really impact them, one way or another.

Take it from someone in Vegas – that’s a tip you can bet on!

PS – below is the email Michele Bachman sent me (four times!), and below that is the reply I sent to her.  If she replies, I’ll post that here, too.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

Dear Congresswoman Bachman

This is the third time you’ve sent me this email, Ms. Bachman.  Is there some reason why you thought that I’d respond the third time when I didn’t the first two?

I’m sorry you have been gerrymandered out of your district – that’s what happens to some Congressmen after each Census, and it’s unfortunate in your case.  But thinking that I might care enough to send $2,500 to you is a bit much, and your repeated hammering of that price makes me feel that anything less won’t help.  Since $2,500 is a lot of money, and since I’m self-employed, I’m afraid I’m not in your price range.

Since what I might be willing to contribute is below even your minimum request amount of $35, I guess all I can do is ask that you quit begging me for money I don’t choose to spare for your quixotic campaign to represent a district you don’t even live in.  My contributions will go to helping to re-elect my own Republican Congressman and my own Republican Senator.

I wish you well, but I’m frankly far more concerned about electing someone to represent me in Congress – your supporters in Minnesota should do the same thing.

Good luck, but please quit begging me for far more money than I’m willing to contribute to another District’s Congresswoman.

Ned

Ned Barnett, APR

Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association

Barnett Marketing Communications

420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 – Las Vegas NV 89110

702-561-1167 – cell/text

www.barnettmarcom.com – twitter @nedbarnett

http://pr-marketing2point0.blogspot.com/

The latest one, and the one which has really raised my hackles, is the organized demand that Disney and Marvel Comics apologize for a laugh-out-loud funny joke (and yes, I really did laugh out loud in the theater when I saw it) in The Avengers, about Thor’s brother Loki (the movie’s really arch-villain).

Here’s the joke:

The joke is at the expense of Loki (Tim Hiddleston), the … adopted son of the god, Odin. Loki’s brother Thor (Chris Hemsworth) defends him to fellow Avenger Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), who then points out that Loki had “killed 80 people in two days.” Thor then replies, “He’s adopted.”

Lots of folks laughed at this, including people who are adopted – and people who have adopted children (like me – I was adopted, and I also adopted one of my sons).   But sometimes, cause-oriented people can go too far.  As the Entertainment at MSNBC.com article points out:

… in a petition created by Jamie Berke on Change.org, “According to your scriptwriter, the fact (Loki) was adopted is the reason he is a bad guy!…Being adopted is not something to use for the butt of jokes! Marvel, immediately cease using adoption as the butt of jokes AND issue a public apology to the adoption community!”

That same MSNBC article invited people to vote – should Disney/Marvel apologize?   The results are pretty specific:

Results

Total of 69,976 votes

3.5%

Yes, it insulted adoptees and adoptive parents

2,459 votes

As someone who was adopted as an infant – who has lived his whole life as an adoptee – and as someone who adopted one of my sons, John David Barnett, I have very strong feelings about what it means to be adopted.  However, I also have a sense of humor, and as I said, I broke out laughing when I heard that joke.  I strongly believe that the folks who object need to get a life, or at least a sense of humor – it’s not like adoptees the world over will be demonized because the mythical/fictional Loki, God of Chaos, was adopted by the equally mythical/fictional Odin Allfather, supreme God of Norse mythology.

But there was another cause in the news today – the Swedish Cancer Society was lambasting a Swedish swim-suit manufacturer for catalog/ad photos showing tanned women modeling those suits – and the woman in question is Brazilian model Isabeli Fontana who is naturally dark-skinned, and whose color was apparently enhanced by computer, not by massive doses of sunlight.  Yes, skin cancer is an issue, for sure, but women don’t wear micro-bikinis to avoid the sun, and it isn’t the bathing suit manufacturers who lure innocent victims into the sun’s rays – it’s 65 years of post-WW-II sunbathing that has done it.  The swimsuit manufacturer, in this case, was savvy.  They apologized “if anyone was offended,” but didn’t withdraw the ads and didn’t promise to use exotic Brazilian models in future ads.

One of the classic cases of a cause gone too far is Susan G. Komen for the Cure – which flipped and flopped and flipped again, and in the process, offended potential donors on both sides of the Left/Right political divide.

First, for reasons that defy comprehension, they took money donated to them to, as their title mentions, find a cure for breast cancer, and gave it to America’s most popular (or notorious) abortion mill, Planned Parenthood – a move that thrust them into a bitter Left/Right political debate.

Then, they realized that this donation wasn’t part of their core mission – that PP didn’t really perform breast cancer screenings (as promised), so they cancelled the donation.  Planned Parenthood screamed bloody murder.  Donations from pro-choice groups and individuals plummeted (though donations from pro-life groups and individuals soared).

Eventually, due to political and favorable-to-abortion media coverage attacking them for their action, Komen caved in and rescinded their plans to cancel the donation.  And promptly lost support from pro-life donors, who felt betrayed (especially those who’d donated because of Komen’s stance against Planned Parenthood).

Finally, Komen decided to once again fund Planned Parenthood again – proving that some people never learn – this didn’t win back those offended by the original cancellation, but it further offended everyone who objects to Planned Parenthood’s premiere role in abortion in America.  A cause that had been hugely successful, and totally a-political, had become a political football and had lost support – probably for decades, maybe forever – from people on both sides of the totally-irrelevant-to-Komen’s-mission abortion debate.

To wrap this up, perhaps the best example of a good cause going too far is that of the La Leche League of New Zealand, a group which advocates for breast-feeding – they criticized a non-profit’s TV ad aimed at getting people to quit smoking – the ad featured a national-hero Rugby star bottle-feeding his infant daughter, and LLNZ raised immortal hell over this breach of “breast is best” – and in the process, spawned nearly 10,000 critical news articles and TV reports around the world, all mocking their holier-than-thou, self-centered attitude.

That is the best (0r worst) example of a non-profit taking themselves too seriously, and in the process, damaging their own brand.  Not just for themselves in New Zealand, but world-wide.

