TexasCHLforum.com

Did anyone here attend the "We Texans" dinner & rally at the Fairmount in Dallas last night?
Debra Medina, Judge Napolitano (sp?) were the speakers. I've spoken to two that attended and
they thought it was excellent. The speakers asked the crowd how many were delegates to the
GOP convention.....at least 75% raised their hands. Here's the rub so to speak, and IMHO a
major blunder on the part of the local GOP. The GOP State Convention is being held at the
Dallas Convention Center..... "We Texans" was denied access or space for a booth???????
What? If the "powers that be" of the GOP think the elections will be a slam dunk, think again.
They need to INCLUDE "We Texans", they need to listen and align with the local Tea Parties....
folks are tired of the business as usual politics. Tired of BHO, tired of being taxed to death,
tired of Rep and Dem politicians putting themselves first and ignoring the people they're
supposed to be serving.
The GOP needs to pull in as many conservative voters and groups as possible. Not intentionally
offend potential allies in defeating BHO and the spend happy, ultra liberal, how fast can we
wreck America congress currently in power.

I tracked Medina pretty heavily through her campaign and I'm pretty sure that her organization is called "We Texans" and not "We Texas".

Having said that, I think it's appalling that they are not being allowed to participate in the convention. Medina did get 19% of the primary vote. It's pretty sound advice not to shun candidates that at least a fifth of primary voters support, especially when you consider the anti-incumbent sentiment among those voters.

It makes me think Brewster had the right idea with None of the Above. If enough people committed to throwing out incumbents consistently for a few terms, it might scare the politicians long enough to give us some long overdue term limits.

idrathernot wrote:I tracked Medina pretty heavily through her campaign and I'm pretty sure that her organization is called "We Texans" and not "We Texas".

Having said that, I think it's appalling that they are not being allowed to participate in the convention. Medina did get 19% of the primary vote. It's pretty sound advice not to shun candidates that at least a fifth of primary voters support, especially when you consider the anti-incumbent sentiment among those voters.

It makes me think Brewster had the right idea with None of the Above. If enough people committed to throwing out incumbents consistently for a few terms, it might scare the politicians long enough to give us some long overdue term limits.

You're correct. Original post edited. Thank you.

gemini wrote:

....tired of Rep and Dem politicians putting themselves first and ignoring the people they're
supposed to be serving...

Me too! I still say that we need to fire all 545 of 'em and start over with term limits for all INCLUDING Federal Judges. While we're on a roll, Civil Service should also be abolished and let those people work under the same conditions as the rest of us.

Did I miss anybody?

Oldgringo wrote: Me too! I still say that we need to fire all 545 of 'em and start over with term limits for all INCLUDING Federal Judges. While we're on a roll, Civil Service should also be abolished and let those people work under the same conditions as the rest of us.

Did I miss anybody?

The police and military.

Oldgringo wrote:While we're on a roll, Civil Service should also be abolished and let those people work under the same conditions as the rest of us.

Did I miss anybody?

Civil Service was originally established to replace the spoils system, in which the cronies of the newly elected were given all the government jobs. The intent was that jobs and promotions would be based on merit, not on who you knew. Arguably, some of that intent has been corrupted over the years, but I don't think you'd like whatever replaced it, if it were abolished.

Oldgringo wrote:
Me too! I still say that we need to fire all 545 of 'em and start over with term limits for all INCLUDING Federal Judges. While we're on a roll, Civil Service should also be abolished and let those people work under the same conditions as the rest of us.

Did I miss anybody?

I understand this sentiment but take issue with the term limit issue.

I understand the concept of term limits. The idea that politics should be a vocation and not a career is a great idea and one our Founding Fathers appear to have supported. Term limits would enable this concept to be inherent in law.

However, as a conservative - and one who leans fairly libertarian - I think the government telling me I'm not allowed to vote for someone because some arbitrary time limit has been reached is the wrong way to go. Term limits sound great when it prevents someone I don't like from running again, simply because I don't like them. But if my dislike of the person is a minority opinion, and the majority of voters like the person and continue to vote them in, I can either sit back and say "That's the way things were designed by the Founders" or I can up and move somewhere the representation more closely fits my point of view.

