WMUR CloseUP - some thoughts - Granite Grok

WMUR CloseUP – some thoughts

WMURThere’s almost always something just to make a comment about and this week is no different as the first segment had NH State Senator John Reagan, Josiah Bartlett Public Policy Center’s Exec. Dir. Charlie Arlinghouse, and Republican political operative Jim Merrill.  Each had something that evoked a quick comment.

  • Reagan: Morse’s attempt was to extract a maximum of federal dollars to save the NH budget.  That was the plan – gather over $400 M in Federal dollars.
    • Right.  When in trouble, why is it that the Feds are the FIRST resort of refuge?  How about resetting of internal priorities instead of trying to be everything to all people and all issues?
    • Is the NH Budget in that bad a shape that the first thought is that the Federal Government’s “chains attached” actually palatable?
    • Money over independence?  It’s not like the State’s budget is overwhelmingly driven by “outside” money but geez…
    • I agree with Steve – instead of “moneygrubbing it back” into the State, how ’bout keeping it from leaving the in the first place?  When the $17 trillion debt finally accomplishes it “BOOM!”, isn’t it better to be unhooked as much as possible?
  • “We thank them when they’re right!”: Reagan said he changed his vote as he realized that instead of being a boon, this legislation ran counter to his Principles (and the Brits’ National Healthcare System debacles helped his decision as well).  BRAVO, Senator!
  • Arlinghouse- GOP was going to look for a compromise?

Really – or better phrased as the Leadership looking for a compromise.  And yes Charlie, some of us believe that once you compromise Principles, people will walk.  And it will be a corollary mission of GraniteGrok to help people understand that we can longer accept the lesser of two evils.  Look, there is no “compromise” when basically EVERY applicable Plank in the Party Platform is shattered; that is absolute abdication.

  • Merrill – at least he got the “HELL no” part right but I’m not sure he’s right about ostracizing Morse and Bradley bit though – a lot of people DO want to.  HE may continue to Trust (capitalization intended) but a WHOLE LOT of us activists know he’s absolutely wrong on the Trust part.  We work for and elect people to office on a pivotal point – that once in office, they will act AND vote commiserate with their prior words and stances.  Demonstrable examples of the opposite DESTROYS that Trust.  For the NH State Republicans to have voted this way ruined that Trust and showed a tremendous lack of Consistency to our expectations.

And if that Trust is destroyed, why would I vote for that candidate?  Which leads to the next point he made:

  • “We have races to win against Democrats.  I’d like to focus our energy on winning.  In the end, you can’t govern unless you win.  We didn’t win enough in 2012; we have to win in 2014 and get some majorities back for a positive conservative change”.

I keep on saying:

“Winning is merely a precursor; what is important is what you do AFTER winning

 And that, I believe, is the main difference between the Establishment and the base – the Establishment is “win at all costs” and that’s it.  The base is “win first and THEN the hard work starts up – and we expect you to act according to our beliefs as you represent our values”.

  • Arlinghouse when asked “Is this a civil war in the Party”?  It’s a very BIG issue, a huge issue, where, I mean, the single greatest expansion of the healthcare benefit in history but I don’t this going to be necessarily determinative.

Time will tell and the Establishment has to ask themselves: who is the base listening to for guidance on Principle?  The Chair, Jennifer Horn, who also was Platform Chair the last go-round but who also said that Expansion was goodness ( even as it breaks just about EVERY applicable Plank in the Party Platform).  It will also be how outraged people will be going downrange – are the activists going just go along with this absolute abandonment of Principle for a simple money reason (if Reagan has it right, above)?

The base hates a sell-out – Principles should never be “bought” or subject to a “buy out” but that seems to be what has happened.  Least Lackeys of the Welfare State, Jr. Partners of the Democrats.  For 13 silver shekels, the deal to expand government, expand spending, expand entitlements, and expand dependency (both at the Individual level and the State level) was done.  Will there be a Potter’s Field, politically, in someone’s future?

One thing does trouble me about this segment – NO ONE STATED THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM  – that this was optional.  No law, either State or Federal, compelled them to do this.  This was a case of “They brought themselves upon themselves”.

>