Bottom line.  Causes need to have some perspective. Whether they object to humor in movies noted for their humor, or whether they get involved in defending their cause at the expense of others – or, perhaps worst of all, if they inject themselves into political debates unnecessarily, causes will do better when they exhibit some perspective.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

But there might be a justification, one that may surprise you, for bringing those two girls out of the protective shadow of privacy and into the harsh light of media scrutiny.  More on that in a moment.

As a father and grandfather myself, I can certainly understand the President’s stated desire to keep his kids out of the public eye, to allow them, to the greatest degree possible, to grow up outside the harsh glare of the public limelight.

And as a father and grandfather, I can understand the White House’s mad scramble to squelch a news story about one of his daughters vacationing – taking spring break – in a Mexican resort … of course, his efforts were limited to the US – the Mexican media (and, presumably, any Mexican bad-guys who might have sought to do something to take advantage of their proximity) already knew all about Sasha’s six-figure spring break vacation.  That spring break get-away cost Americans somewhere around a half-million dollars (she took a dozen or so friends with her, along with a battalion of security forces).

Still, that coverage of her presence in Mexico didn’t intrude on Sasha’s personal life.  It merely reported on her taxpayer-funded travel out of the country, with a huge entourage … odd when you realize that she could go to Camp David for free.  But I guess a 13-year old needs to party down in the Mexican Riviera.  Hey, didn’t you hit the beaches in Mexico when you were 13?  Sure, we all did …

Still, as I said, while the coverage broke the news that she was there, it didn’t intrude into her private life or her deeply personal thoughts on major issues of the day.  But someone else has just done that.

In fact, on Wednesday night 0f this week, ABC TV broke this ban on including the Obama girls into hot-button news stories … they totally trashed this voluntary media ban on keeping the girls out of the public eye.  They put the girls front-and-center in the middle of a contentious, emotion-laden prime time news story.  They blew the girls’ cover right off.

But who at ABC did that?  It wasn’t a reporter.  It wasn’t a producer.  It wasn’t a host.  Just who was the perpetrator of this offensive and unacceptable violation of their privacy?

Barack Hussain Obama.  Their father.  The President.

In a candid, no-holds-barred interview (which couldn’t have been a bigger puff piece of it had been orchestrated by Fleishman-Hillard, the world’s largest PR agency – and a former boss of mine).

Here’s what the President said on ABC last night:  “You know, Malia and Sasha, they’ve got friends whose parents are same-sex couples. And I — you know, there have been times where Michelle and I have been sittin’ around the dinner table. And we’ve been talkin’ and — about their friends and their parents.

“And Malia and Sasha would– it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them. And — and frankly — that’s the kind of thing that prompts — a change of perspective. You know, not wanting to somehow explain to your child why somebody should be treated — differently, when it comes to — the eyes of the law.”

So, in this official ABC transcript (which includes the ridiculous “sittin’” and “talkin’”), the President himself drags his two daughters into the political limelight – using them to help justify his dramatic flip-flop (though he calls that dramatic 180-degree change in views “evolution”) on the issue of Gay Marriage.

This insertion of his daughters into a controversial political issue couldn’t be any more volatile, except, perhaps for his inclusion of them in the abortion debate, which I wrote about here and here in American Thinker back in the spring of 2008.

At that time, Obama said on camera (but on a Saturday, and the media nearly missed it until I blew the whistle on his strategy in American Thinker, and later on Neil Cavuto’s program), “Look, I got two daughters, nine years old and six years old.  I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want to punish them with a baby.”

So even before he was President, Obama was inserting his two daughters into the most controversial political issues imaginable – abortion (including their own hypothetical future abortions) and gay marriage. In the more recent issue, he not only inserted them, but he talked about their own personal views on the issue – even suggesting that their views drove his decision to flip-flop on the issue. If that’s true, we’re being governed by the whims of a 13 year old and a 10 year old who go to elite private schools, live in an armed fortress, are constantly surrounded by guards, and certainly have an objective view of the world at large.

We should also, I guess – as John Denver sang in Rhymes and Reasons – “seek the wisdom of the children” … and govern our nation by that wisdom.

It is here we must begin
To seek the wisdom of the children
And the graceful way of flowers in the wind

For the children and the flowers
Are my sisters and my brothers
Their laughter and their loveliness
Could clear a cloudy day

Like the music of the mountains
And the colors of the rainbow
They’re a promise of the future
And a blessing for today

They were great lyrics back when flower children ruled San Francisco and Woodstock set America’s fashion sensibility, but I hope we’ve learned in the last 40-some years that children are better seen and not heard than consulted for their flower-like wisdom.

So, the question becomes, are Sasha and Malia fair game?  Or should we – respectful journalists ourselves – honor a request, to leave them their privacy as they grow up – even as their father not only ignores their privacy, but blatantly destroys it as he drags them into some of the most contentious political issues facing America today?

Fair’s fair, Mr. President.  Or as Mr. Spock so wisely noted in Star Trek II – The Wrath of Khan, “Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savik.”  If it’s good enough for you, Mr. President, perhaps it’s time for it to be good enough for us.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

And then it started. The election over, many successes under their belt, there was no reason for the Tea party to do anything more…the Tea Party began to fade away. At least that was the perception.

I continued to meet with leaders in the movement, attend various functions, went to numerous “tea party” meetings and watched as the enthusiasm began to wane.  But that enthusiasm, that frustration…that anger was going somewhere…it had to. It did. That enthusiasm went to resolve.

Instead of fading away, like many on the right do after a successful election, the members of the movement did what has never been done before… they turned their visible actions of the 2010 elections to building the foundations for future successes; quietly, focused, behind the scenes and under the radar.

In subsequent elections and primaries the Tea Party is proving to be a force. On 5-8-2012 Dick Lugar (R) Indiana went down to defeat to a Tea Party backed candidate Richard Mourdock , in a recall election the unchallenged Governor Scott Walker (R) Wisconsin received more votes than the two union backed and funded Democrat candidates combined and North Carolina amended its Constitution to protect their right to recognize marriage as that between a man and woman from activists judges. All in all a pretty good day for a party that has been proclaimed dead by many in the media and the establishment right.

The Tea Party is winning. We know who the winners are but who are the losers going to be. The far left, they don’t know the power of the sleeping giant they have awakened. The political punditry  who claim to represent the right …they don’t and are being exposed for what they are. The Republican elite, they are caught up in polls, money and the need to be “understood” by our political opponents. They have forgotten all victories require loyal troops who believe in their leaders…the Tea Party questions their leaders and representatives before they commit to the fight.

