BluegrassBulletin.com

Hank Aaron vs. The Black Sphere

Former baseball player Hank Aaron has accused Republicans of being like the KKK.

Speaking to USA Today Tuesday on the 40th anniversary of his then record-breaking 715th home run, the 80-year-old Aaron said that Republicans are hindering Obama’s job performance.

“Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated,” Aaron told USA Today Sports.

Aaron continued: “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.” [CBS]

Maybe he took one too many hardballs to the head.

The Ku Klux Klan‘s first incarnation was in 1866. On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-Americans. The Klan was involved in a wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. The group was an offshoot of the Democrat Party. [Gateway Pundit]

In a column back in February writing for his website "The Black Sphere" Kevin Jackson came up with this cool idea.

In celebration of 150 years since the Republicans freed the slaves from slave-loving (pardon the double-entendre) Democrats, my team has come up with a snarky way for you to get back at them. We are projecting what famous black people would be doing had Republicans not fought and died for their freedom. In short, my team does what the Republicans won’t do for themselves, and that is SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

Boone County GOP Does Right Thing, Will Not Endorse In McConnell Race

EDITORIAL

When the Ron Paul folks in Boone County took control of the county GOP committee last year the energy and direction of that organization became predictable.  The mainstream republicans no longer had much of a chance, and that included Mitch McConnell.  This week the county committee toyed with the idea of endorsing Matt Bevin.

But they decided not to endorse either candidate in the race.  Good for them.

The role of a county committee is spelled out in the rules and by-laws of the Republican Party of Kentucky.  County committees are not autonomous bodies organized for the purpose of advancing any particular philosophy or working to unseat, defeat or damage incumbent republicans.

County committees are just that.  They are committees of the larger party.  Their role is to recruit new repubican voters and to handle the legal matters within their jurisdiction.  County committees are not parties in and of themselves.  For example, the name "Republican Party" belongs to the RPK and the RNC.  Spin off groups which have tried to form independent minded "Republican Party" groups have been denied the use of those words.

County committees should not support one GOP candidate over another.  Individual party officials within a county committee should not endorse one GOP candidate over another.  Individuals who wish to do so should step aside from their official roles and not lend the title of their office to the candidacy of one GOP candidate over another.

There are certain limitations both legal and proper which must prevail over the zeal of one individual or group of individuals when it comes to intra-party political battles.  And for good reason.

The eventual winner needs to be able to count on the full support of the party as an official organization.  Otherwise the democrats and other parties gain an advantage by weakening the unified front of a strong GOP.

Even democrats, who for years have had spirited primaries, have come together to stand united against the republicans.  Only a united republican organization could have created the successful environment in which the new Boone committee enjoys a position of influence.  That lesson isn't lost on those of us who worked to build that organization from the days when there was none.  It is not an exaggeration to say that not too long ago the republicans in Boone County could have held their meetings in a phone booth, even though most of the young people who are now coming up through the ranks of the GOP have never even seen a phone booth.

It was a mature decision on the part of Rick Brueggeman and his committee to stand strong against the pressure to work against McConnell.  Apparently it took Jesse Benton, McConnell's campaign manager and friend to many of the Boone County Ron Paul folks to come in and calm things down but in the end the new and energetic committee made the right decision.

I'm sure Mitch is going to have trouble generating enthusiasm for his candidacy in Boone this coming cycle but at least the county committee won't be working in an official capacity to undermine him as apparently Bevins had hoped.

McConnell Fundraising Shows Strength

Ashely Judd is out.  Alison Lundergan Grimes is out and doesn't know it.  The TEA party isn't going to find anybody capable of beating him and it looks more and more like the US Senate could go to the GOP making Louisville's Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader virtually insuring that Obama would be handcuffed for the remainder of his term.

McConnell has reported that his campaign has raised $12 million and has nearly $9 million on hand.  Sure some of the Kentucky Dems are blowing smoke up Alison's skirt but why would she file to run?  Some say it would set her up to run for Governor, but that's wishful at best.

McConnell would have enough resources and the capacity to destroy her.  She'd have to beg for millions from donors which might not be there a second time for a governor's run.  And of course she'd hack off a bunch of republicans, some of whom she would need in 2015.

And despite all the TEA party bravado about finding a qualified candidate to challenge McConnell in a primary, well there isn't one on anybody's radar screen.

So, it's looking more and more like Mitch will get a pass, those in the McConnell building in Frankfort will be free to work on other things and the TEA party will have been effectively taught to heel.