I want the government out of my life and out of my business as much as is possible. Telling me I'm not allowed to vote for someone I may want to still vote for if I think that person is doing a great job representing me and my views is government interference in my vote. Having someone I don't like getting voted into office by people who like them is the price I pay, and is one I'm willing to continue to pay, for my free vote.

Kythas wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:
Me too! I still say that we need to fire all 545 of 'em and start over with term limits for all INCLUDING Federal Judges. While we're on a roll, Civil Service should also be abolished and let those people work under the same conditions as the rest of us.

Did I miss anybody?

I understand this sentiment but take issue with the term limit issue.

I understand the concept of term limits. The idea that politics should be a vocation and not a career is a great idea and one our Founding Fathers appear to have supported. Term limits would enable this concept to be inherent in law.

However, as a conservative - and one who leans fairly libertarian - I think the government telling me I'm not allowed to vote for someone because some arbitrary time limit has been reached is the wrong way to go. Term limits sound great when it prevents someone I don't like from running again, simply because I don't like them. But if my dislike of the person is a minority opinion, and the majority of voters like the person and continue to vote them in, I can either sit back and say "That's the way things were designed by the Founders" or I can up and move somewhere the representation more closely fits my point of view.

I want the government out of my life and out of my business as much as is possible. Telling me I'm not allowed to vote for someone I may want to still vote for if I think that person is doing a great job representing me and my views is government interference in my vote. Having someone I don't like getting voted into office by people who like them is the price I pay, and is one I'm willing to continue to pay, for my free vote.

You don't have to worry about term limits, because Reps and Dems in power don't want term limits. If they did we'd have term limits.
I'd almost be willing to settle for those in the house and senate to be bound by, participate in, and function under the same laws and
programs they enact for the rest of the country. Starting with Social Security and Health Care. If it's so great for the rest of us....they should be chomping at the bit to participate.........I guarantee if they weren't able to vote themselves a raise whenever they pleased,
had to participate in the current SS program instead of their special retirement program and were forced into the using the Health Care package they just force fed the rest of the country...............things would start getting fixed. Maybe even some form of term limits.
I'm not holding my breath.

Funny...Kinda...

Why do we need "term limits"???

I thought we had the ability to make changes every two years anyway...Of course Senators and Presidents we have to wait a little longer sometimes...

But every two years, if enough people are "displeased" with an elected official...Poof...Problem solved...

Of course a few things have to happen, but those are just details...

And why does anyone assume Debra Medina and her 19% were not represented (or given a seat at the table) in delegates at this years Convention in Dallas???

Due to health reasons this was the first GOP state convention I have not attended in over 15 years...But I do know there was a concerted effort to insert Libertarians (Ron Paul supporters) into the convention process as delegates and committee members this cycle...

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but I do know some of those folks...And know they were some of the heavy hitters of that movement that were intensely involved with the Debra Medina campaign that attended...

So what's the "real" beef??? This was a political faction get together, like many other groups or factions putting together an evening for supporters of that ideal...I might have even attended...

So what I am getting at is this...If you are mad, angry, whatever about the political and economic situation in this country, just remember to not take your toys out of the sandbox before November...You do, because the certain flavor of tea is not available on the menu...Well, some people are just going to be angry for a little while longer I suppose...

The battle now is in November, the war is ongoing...

Just my opinion...

stevie_d_64: "And why does anyone assume Debra Medina and her 19% were not represented (or given a seat at the table) in delegates at this years Convention in Dallas???"

They were denied booth space at the Rep State Convention. At the We Texans rally (at the Fairmount) probably 75% of those attending were Rep delegates. I'm not mad at the Reps, just wondering what the strategic advantage to basically shunning the We Texans movement is........ and I am very aware of the battle to be faced this November, but thanks for the reminder.

stevie_d_64: "But every two years, if enough people are "displeased" with an elected official...Poof...Problem solved..."

Well kinda, but not really. 2 party system, if the party powers that be decide on "X" candidate, whether incumbent or newbie,
what real choice is that? You could switch parties (won't happen with me), or vote (support) for the candidate the party powers
kept on the ticket. Or, I guess you could do a "write in"........

gemini wrote: You don't have to worry about term limits, because Reps and Dems in power don't want term limits. If they did we'd have term limits.

"Since Congress is unlikely to voluntarily approve one, advocates of term limits need to convince 34 states to call for a convention to draft an appropriate amendment.