I have a concern about one of the losers the local Republican parties. The people that are needed to breathe life and vibrancy into them are committing the efforts elsewhere.  The local parties are now vulnerable to be taken over by the radical elements of the political right. Some already have been.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

About our Guest Blogger, Phil Anderson:  Phil is an active blogger on Nevada politics, and is the founder of Success City Politics, which not only has a political news source (Success City Online) covering Nevada politics, but he has a successful business creating websites for conservative political candidates and conservative businesses. As Phil says, it’s “For Business Entrepreneurs … and Business Friendly Politics.”

“With a full spectrum of new media online services, Success City Politics helps hardworking business people and politicians get their message found online.  They offer Blogs, Internet Talk Radio, Videos, Web site design & new media services.”

After examining their party platform, all I can say about that is, “not so much …”

When I first considered the Libertarian position on abortion, I assumed that – being the Party of Principle” – they would be vehemently against abortion, since they are very clearly vehemently against any action which harms another. The “my freedom to swing my arm stops at your nose …” kind of freedom of action and choice.

I explored their concept of freedom by reading and analyzing their platform – and, looking for an answer to the abortion question,  I thought I’d found it in the very first point in their platform – the one on Personal Liberty:

1.0    Personal Liberty … No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

What is abortion, I asked myself, if it’s not force against an individual?  Abortion is the ultimate force – the force of death imposed on innocent life.  Abortion, in theory, is no different than murder.

Sometimes the question arises, “is the unborn child a person?”  That question has apparently been answered – and the answer is “at conception” – by none other than the White House itself.

Recently, it was revealed that White House Visitors Office Director Ellie Schafer sent an official e-mail to all Congressional offices regarding requests for visitor passes for Congressional members, staff members and constituents.  “We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born. … You MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour.” They even require the listing to be updated after the baby is born.  So even the pro-choice White House considers an unborn child – which they call “a baby that has not yet been born” – to be a person, and they have a very specific procedure for registering this unborn child as a visitor.

Clearly, the “termination” (isn’t that a sanitary word for such a brutal, terminal, deadly process?) of “a baby that has not yet been born” – perhaps one who had already been an official, registered guest at the White House, is an act that is, as the Libertarians describe it, “force against another individual.”

They also sing praises for the 4th Amendment, which also seems to address abortion:

1.2    Personal Privacy:  Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons … Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.

Again, strictly from a logical perspective, ”a baby that has not yet been born” – perhaps one who’d been a registered visitor at the White House (and therefore who’d been officially recognized as a “person” by the President of the United States) – could not be considered secure in his or her person when faced with abortion, and if the termination of life isn’t an infringement on the rights of others, what IS an infringement?

However, Libertarians (in their party platform), go further, staunchly defending the right to self-defense:

1.6    Self-Defense:  The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life … against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual … 

Since the ”baby that has not yet been born” – who may have already been registered by his or her Congressman as a person going on an official visit to the White House – cannot properly defend him- or herself, the Libertarian Party platform even seems to proclaim the right of others to defend that unborn person’s rights (including the right to life).

But then they blow it all, and prove how shallow and blowing-in-the-wind they really are. Instead of defending society’s truly most helpless individuals – after all, who could be more helpless than “a baby that has not yet been born?” – the party takes a stand that abortion is an individual matter.  They’ll protect, apparently, the rights of every other person to life, and to be free from assault, and they even invoke the Constitution to affirm that right.  But when it comes to “a baby that has not yet been born“, who may have already officially met the President, having been duly registered as a person who is an official, counted guest of the White House, the Libertarians take a pass.

It is shameful, but after all that highfalutin, pompous proclamation of the rights of the individual to be secure in their person, to be secure from assault, and to defend him/herself (or to have others defend them), they bail.  Cave in.  Collapse in intellectual inconsistency.  Prove that, sadly,the first two syllables of their name mean “Liberal” instead of “Freedom.”

Here it is:

1.4    Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

That’s not really Michelle Obama’s fault – it’s not even the Obama Administration’s fault (let’s not be petty about this); but it is very much a sound metaphor for how what the Administration does do is full of leaks and needs major repairs to set right (if they can be fixed at all).

I’m a big fan of the Coast Guard – I have nothing but admiration for this force which takes pride in its motto – they have to go out (to save lives), but they don’t have to come back … which means that their mission to save others takes precedent over their own self-preservation.  It doesn’t get much more heroic than that.  But the Guard is only as good as its equipment, just as the Administration is only as good as the misguided programs – the laws, the regs, the seemingly endless Executive Orders – that are filled with leaks and are, sadly, doing so much damage to our country, even when (with the proper design, and proper construction) their programs could do so much for America.

Like this sadly flawed ship, the Obama Administration is filled with holes, and only a dry-docking (and in some cases, scrapping and completely rebuilding) will fix what they created.

Here’s the link to the Coast Guard story:  http://blog.sfgate.com/inalameda/2012/05/09/first-lady-commissioned-ship-springs-a-leak/

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

This is a guest blog, written by Orrin Johnson, a Northern Nevada Public Defender, and a very capable blogger.  In this blog, he is reporting on the Republican State Convention in Sparks, Nevada, where the Paulistas hijacked the state convention and the state’s delegation to the National Republican Convention:

Ron Paul supporters in Nevada had their crowning achievement this weekend – they “took over” the state party.  It took them four years of planning, coordination, and subterfuge, but they won a smashing victory over the weekend by sticking it to “The Establishment”.