Okay, let's move on.  There's nothing more to see here folks.

Your Right To Select Judges Weakened?

I have been warning you for years about the effort to dilute your power when it comes to electing judges in Kentucky.  (here, here, here, here, here and here) I fought for and won a Free Speech case to protect the First Amendment rights of judicial candidates and voters.  My efforts were followed by new rules for judicial elections in Kentucky.  But those victories did not end the opposition.

Several prominent members of the bar continue to press for a change in our system which will result in the appointment of judges instead of the election of judges.

One of the arguments advanced in support of eliminating elections is the supposed worry that the public might wake up and require more information about judicial candidates, demanding to know what they believe, how they think and what kind of political views they hold with regard to the constitution. 

Those who advocate for the appointment of judges are cagey enough to suggest that they are motivated by altruistic principles.  They say with a straight face that people don't want judges who have any personal opinions.  How dumb do they think you are? Like it or not, of course judicial candidates have personal opinions just like everybody else and everybody who thinks about it knows it.  But those who oppose elections want voters to act like characters in the movie "Idiocracy" and just agree with what they are told without thinking.

Judges are people just like you.  They have opinions, biases, beliefs, and views on all kinds of things according to their their upbringing and life experiences. These things are undeniable so maybe the real questions should be: will such things as we are able to learn about a candidate influence his/her decisions and if so, how?

Before becoming a judge candidates are human beings.  But once they become judges they are sworn to a higher duty, the duty to decide cases based upon the rules of judicial decision making and not their personal biases. 

But why should that higher duty mean that you should be deprived of information about them?  Should the question whether a particular candidate is a conservative or a liberal be forever off limits?  For example, when it comes to the Constitution wouldn't you like to know if the candidate is reliably a strict originalist like Antonin Scalia, or a "living document" sort of person more like some liberal justices seem to be?

If you knew the background of all candidates might your inquiry be more properly focused on which candidate seems to have the greater capacity to decide cases fairly according to how they see their role within the proper dictates of judicial decision making?

Use the example of our military personnel.  Some members of the military may stand very much opposed to the politics of the Commander In Chief, they might even carry a variety of biases from their personal lives onto the battlefield.  Don't we want Marines to execute their duties without letting personal attitudes interfere? 

In some ways lawyers are called upon to do their duty even if they do not necessarily always agree with their client's actions.  For example when asked recently how I could ever represent a criminal defendant I made it perfectly clear: I took an oath and my duty is to I represent their rights, not their wrongs.

Time and time again the members of the bench and bar have openly expressed their own bias that voters cannot be trusted to make informed decisions.  They try to impose their will on the rest of us by the relentless effort to take away your right to elect judges and instead put the entire process behind closed doors.  And here is how that works.

Soon Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear is going to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to replace retired Justice Wil Schroder.  There is a committee which will meet, consider applicants and send a list to the Governor to assist him in making his choice.  I have been encouraged to apply but I have also heard in a number of conversations, that the "preferred" choice of the democrats has likely been made and the people who will be advising the Governor are of course democrats.  In case you hadn't noticed, I am not.

Does this mean that the Governor will not make a wise choice?  Of course not, but it does very clearly illustrate that the choice will be influenced by politics.  To what extent?  I guess we will have to wait and see.

Today it was reported that the Kentucky House Budget Committee just passed a bill providing for public financing of Supreme Court races.  Does the timing of this strike you?

After I, as a republican candidate for Supreme Court, stood up for the Constitution (with the strength of a US Supreme Court decision behind me) and Kentucky was required to recognize the first amendment right of judicial candidates to raise money, now just in time for the next set of Supreme Court elections the Democrats in control of the House passed a bill out of committee providing for public financing of Supreme Court races. 

Do you think the Democrats might be worried that the GOP, the TEA party or conservative voters in some republican leaning districts might get behind a conservative candidate and  negatively impact the chances of another democrat to win the office?  Might there be bills now or in the future which might make their way to the Supreme Court for decision?  Do you trust House Democrats to not play politics?

You might want to think about this.

Remember, it was a state court judge in Indiana that just jailed a man for openly criticizing another judge.   Nothing less than the fate of the Constitution is at stake there.  Such things will surely happen here too.

And just in case you forgot, we were warned 60 years ago that progressives were going to take over teaching kids in our schools and universities and we didn't do enough, even with that warning, until it was too late. 