State calls for a convention would encourage Congress to propose an amendment, as happened with the Seventeenth Amendment that provides for the direct election of senators."

stevie_d_64 wrote:I thought we had the ability to make changes every two years anyway...Of course Senators and Presidents we have to wait a little longer sometimes...

But every two years, if enough people are "displeased" with an elected official...Poof...Problem solved...

The argument for term limits can be summed up in one set of statistics: for years there was greater turnover on the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee and in Britain's House of Lords than in Congress. Nothing really changed in 1994, despite the dramatic partisan upheaval. Three dozen Democratic incumbents fell, but the overall House reelection rate still ran roughly 90 percent (314 of 348), and the Senate reelection rate ran 92 percent (24 of 26). That looks good only in comparison with the 98 percent reelection rate of 1990, before a modest slump in 1992 due to the House Bank scandal, when fewer than 5 percent of House races were genuinely competitive. And no Republican incumbents, no matter how flawed, lost in 1994. If 1996 proves to be a bad year for the GOP, the freshmen are more likely to suffer than are the time servers.

Indeed, even though the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, scholar Stephen Erickson argues that "the power of incumbency masked the true scale of the popular sentiment in favor of Republicans."4 Absent incumbency, he figures that the Republican Party would have picked up an additional 32 to 41 seats.5

In short, what political scientist Mark Petracca calls the "poison" of professional politics remains.6 Most incumbents still win, and careerists still largely dominate policy.

I've been told that the definition of insanity was repeating the same actions and expecting different results.

Quotes above were taken from a very good analysis from the CATO Institute. Link.

Another argument for good measure:

A system that turns supposed "public service" into a career attracts a particular type of person. Observes Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, "Those who run for Congress these days are generally those who find the prospect of spending a significant portion of their lives as a politician to be an attractive option."7 That means they are less likely to have a real life before entering politics--many political pros start out as state legislators in their early 20s and never stop.

Unfortunately, it just gets worse over time. Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) explains that he retired because "the longer you stay in public office, the more distant the outside world becomes."8 But he is one of the few to voluntarily step aside. One Democratic senator told Rudman after the latter announced his retirement, "I wish I had the guts to do what you've done, but I'm afraid to leave. I don't know what I'd do with my life."9 One legislator who tried business after his forced retirement at the hands of the voters was former Democratic senator George McGovern of South Dakota. His plaintive plea after his motel folded was particularly telling: "I wish I had had a better sense of what it took to [meet a payroll] when I was in Washington."10 But he was no different from most of his colleagues.

Fair enough "idrathernot"...You identified some good points...

It is insanity to expect a political "faction" or "party" to keep foisting upon the electorate candidates or support for an incumbent that is less than perfect...people are starting to not want to hold their noses anymore when they go to the polls...

The way to begin to counter that stagnation of political faction, is to get up off your rear end and get involved early on in the process, if you have a difference of opinion about a candidate or incumbents position on an issue, then say something!!! Tell them you cannot support them on that issue and make sure others hear you!!! no one is going to see a letter or email that you send to them unless you put them on the spot and get them to explain themselves and make sure everyone understand where they are coming from on an issue...This is politics 101...

Be aware, some in your midst will still agree with them, and not you for questioning the position...Be prepared for a big let down as well...I have never been able to really force someone to change their view on anything just because I say so... But that's ok...Be vocal, and then let it go...

I still believe that we do not need term limits, because we can vote our core beliefs, and cast a principled ballot...

I am not always a negative nancy when it comes to dealing directly with politicians...Regardless of political affiliation...If you screw up, you can expect me to say something about it, if you do something right, I will jump through fire hoops to let you know you did something good...

For as long as I have been politically active, and tuned into a lot of the things going on, I am absolutely giddy about all the people around this country starting to wake up and be just as vocal and active in the process as I have been since I voted forthe first time many years ago...

I just say to some, "Welcome to the party!"

Just be ready for a bumpy ride...

One thing I have been doing for a long while is to not get locked into just one issue...I know a lot of folks here are comfortable with one issue...I know a lot of folks do what I do and get educated and stay informed on a lot of issues...Sometimes issues intermix with others, and we need to know how they interact with each other...And know how sometimes issues can be used to cloud others...

Just never give up...Stay informed, and active...