And in doing so, they (at best) did nothing.  At worst, they immeasurably damaged the cause of liberty in this state, and indeed, perhaps the entire nation.

~~~

Some commentators, like the Reno Gazette-Journal’s editorial today, have risably claimed that the Ron Paul contingent “understands the dynamics of party politics better than the party rank and file”.  But this is simply untrue, because the Paul people forgot the underlying purpose of the party in the first place.  What they did was the equivalent of singing a song in a foreign language you don’t know – you can learn to mimic the sounds perfectly, but that doesn’t mean you understand the meaning of the lyrics.

Ron Paul state campaign chair Carl Bunce proudly says that his people are “driving the car” now that they’ve caught it. Does he know they’re driving it off the cliff?

Let’s review.  The purpose of a political party is to help candidates from that party win elections.  Period.  If you can’t influence election outcomes, you are irrelevant in politics and policy debates.  Party members, committees, and delegates don’t set tax rates, ratify treaties, confirm judges, pass or repeal regulations, produce budgets, select cabinet appointments, or in any other way directly control the actual policies which govern our everyday lives and our economic futures.

The only way a party influences actual policy is if it influences elections.  The only way for a party to do that is to have power and influence over who runs and who can get elected.  Traditionally, parties do that by raising money for candidates, and by making themselves indispensable to the actual job of winning an election via volunteers, influence, credibility, and resources like walk lists, voter rolls, and precinct maps.

The Ron Paul Revolutionaries, however have shown a remarkable INability to accomplish any of the things that influences candidates.  Consider:

• Ron Paul supporter James Smack took over as temporary chairman back in February, and then promptly fired the Finance Chair – very likely costing the state party tens of thousands of dollars.  Since that decision, the party’s fundraising has been nothing short of pathetic ($53K cash on hand in March compared to $400,000 for the Dems, as reported by Jon Ralston a few weeks ago) – exactly as I had predicted.
• Speaking of Smack, his tenure coincided with an actual reverse in the progress Republicans had been making in closing the registration gap with Democrats statewide.  Attempts to use the caucus as a tool to register additional Republicans were rejected by these folks on the most distant paranoia of voter fraud.  (How ironic that these same people are now claiming the caucus vote didn’t matter anyway…)
• Ron Paul state campaign chair Carl Bunce recently told Steve Sebelius, when asked about the ability to raise funds, “I don’t care, first of all.”  Yeah – no one needs money to win elections in this media age!  Bunce went on to imagine a fantasy world where secret and wealthy Paul supporters come out of the woodwork when “they see the party running like-minded candidates,” in spite of this never happening in history even where “like minded candidates” have run for office.
• The state GOP will get a fundraising boost from the convention fees collected this weekend (that’s one of the purposes of a convention), and I’m sure Paulestinean-supported GOP state chair Michael McDonald will claim it’s part of a trend.  But with no other major fundraising event between now and November, such a “trend” will almost certainly be ephemeral.  McDonald himself only recently emerged from bankruptcy, has a history of ethics issues related to public funds, and would have lost his house but for a shortsale bailout from an old political crony.  It’s hard to see any serious donor handing significant amounts of money to a guy like that, particularly when there are plenty of alternatives.
• Ron Paul himself has failed to win a single primary or caucus.  Even where he and Romney were (or effectively were) the only two on the ballot, voters rejected the Paul message (and his supporters) by wide, wide margins.  Today was Indiana’s primary, and voters there overwhelmingly voted for Romney while also (rightly) turning out Richard Lugar for not being conservative enough.  Paul came in a distant second – fewer people voted for him than voted for people not even in the race any more (same for West Virginia and North Carolina today).  Why would any candidate think this “machine” could deliver for them here or anywhere?
• The caucus results here in Nevada showed that the vast majority of even the most dedicated Republican activists (those who came out to vote in a low-turnout caucus) were not Paul fans.  In November (and even in June), it will be these types of regular voters who decide the outcome, not 1,000 Council on Foreign Relations fearing, wild-eyed anti-Republicans.  Candidates will recognize (because they talk to more people than just the hard line activists) that more people are actively repulsed by what they saw this weekend than are energized by it.
• Many Paul supporters are quite open that they’ll vote for Paul or no one, and even if they don’t, the Paul campaign already has been caught urging supporters to lie about their true plans.  Any candidate for public office will assume at this point that Paul supporters are unreliable at best, dishonest at worst, and will act accordingly – just as Governor Sandoval, Dean Heller, and Joe Heck did by finding other things to do over the weekend of the convention.
• Carl Bunce already announced that the long term plan is to oust guys like Dean Heller and Joe Heck for their insufficient purity.  Why would any candidate or official adjust his policy positions to please a group already dedicated to their ouster?
• Ron Paul candidates have already run against more traditional conservatives (in a real vote amongst the general public, of course), and when they do, they lose miserably.  Smack lost to Dean Heller by over 76 percentage points back in 2008.  No leading GOP candidate for any state or local office that I’m aware of claims to be a member of the Paul Revolution (even if some candidates may be carefully courting Paul voters).
• Nevada Republicans learned a hard, hard, hard lesson in 2010 – a candidate who is able to be painted as too fringe, too crazy, and insufficiently competent will lose winnable races to unpopular liberal Democrats.  Visit the comments in any Ron Paul-supporting website, twitter feed, or Facebook group – the crazy is built right in.  I’m all for tackling our debt in a more serious way than most GOP candidates seem to want to, but I’m not so into blaming America for 9/11 (or suggesting it was an “inside job”), or worrying about the CFR, the Bilderbergs, or the Jooooooooos (always politely referred to as “Zionists,” of course).  Even if these legitimate nutters are in the minority in Paul circles, they are a significant enough minority (and are tolerated and accepted without rebuke by the majority, to be sure) to easily paint the whole movement with that brush.

During a GOP meeting in Vegas, I saw a car in a parking lot with his Ron Paul bumper sticker prominently displayed beside his “9/11 Was An Inside Job” bumper sticker. I certainly would be embarassed to be associated with a campaign that drew ANY number of these types of folks.

• The apparatus of the party has never been less of a monopoly.  Obtaining voter data in a format easily manipulable and targetable is now something any moderately competent campaign manager can do, and do inexpensively.  Presumptive legislative caucus leaders Pat Hickey and Mike Roberson are already aggressively assuming the roles of statewide coordinators for various campaigns, sharing message discipline and resources and doling out endorsements even in primary races.  And many folks who would otherwise volunteer with the party will no longer do so in a party bent on self destruction (count me among that number), and will instead volunteer directly with individual campaigns.  The National Republican Party has deployed its own independent staff to assist Republican candidates in Nevada independently of the state party – further underscoring the expected ineffectiveness of the Revolutionaries.
• The Paul folks simply have no intellectual credibility.  For people who wave around the Constitution like a bloody shirt, prominent Paul folks (like James Smack) are astoundingly ignorant of what that document actually contains.  That even goes for Paul himself.  Locally, our governor is the first in our state’s history to actually decrease the size of our state government (by $500 million!) – but many Paul folks still wanted to pass a resolution censuring him for being insufficiently fiscally conservative – are you kidding?
• Paul folks don’t have any moral credibility, either.  There are plenty of people fed up with corruption and elitism in politics.  But given the Paul campaign’s previous exhortations to lie in order to get ahead (and not just here), as well as their tortured and infinitely flexible logic in justifying their plan of disregarding every binding primary vote when they get to Tampa, even those who might be convinced by the Paul message will know that no one in the Paul camp can be trusted to stick to principle or to keep their word.  As a local example, how many of those Ron Paul delegate candidates informed their precinct caucuses that they’d be fighting to unbind state delegates in favor of Paul even if he lost the vote?  I bet it’s a big fat zero – a lie by omission if ever there was one.

The only thing Paul folks showed they could do was make a ruckus at a convention that most Republicans didn’t think was meaningful enough to attend in the first place (given their expectation that their delegates were bound by their votes in the caucuses).  The Paul folks did displace our national party representatives, but given new National Committeeman James Smack’s demonstrated inability to raise money, win elections, register new voters, or so much as get the sitting governor and US Senator of his own party to attend the convention he planned, it’s doubtful either he or new National Committeewoman Diana Orrock would have any influence.  Performance, merit, and results matter to true conservatives, after all.

In short, nothing that happened in Sparks this weekend eliminated a dime in wasteful government spending, reduced a tax rate by an iota, or simplified a single regulatory scheme. Indeed, by pushing Republican candidates away from the putative base of the party, it probably made those things less likely to happen.