Be alert, and be informed.  Judicial elections can have great and long lasting consequences.

And hold on dearly to your right to elect judges.  It has always been my belief that informed voters make better choices.

John Hawkins Pulls No Punches

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has pulled no punches when it comes to Libertarians.  I've had the pleasure of meeting John and he's a very nice guy.  Here's his latest:

I know some people might say that if the Libertarian Party gathers a high percentage of the vote, it forces the two mainstream parties to try to go after their voters, but that’s not true, because Libertarians have beliefs that are so far out of the mainstream that it’s impossible to try to cater exclusively to them. When you’re talking about people (many of them at least) who favor legalizing crack and prostitution, favor open borders, favor abortion without restriction, gay marriage, essentially oppose any and all government intelligence programs designed to stop Al-Qaeda from killing Americans, then it’s practically a given that no politician can make them happy on most issues without alienating 90% of the general public at the same time. Since, as a politician, you know going in that you can’t truly make Libertarians happy, all you can do to reach out to Libertarians is emphasize any parts of your platform where you happen to agree with them and hope they don’t notice everything else.

I don’t care how high your IQ is or how well you can explain economic theory, if you’re voting for Gary Johnson, you’re kind of a dufus.

Getting beyond that, what do we hear constantly? We’ve got to kick all of the social conservatives to the curb to appeal to the sort of people who are so out-of-touch-with-reality that they’re voting for Gary Johnson this year.

In case you haven't noticed, my fellow Kentucky Republicans, the libertarians are trying to take over our party.

The Debate: My Take

I chose to listen to the debate on the radio first and watch the replay after hearing the spin. You might be surprised how hearing but not seeing the debate affected the listeners perception.

Biden sounded more confident, more in command and frustrated by what the listener would have concluded was a weak attempt by Ryan to show loyalty to Romney despite his changing narrative on many issues. In my opinion, Ryan had a better grasp of the facts but Biden blew him off as lacking any practical experience which would justify his criticism of Obama's handling of various issues during his first term. W.C. Field's famous line "Go away son, you bother me" came to mind.

But Biden's defense of Obama got out of hand. His zeal as usual sent him spinning off into his own world where the consequences of what he was saying seemed to completely escape him.

It is as if this buffoon and his boss just can't pull their big boy pants on and govern without blaming everybody else for anything that doesn't work out as they dreamed it would. He blamed his own Intelligence services for mis-informing them about Benghazi. He blamed the Joint Chiefs for decisions which have cost lives in Iraq. He blamed President Bush for the last four years of failed economic decisions made by the Obama administration. And he blamed Ryan for showing up at a debate armed with facts rather than coming prepared to play politics.

Like it or not, it is my humble opinion that Biden fired up his base last night by being smug, self-righteous and condescending. He assumed the haughty attitude of John Kerry, the cocky "smart-ass" attitude of Obama and the "you dumb, white hick" attitude universal among the far left which has taken over control of what used to be a solidly patriotic (though misguided) democratic party.

When I later watched the split screen debate my opinion changed little except that I thought Ryan looked timid. No, his words were not timid but don't forget that I have spent over 30 years studying body language, what people are saying with their eyes and judging faces for signs of deception and worry. Ryan showed a smidgin of timidity, as if he was out gunned in the format.

In my opinion Biden did what he was supposed to do, Ryan held his own and I score it a draw except that Romney/Ryan is the team of challengers and in a championship fight the challenger has to win decisively because the holder of the crown gets to keep it unless it is forcibly taken away. Ryan didn't take the crown.

Now, add the spin. Yes Biden was rude. So what? His base is rude and would have expected no less. What was the complaint about Obama's performance against Romney? That he didn't go after him hard enough. To the left we conservatives are dumbass dolts who need to be put in our place. They have no desire to do that with facts but rather by being dismissive and treating us as if we are too stupid to grasp the complexities of their world view. Biden delivered on that score and for that reason scored a tie.

Did he make a bunch of gaffes? Of course he did, but it's Biden and since when has that ever hurt him?

Did Ryan have a perfect night? No. The story of Ryan asking for stimulus money for his state coming on the heels of his complaint about Obama borrowing from China to pay for the stimulus made him look like just the kind of hypocrite that the TEA party types have come to hate. That hurt his ticket among the conservatives who are breaking ranks these days under the stoned out misapprehension that letting Obama win is somehow a victory for their revolution.

But in the final analysis this debate won't make any difference in the outcome of the election any more than the Reds loss in the divisional playoffs makes in the pennant race. The big game is coming still coming up. And what everybody needs to remember is this one thing: We only have two choices, " Obama" or" Not Obama".

Get it?

Posted with Blogsy

Ask And You Shall Receive: Ron Paul Answers My Question

Yesterday morning I asked if Ron paul helps or hurts. Yesterday afternoon he answered the question I think.

In two separate articles Paul made clearer the role he sees himself playing in the future of the Republican Party.

"The truth is, I'm trying to save the Republican Party from themselves because they want perpetual wars, they don't care about presidents who assassinate American citizens, they don't care about searching our houses without search warrants, and these are the kind of things people care about," Paul said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

First of all after having devoted my life to helping the republican party I admire any man who is truly trying to save it.  But for Ron Paul to say that the party wants perpetual wars, doesn't care about presidents who assassinate American citizens, doesn't care about illegal searches or the kinds of things ordinary people care about is *expletive deleted* insulting!

In fact, it's not only insulting, it's compelling evidence how self righteous and out of touch Ron Paul is with the heart and soul of we republicans who have been working within the system our entire lives.

How dare he climb up on his rickety old high horse and accuse me of such things?  I spoke out against the Patriot Act in the very beginning, at a time in fact when it was considered un-patriotic to challenge President Bush.  I spoke out against the NDAA from the get go.  I have been fighting to defend the Constitution every single day of my adult life.

Has Ron Paul finally gone completely insane?  Does he really think that we don't care about presidents assassinating American citizens?  What a rude thing to say.

What he is really doing is not trying to save the Republican Party but trying to disparage it, slander our members and split off some of our voters into his own camp, dividing our troops and weakening our ability to win against the liberals who want to sacrifice Israel to the Jihadists, sacrifice our national security in the name of reducing the size of the mean old government, and cutting federal spending to the bone just as millions of Americans are heading into their most vulnerable senior years, counting on the programs which they were promised would be their when they needed them the most.

Trying to save the Republican Party my patooty!

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday he hasn't decided whether he will support the party's eventual nominee, saying concerns over spending, foreign policy and civil liberties could keep him from endorsing the winner.

"I haven't decided," Paul said when asked about whether he would support the GOP candidate during an appearance Monday on WMAL, a Washington, D.C., radio station.

Paul also left the door wider open than he has in past statements about a potential third-party bid, saying he would weigh an outside run "after the votes are counted." [The Hill]

No, quite the contrary, Ron Paul has successfully mesmerized a large number of people into believing that his political movement is non-political.  He has convinced an audience of discontented voters to ignore his many years in Congress and to adopt the completely illogical illusion that he is not a career politician.

He has persuaded people with sleight of hand to believe that what he is doing is not "politics as usual" yet all the while employing the usual political skills of raising money, crafting slick commercials, delivering confusing speeches, denying his own words and mobilizing people to his cause that all the other politicians he says he dislikes have been using for decades.

And what is the response of his groupies when confronted with the facts?  They lash out the same way they complain the establishment lashes out against them, they argue that they must first win by using the same tactics they say they hate because it's the only way they can win and eventually change the rules from the inside.

Not only is our nation being divided, but our party is being divided.  And while people like me have no problem speaking out against the policies of the GOP which we think are wrong, we don't throw down our arms, run from the battlefield and join up with another army in the middle of a raging war which threatens the very survival of our nation.

There's a word for such behavior, and the men who run from battle.  There's a word for men who fire upon their own "to save them".

Does Ron Paul hurt or help?  I think he has answered that one for himself pretty clearly.

And for those who think like he does, you have been defined by the company you keep.

Does Ron Paul Hurt Or Help?

To hear Ron Paul's supporters, their man is having great success in this year's presidential primary.  But when the votes are counted and the delegates assembled he barely shows up where it counts.  Still, his campaign must be having some impact else he would drop out of the race, right?  Wrong.

Ron Paul isn't about being a republican, he's about assembling enough people behind his own libertarian world view that somebody will be forced to listen to him on some issues.  And on some issues, I hope they do.  But on many others, I hope they don't.

For example I like his stance on fiscal policy and think the Federal Reserve needs to have the light of day shined into every nook and cranny.  I'm all for a full fledged audit and for ending the reign of the Creature From Jekyll Island.