~~~

So why am I upset by all of this if the Paul people can’t get their way in the end?  Ironically, it has a lot to do with the fact that I agree with many of the Paul campaign’s broader thrusts.

By marginalizing themselves, these Paul folks are marginalizing libertarianism in general.  I’m not a libertarian in the strictest sense (I think they ignore the importance of culture and tradition in protecting liberty), but the GOP needs more of that philosophy infused into the party as a check against the “Big Government in the Name of Jesus” types – particularly if we’re to have credibility on debt and spending issues.

It was a good idea to work within the party and pull the center of gravity further to the right, as opposed to just running third party.  But instead of working with existing party folks who are sympathetic to the economic arguments Paul makes, the Paulestineans attack them for insufficient purity if they haven’t yet learned to worship fully and unquestioningly the Gospel According to St. Paul.   (“Paulestinean” because they’ll blow themselves up along with everything around them if they can’t get 100% of everything they want.)  This drives away far more volunteers or even new registrants than it attracts, and will make more traditional GOP activists far more reluctant to trust the younger generation, as they eventually must.

That’s true of candidates and elected officials too.  The more insane “The Party” looks, the more distant these folks (aware of the lesson of Sharron Angle) will want to get in order to stay viable in a general election.  That’s true both organizationally and in terms of policy positions – does anyone think this weekend’s embarrassment will make Governor Sandoval re-think his stance on the tax sunset extensions?  How ironic that the Republican Party is pushing Republican candidates farther to the left.

Finally, by making the party irrelevant, they’ve completely wasted the last year or two of hard work many of us have done in trying to rebuild the party’s strength and credibility.  And even though candidates have other tools available to them, The Paul folks have taken away what should be one of the most effective tools (the party organization) away from GOP candidates who actually want to win elections but can’t afford to be seen too close to a group widely viewed as self-destructive and crazy.

Nationally, the most Paul supporters can do is be embarrassing at the convention – sending signals to independent voters who may not like Obama that the alternative party as a whole is untrustworthy and downright crazy/scary.  That’s what happened to the Democrats in 1968 when their convention descended into chaos.  Such a scenario wouldn’t just hurt Romney – it would negatively impact Republicans up and down ballots nationwide.  Even in the unlikely event Paul supporters could wrangle the nomination for him, most Republicans would never view a “win” in this manner as legitimate, and would not support him in the general.  You don’t advance the cause of liberty by functionally stealing elections.

“Is the dark side stronger?” “No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive… Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”