But the American public has no interest in abandoning our strong support for Israel under the guise of eliminating ALL foreign aid.  Paul has said too many things which thinly disguise his true feelings about Israel for that to fly.

And the crazy notion that everything must be a states right might have worked when it took a month for horses to drag a wagon from Pennsylvania to Illinois across flooded rivers, but the flow of heroin across our southern borders and into the veins of our young folks is a matter of hours now and it is reckless to put the burden of stopping the international drug trade on individual states.

Furthermore, I will never back any proposal that says out of one side of the mouth "I'm Pro-Life" and then says out of the other side "But I think each state should make its own decision".  That's not Pro-Life, that's a cop-out at best and a pandering mouth full of deception at worst.

Ron Paul's minions are mostly revolutionaries who have convinced themselves that an ideal world can be created where there will be no government at all.  They, like some liberals, think that foreign governments will just leave us alone if we just leave them alone.  They apparently do not see the evil, murderous, lustful craving of communists, radical Jihadists and globalists to take over our nation and impose a form of tyranny which will make pre-1776 British rule look like utopia.

While Ron Paul will argue that he is bringing more enthusiasm to the republican party, he is not.  He is bringing people into the GOP who are enthusiastic about re-making the organization in their own image.  Yes, we can all agree, that some of the ideas of entrenched republican lawmakers don't seem to be in the nation's best interest, and yes, some of our problems can be blamed on them as well as the democrats.  But Ron Paul supporters would rather declare war on republicanism and make peace with Iran than make peace with republicans in an effort to affect their decision making.  In that sense, his so called "movement" is bad for the party, and in the end, bad for the country.

Kentucky republicans need to wake up and realize that  the folks behind this movement in the Commonwealth have demonstrated that they will indeed, despite their claims to the contrary, engage in the very kind of political games which they say they oppose.

Various Ron Paul websites have outlined ways in which they intend to conduct themselves contrary to their stated purposes.  Doug Wead, senior spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign has admitted that their organization is specifically targeting delegates in various states to vote for Ron Paul at the national convention, regardless whether Paul won those states or not.  And time and time again some of these folks right here in Kentucky have made it clear that they will infiltrate the Republican Party, and then work against the GOP nominee in the fall elections if "their guy" doesn't win in May.

These kinds of threats, these kinds of questionable tactics and these kinds of agenda items are not good for the republican party and we need to be alert to them.

It's one thing to join an organization and to try to help build it.  It's quite another to join an organization and then try to tear it down from within.

Don't be fooled.

Senator Paul, I Respectfully Disagree

Senator Rand Paul has reportedly written a letter to Republican Party of Kentucky Chairman Steve Robertson in which Senator Paul expresses his "concern over efforts by some Republican Party officials in Kentucky to exclude certain individuals from participation in leadership roles in our local GOP organizations."

To the extent that his concerns are based upon what he says were violations of the rights of republicans to "due process" by arbitrary actions of others, I agree with him in principle that it is vitally important that the party and each of its county committees play by the rules.

In fact, it should be noted, that I was hired as a lawyer to attend the reorganization of the party in Boone County by people who were concerned about the same things.  I met with the newly elected party leadership and many of their supporters within the TEA party to advise them about proper process.  I even helped put together a brief seminar for the Northern Kentucky TEA party to educate them about proper process.

In his letter Senator Paul quotes newly elected Boone County Chairman Rick Brueggeman.  Though he is himself a lawyer, Rick and I spoke more than once in advance of the county mass convention and I am confident that his interests were in using the established process to accomplish a fair and proper goal of electing people he and his group wanted to hold office.  That is the American way.

But in his letter Senator Paul goes too far.  In his zeal and carefully written letter he has done two things with which I disagree.  And for the record, let it be remembered that I supported Senator Paul, consider him a friend and have often openly admired and spoken favorably of his service thus far in the United States Senate.  But in keeping with my long established policy, despite the power he holds, our friendship or my admiration of him, I will speak freely and openly when I think it is required, even if we disagree.

I would not speak openly to him about this, but would probably communicate privately save that it was Senator Paul's letter which first became public on a weblog, and was later circulated to me by his supporters in an email.  Inter-party concerns expressed by a sitting senator which rail against the sitting Chairman could have been dealt with privately.  They weren't and neither then will my disagreement.

Senator Paul says "it is obvious that disqualification decisions have been directed at conservatives who signed a ballot-access petition for Mr. Ken Moellman to be placed on the ballot as candidate for Kentucky State Treasurer. My position on this is very clear. Signing a ballot access petition is not an act of disloyalty.  In fact, it is a fundamental right of Americans to have and pursue access to the ballot, and Republicans should not be punished for helping a potential candidate in this way."

While Senator Paul is entitled to his opinion, I believe he is wrong.  I know Ken Moellman and have no problem at all with him seeking to be placed on the ballot either as an Independent or as a candidate of the organized Libertarian Party where he has served as an officer.  This is not about Mr. Moellman, it is about honor, and duty for those who are elected to office, whether public office or party office, under the banner of the Republican Party of Kentucky.

The goal of the Republican Party of Kentucky is to elect republicans to office.  Those who seek the party's nomination, hold office under its banner and serve as party officers must be devoted to the party's principles and loyal to its candidates.  That is clearly expressed in the preamble to the rules.

Does this mean that if an individual office holder is not in favor of a particular republican candidate that he or she is obligated to support that candidate?  No, of course not.  But some new members of the party have taken this right to remain silent to a new level.  They believe that party officers are free to support whomever they want, even those running against republicans.

It is clear that the Republican Party nominated a candidate in last year's elections to run for State Treasurer.  Loyalty to that candidate did not require financial or other support for her from party officers or elected officials.  However, any candidate on the ballot running under any other banner was trying to defeat her.  While I detest the use of military terms to describe domestic political contests, by analogy, the other candidates were "the enemy" so to speak.

Republicans as private citizens are of course free to do as they please.  But once a person becomes an elected republican official, whether to public office or party office they become bound by duty to not give aid and comfort to "the enemy".  This is where I disagree with Senator Paul.  Elected republican officials and party officers who sign a ballot access petition intended to pit another candidate against a nominated republican candidate have indeed engaged in an act of disloyalty.

I agree with Senator Paul that if the private citizens who did this are excluded from participating in the future on the basis of their prior actions then the established process for challenging that decision as having arising from a mis-application of the rules should follow and run its "due course".  Like the Trayvon Martin matter, there is a time, place, process and forum for resolving disputes and it should be followed to the letter of the law.  That's why I was hired to be in attendance in Boone County to help protect those interests.

But to write an open letter to the Chairman of the Party and to state boldly that the act of signing a ballot petition is not an act of disloyalty is in my opinion an overstatement which incorrectly gives cover to those who want to act from within the party to advance the candidacy of others against the party's nominees in the future should "their candidate"  not win in a fair primary contest.

And as I recall in 2010 there were a number of Rand Paul supporters, me included, who felt that Trey Grayson's former life as a democrat and his support for Bill Clinton were matters worthy of discussion as evidence of recent disloyalty to the party.  Wouldn't membership in ANY other party be deserving of the same treatment, including the Libertarian Party?

I appreciate Senator Paul's thoughtful comments, but I suggest that he has, in his zeal, gone farther in his arguments than where I can agree.

I know it is a break from tradition for a republican to openly disagree with members of his own party, but then again, we should never be afraid to speak our minds if what we say we believe to be the truth. 

I'm sure that what Senator Paul has said he believes to be the truth, but Senator Paul, I respectfully disagree.

Healing In Boone County

Saturday at the Boone County Republican Mass Convention I ran into Dale Ashcraft.  "Back in the day" when Boone County was just another Democratic enclave a hard working Boone County Republican party was fighting for recognition.  Dale was the party's chairman.  He commented on our work together when I was in high school.

I'm sure it was heartwarming for Dale to stand witness to the encouraging success that the GOP has enjoyed since then.  And as Rick Brueggemann took office as the new chair, it was heartwarming to me to see how truly impassioned conservatives, energized, enthusiastic and focused had used the process to breathe new life into the party.

Judging by a few comments since then, and a few reports in the news, it seems that the remnants of a "we versus them" attitude still exists which will now be Brueggeman's challenge to heal.

Some of the old guard have commented that "those people" took over the party, as if the newly elected officials are some strange species or alien life form.  So in addition to Rick's challenge, some of the "old guard" have challenges of their own.

They need to remain engaged.  Institutional knowledge and cultivated relationships will be valuable to new leaders, will further strengthen the GOP and enhance our reputation as the "party of the open door".

And with its rich history as an agricultural community, surely those in Boone County have not forgotten the lessons of that much more rural world that Dale and I remember when we were plowing new ground; You'll make far more progress if you hitch all of your horses to pull in the same direction.