In other words, the Paul folks can hurt, even if they can’t help.  They can destroy, but they can’t create.  They set back the cause of liberty, even while claiming to champion it.  How terribly frustrating this all is to a true conservative who gets that his cause is nothing without being able to win elections.

~~~

So tell me again – just what exactly did all these Ron Paul supporters actually “win”?

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

First, let me give my perspective on the meaning of “Conservative.”  A Conservative is someone who:

• Believes that government should be both small and local – that the bigger the Federal government, the more intrusive it has to be into the lives of individuals.
• Believes that taxes should be small, and necessary – they see government waste as nothing short of armed robbery (if you don’t believe it’s armed robbery – just withhold paying taxes and see who comes to the door, and look at what he’s got on his right hip).
• Believes that the Bill of Rights means exactly what it says – about freedom of belief and expression, about self-defense, about unreasonable searches, and about the size and role of the Federal government.
• Believes that my rights end when they interfere with your rights (i.e., I can swing my arm, but I can’t punch you in the nose).
• Believes that my private choices – i.e., those which do not hurt or infringe on the life of others – are my choices, not yours (or the government’s) to make or judge – but that choices which do impinge on others are justifiably judged by society and government

With that all in mind, let me discuss some intolerance I see among some who profess to be Conservatives – who say they believe in these basic points, yet they all-too-often want (even demand) the government – the awful and awesome power of the State – to enforce their beliefs and prejudices on others.  So let’s get started …

First, PC judgments: The most dangerous kind of intolerance is that which is hidden, not perceived as such.  Here I’m referring to those Conservatives who abhor “political correct” points of view – PC being, of course, nothing but imposed restrictions on free speech, free expression, free (and legal) behavior – yet, who want to use the same kind of force on those who disagree with them.  Who say outrageous things, or act out in (legal) but truly outrageous fashion.  They want to ban wearing “low-rider” jeans that seem to hang around someone’s knees.  Or ban Rap (or is it Hip Hop – I can never keep them straight) because the lyrics are so over-the-top.  Or … fill in the blank, plugging in legal but obnoxious, offensive, absurd, outrageous or just plain gross behavior.  Fellow Conservatives, we cannot object to far-left Liberal PC mandates and restrictions while at the same time imposing the same KIND of standards on others.  As Mr. Spock said in the 2nd Star Trek Movie, “Sauce for the Goose, Mr. Savik.”  Or, as my son used to day, “what goes around, comes around.”

Next, racial Judgments:  There is a Liberal rap against Conservatives that we hate minorities – blacks, Hispanics, Asians, you name it.  They often point to a dying-out generation of Southern conservative Republicans who hearken back to the pre-Civil Rights days of the 60s, forgetting that they had been Democrats for generations, and left that party only after the McGovern wing began to dominate national politics.  And those who claim that Conservatives don’t like Blacks forget the long and honorable list of Black and Hispanic Conservatives.  Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell (when he was Reagan’s National Security Adviser, before the State Department corrupted him), Jeb Bush (married a Hispanic, making children, and Bush 43′s nieces and nephews Hispanic, too), Nevada’s own Governor, Brian Sandoval.

Many Conservatives have a strong dislike for the Welfare state, and for those who choose to live on the public dole.  And it’s true that many of those people are black – but many are also white, or some other minority.  The same can apply to illegal aliens – many Conservatives strongly resent their flouting of our laws, their choice to suck on the public teat, and to take jobs from Americans here legally who can’t find work.  All of those are legitimate concerns.  However, equally legitimately, it’s important to NOT confuse a sub-group who make personal choices with a larger group defined only by skin color or national origin.  It’s especially important because, as well all saw when the media was (with so much bias) “covering” the Tea Party, how disproportionately they “covered” any Tea Party member who did anything which might have been skewed into race hatred or bigotry.

We need to attract all Conservatives to our cause, no matter their skin color or national origin, and to make those on the fence feel welcome and at home in the Conservative movement.

Next, faith-based judgements:  Many (though not all) Conservatives in America are also professing Christians (of course, a majority of all Americans are professing Christians, but more Conservatives are also Christian than is true with Liberals).  Sadly, some Christians are intolerant – usually, but not always, pointing to the Old Testament (which is filled with proscriptions about lifestyle and behavioral choices) to justify their intolerant choices.  To them, two things:  First, if they cut their hair and shave, how do they square that with Leviticus 19 (which basically says, though I’m paraphrasing:  Cut not the corners of thy head, nor round the corners of thy beard, for I am the Lord).  They choose which behaviors or choices to condemn, but let others slip by, which is inconsistent at best.  However, I’m more of a New Testament guy myself, and I recall Jesus’ commandment:  “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”  Conservatives should not be intolerant – and to me, that especially applies to Conservative Christians.

Judging Gays:  This overall Christian judgmentalism may be related to the intolerance some Conservatives seem to hold against Gays, especially those “Old Testament” Conservatives who believe that the State should stand in for God in enforcing what they believe are God’s views of Gays and the Gay lifestyle.  It is true that Gay “activitists” are way over there on the far Left side of Liberal. As a group and a cause, they are trying to use the awesome power of the State to impose their beliefs – and to force society to embrace their issues and causes.  Frankly, I’ve got no use at all for that, or for any of that, and I especially resent their intrusions into public schools, trying to use tax dollars and government employees to force their views on innocent children. Yet I know many Gays who are conservatives, who want a small government, small taxes, minimal intrusion from government in anyone’s lives – i.e., the things all true Conservatives embrace.  I believe (and urge all Conservatives) to differentiate between the “Gay Cause” (or, even worse, “Gay Predators”) and individuals who are Gay, but who may also be Conservative and who respect the rights of others.

Before any Conservative condemns Gays, I’d like to ask them if every private choice they make in their lives has been sanctioned by God – or if, perhaps, they may make personal choices that were, at one time, proscribed by both Church and State. Then I’d ask them, “do you want the State to enter your bedroom (or any other room) and not only judge, but punish

Judging Muslims:  Next, since the rise of the tidal wave of Muslim-fueled terrorism in American – which dates back to the early 1990s, shortly after the fall of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our successful first war against Saddam Hussain – and especially after 9/11/2001, it has become fashionable among some Conservatives to attack and condemn not just extremist Muslims but all Muslims.  I have seen it go so far as to have Conservatives assert that the Muslim faith is a false faith.  I am not an adherent of that faith, nor do I personally consider Mohammed to have been a legitimate prophet of God Almighty, but I also know that I’m not the last word on this topic.

I know many Muslims who live good and moral lives and who seem honestly convicted of their beliefs – even some who are clearly Conservatives.  I have trusted my life and health to Muslim physicians (and I’m still here to tell about it) – and I respect people of any faith who are sincere in their beliefs.  Which is something I believe all Conservatives should embrace.  We honor the Bill of Rights, we Conservatives, and that includes the freedom of religion.  I’ve got no use for Muslim extremists, and I would gladly throw the switch on any terrorist, regardless of his twisted belief system – but I urge all my fellow Conservatives to be tolerant of those decent and peace-loving, law-abiding Muslims who believe in Allah, and who are, after all, merely other followers of the God of Abraham.

Judging Mormons:  Naturally, with a professing, believing Mormon all but certain to win the nomination to represent the Conservative side of the political battle for President in 2012, it’s not surprising that some – most of them believing and conservative Christians (who nonetheless forgot what Jesus said about judging) want to judge Mitt Romney’s faith as being “not really” Christian.  Many go as far as to say it’s a “cult,” while overlooking the fact that for its first three centuries of existence, Christianity itself was viewed as a “cult” by the majority in society.

I’m not sure when something goes from being a “cult” to being a “religion” – I suspect that there’s some “critical mass” in terms of membership.  About.com says that on December 31, 2010, there were 14.1 million Mormons worldwide.  However, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, there were 13,421,000 Jews worldwide.  Few would question that Judaism is a religion, yet in terms of raw membership, the Mormon faith is larger – and while the Jewish population worldwide is relatively static, the Mormon faith is growing annually at a rate of nearly half a million members a year.

Some will contend that population count is irrelevant, that “cult” status has more to do with the nature of a faith than it’s body count.  Yet to outsiders, the eucharist is seen (by some) as a form of ritual cannibalism – in short, to anyone outside of a given faith, some elements of a belief could be presented to look “cultic.”  I would just urge all Conservatives to remember the First Amendment, and to accord to any believer the integrity of his or her faith.  You may not share it, but if they’re sincere in their belief, accord them the same respect you’d expect in return.

Finally Judging Jews:  I would have hoped that Hitler would have put anti-Semitism to shame, discrediting it for all time.  Certainly, Vatican II – by banishing for all time the charge of “Christ Killers” – demolished the last “legitimate” reason for any sane person to have a special hatred for the Jews.  Yet there remains a festering hatred of Jews – and often, as a “legitimate” surrogate, especially among Liberals who never met a terrorist they didn’t love, Israel.  For many years, I’d presumed this was real only among Liberals and among “Archie Bunker bigots” who basically hated everyone, including Jews.

However, with all the rhetoric I’ve heard from some elements of the larger Ron Paul movement – people apparently attracted to Dr. Paul’s cause because of his support for Iran’s nuclear program and his advocacy of cutting Israel loose (in economic and military terms) from any historical alliance with the U.S.  That has served to lay a foundation on which they can build their attacks on “Zionism” (“Zion” being a code-name for Israel, which is in turn a substitute for “Jew” among anti-Semitic bigots).

I have no idea how many anti-Semites populate the Ron Paul movement, but it troubles me that he doesn’t actively reject their views.  He’s grown in popularity among fringes (drug legalizers, anti-Semites, conspiracy addicts, etc.) because he has chosen to cast a broad umbrella that would cover any group which will only support him. If they do, they’re welcome, no matter how odious – or how downright ridiculous – their beliefs.  Sadly, these people are conflated with “Conservative” – though most Conservatives wouldn’t recognize them as brothers, or even as neighbors.

Ron Paul won’t condemn them – they’re part of his strategy – but I will.

No person can be a Conservative and hate or judge others based on faith, or religion, national origin or skin color, lifestyle choice (as long as it’s in private, and hurts no-one).  There is no room in the Conservative movement for bigots, racists or haters of any kind.  We need to be the true Big Tent – to be truly inclusive and welcoming of all who share our core beliefs.  If you embrace what the Bill of Rights was meant to be – if you accord others the same rights and respect that you expect from them – if you want a small and non-intrusive government funded by the bare minimum of your tax dollars necessary to do what they must do (and nothing else), they you are my brother, my sister, my comrade in arms.  I welcome you to the Good Fight, the fight for liberty and a sane, secure America. A country where there is no hatred, no racism, no bigotry.  Only freedom and respect, one for another.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

I didn’t realize it, but I wasn’t alone in this view.  Glenn Beck reported that Mr. Newt agreed with me:  “Just a few days ago,” Beck wrote today, “Newt Gingrich declared the Tea Party dead, claiming they no longer have any influence. Newt knows a thing or two about having no influence given that he himself has none, but in this case he has been proven wrong. The Tea Party scored a huge primary win as long time Republican Dick Lugar was sent packing.”

That’s right. The Tea Party scored a huge win, sending RINO Lugar to the showers.  They didn’t do it alone. The NRA (note – I’m a life-member) is high-fiving and counting coup over this defeat, because Lugar apparently never met a gun control law he didn’t love.  And Romney’s got to be excited (though if he’s smart, he’ll keep that to himself – Lugar did have supporters), because though many conservatives are somnambulant over a Romney candidacy, in swing-state Indiana, they’ll now have a reason to wake up and go to the polls in November.

So what’s next for the Tea Party and it’s influence in November?  Obamacare is what’s next.  The Supremes are about to decide, one way or another, about this legislative abomination, and that will have an impact on the election, and on the Tea Party.  It was, after all, Obamacare’s pending passage which helped ignite the Tea Party in 2009 and fuel that powerful grass-roots movement in 2010.  But since the law moved from Congress to the courts, there wasn’t much for the Tea Party to get excited about, or to motivate its members to get (or stay) involved.  But …

If the Court rules it Constitutional (God help us), it will become imperative for the GOP to elect a conservative majority in both Houses, as well as to replace Obama with ANYBODY (meaning Romney) who will support the legislative effort to overturn that law, and to remove – by Executive Order, if necessary – the regulations it has already spawned.  This will ignite the Tea Party like nothing we’ve seen since 2010.

However, even if the Court rules Obamacare to be unconstitutional, we’ll still need (and see) a Tea Party re-awakening.  Emperor Barack the First has already shown his passion for ruling by Executive Fiat – he even said recently that, since Congress wasn’t willing to act, he would have to … and that’s one pledge he’s followed through with, signing a blizzard of Executive Orders which (in my opinion both illegally and unconstitutionally) are dramatically reshaping America.  If the Court overturns Obamacare, it won’t take him long to begin restoring it via Executive Order.  That will also re-ignite the Tea Party, pushing them to elect a veto-proof Conservative Congress and to replace Obama with, again, ANYBODY (meaning Romney).

Having seen that the Tea Party is still viable in the midwest – and hoping that same power will help in Wisconsin to keep the union-busting Governor in office – I’m now hoping that whatever the Supreme Court rules about Obamacare within the next month or so will serve to re-energize the Tea Party across the nation, to help us all elect conservative Congressmen, conservative Senators, and a far more conservative President Romney in November.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …

In 2009, America erupted in a passionate frenzy of grass-roots patriotic involvement in the fate of their country.  It started spontaneously, it grew spontaneously, it had profound influence spontaneously, and now, perhaps, it is fading spontaneously.  Is it a victim of its own success? Or is there some other factor leading to the slow fade?  Has it faded as opposition to it has also faded?  Or is this perceived downturn just a phase in a much longer, stronger and more influential movement?  Perhaps it’s some of all of the above.

When the Tea Party burst onto the scene on February 1, 2009, nobody realized that a great groundswell of anger and frustration, tempered by a passionate respect for the Constitution had been born.  And with that passion came almost immediate derision from, primarily, liberal commentators and comics.  “Tea Bagger” (a rather vulgar term for a particularly graphic gay-sex act) became a common put-down that was technically broadcast-acceptable – and even acceptable for mainstream liberal politicians to say in public – though all the smirking hip insiders knew what it referred to. But that was just one of many put-downs that, instead of deterring the tea party movement, seemed to add fuel to the fire of the participants’ passion for change.

On the other side, the evolution of Obamacare – which was created behind closed doors with no input from Republicans, conservatives or, as Bill O’Reilly calls them, “regular folks.”  And by the million, “regular folks” hated and feared Obamacare – it became a rallying cry and focal point for their anger, their rage and their patriotic passion.

Faced with a government that seemed both totally out of touch and hell-bent on stripping them of both political liberty and tax dollars, mostly middle-aged, mostly white, and mostly never-before-politically-active folks came together.  They did this, again, spontaneously – using “Meet up” and social networking to connect up and come together.  They (dare I say it, spontaneously) began attending and peacefully disrupting political “Town Hall”meetings, forcing politicians to actually answer tough questions and confront people who weren’t just supporters.

Many small, regional, national and Internet groups were formed, but they were all grass-roots movements, without much in the way of organizational structure and without any “official” leaders.  Not surprisingly, existing political leaders and political organizations – including the Republican Party – tried to assume or co-opt the leadership of the Tea Party movement.

Perhaps the closest to such a group was the Tea Party Express – created by a California PAC that was, in turn, created and controlled by a conservative Sacramento ad agency – it caught the attention of Fox News, many prominent conservative politicians and even entertainers – but it never proved able to insert leadership beyond, perhaps, helping the political neophyte Sharron Angle to grab the nomination from “anointed” Republican Party mainstream candidate Sue Lowden.  Sharron was a poor candidate, and lost to Harry Reid in a year when Republicans otherwise swept Nevada’s key positions, and when Tea Party-supported candidates won Congressional seats from Utah to Florida.

But there was never any official Tea Party organization that could speak for this spontaneous, grass-roots, ground-up movement.

Nonetheless, the Tea Party exerted significant pressure on local, state and Congressional elections in 2010, and helped the Republicans retake the House and nearly retake the Senate.  Pundits predicted that it would remain powerful and significant in 2012 and beyond – that it would be “institutionalized” and made permanent, even as it remained leader-less and spontaneous and grass-roots – the true vox populi of a suddenly re-born political movement.

I was one of the relative few who felt that the Tea Party was an ephemeral and transitory movement.  Perhaps because I became the Communications Director of both the Clark County (Las Vegas) Republican Party AND the Nevada Republican Party as part of the grass roots Tea Party effort that took control of the party from the country club establishment.

However, I quickly (and sadly) learned that the old saw about power corrupting was true – the grass roots activists who grabbed power were either already inclined toward a personalized focus on power – or they came to love-too-much the sense of power they had, and quickly lost sight of their idealism.  It wasn’t long before I moved on – I didn’t sign on to obtain or exercise power, and when I realized my role involved helping others grab and hold personal power, I decided I’d rather be an independent once again.

Or perhaps I felt that the Tea Party was a passing movement, not a permanent sea change in American politics, because I’d seen other “movements,” from the true-believer Goldwater supporters of ’64 to the Reagan revolution of ’80, to Ross Perot in ’92 (until he melted down after his gaffe at the NAACP convention in Nashville).  I knew that all had come out of nowhere, burst on the scene, made an impact, then faded from view.  Passion that intense cannot maintain its intensity for long – it either morphs into an organization, or it fades away.  I didn’t see it morphing.

Which is why I haven’t been surprised to see the visibility and the apparent power of the Tea Party waning.  In 2012, there is no national Tea Party Express to focus attention.  There is no Glenn Beck show to provide a national cheer-leading platform to help call together true believers and activists.  There don’t even seem to be any political Town Hall Meetings to focus attention and give Tea Partiers something to do with their passion.  Where Moderate Republican Bob Bennett was stripped of his Senatorial position as Utah’s junior senator with no problem, today’s “tea party” in Utah barely forced the far more RINO/moderate Orrin Hatch into a primary run-off.

That’s just one example of what seems to be the waning power of the Tea Party.  Another is the almost total lack of ridicule or criticism from the liberal chattering class, criticism that seemed to get Tea Party members’ backs up and gets them motivated to come together, to act, to make a difference.  Persecution can be a strong motivator – but apathy among opponents can sap any movement of much of it’s passion.

I think that one reason that the Tea Party has faded is Obamacare – when it was a legislative issue, people could get involved.  But now that it’s being decided by the courts, there’s nothing to get involved with, and when the courts decide, that will be the end of it. Either it’s unconstitutional and gone from view … or it’s constitutional and the law of the land.

It’s not clear, yet, that the Tea Party has run its course. It may bounce back.  It may rediscover its focus, its passion, its purpose and its impact. Yet I find it perhaps telling that the Left’s equivalent of the Tea Party – the Occupy movement – almost completely failed to turn May Day into a national eruption of liberal passion.  Like the Tea Party, it seems to have faded as well.  There were a few exceptions, but those were relatively few … nothing akin to what their pre-May Day promises (threats?) which made it seem that cities across America would be shut down by hundreds of thousands (instead of hundreds) of Occupy protestors.

This election season may yet stir passions on the Right, or on the Left, but as is often the case in “re-election” years, passions fade and both sides have to struggle to raise money or get the vote out, let alone creating spontaneous public acting out.  If conservatives want to replace Obama and return both houses of Congress to the Right, they’re going to have to find a way of reigniting the passion of the Tea Party.

Sadly, I can only wish them “good luck,” and without much confidence.

Ned Barnett – Nevada Conservative

Ned Barnett has worked in campaigns, and as a speechwriter to candidates and elected officials, since he was the “mascot” to the local Young Republicans in 1964 (Goldwater) – he has managed media and strategy for three state-level Presidential campaigns, and worked hand-in-glove with the legendary Lee Atwater in South Carolina in the Ford Campaign.  In 2009-10, as an active Tea Party supporter, he served as both the Clark County/Las Vegas and Nevada Republican Party Communications Director.  He owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, and provides a full range of PR, marketing, issues-management and fund-raising services for clients in Las Vegas, around the country, and in several other countries.  He can be reached at 702-561-1167 or ned@barnettmarcom.com …