…Together they are building a wall whose mortar is mixed with excuses and platitudes about why someone like Jack Kimball should not be seriously considered for the post of party Chairman.
Even as such, his post only touched upon the tip of the iceberg – and there is, indeed, danger under the waterline. One of the "outcroppings" falls along one of these:
- "So-and-so hasn’t been around long enough to run for that"
- "What’s s/he done lately for the Party?"
Both show the symptoms of a most peculiar disease and malfunctioning intellect which Steve correctly identified as "Party over Principle". In short, it is not what you think and articulate but how
- well you may have gravitated to power centers
- how long have you spent "in grade".
This is not a function of clear thinking based upon principle but solely a function of how long you have toiled (and kissed butt); think of it as the Republican version of governmental civil service. This was best exemplified by the phrase "It’s Dole’s turn to run" when considering a Republican nominee for a higher office. In summary, it is nothing more than a mentality that says:
"We say it’s not your turn"
Rubbish! This is an entitlement proposition – the WE are entitled to say that YOU are not to have that office. My question asks "who made THEM the King Clowns?" It is one thing to say – that person is insufficient for the job (like putting someone convicted of embezzlement (several times) in charge of the check book, or a RINO in charge of the Party…oh wait, we did that already in the middle of this decade!).
It is also the reason why the TEA Party movement has come so far in such a quick amount of time – it stood solely on principle. Laughed at in the beginning, dismissed as that political train started to roll out of the station, and then "They" started throwing timbers onto the tracks as they saw it gain more and more speed and as other newly awakened Americans realized how far we had strayed (actually, been led by our "Elites") from our firm foundations based on Constitutional beginnings and principles. Principles matter – and not the one of "Party over principle".
Let me give you a quintessential example: Neil Young (P 12) right here in central NH. The thrust of his message is doubled up:
- he hasn’t served his time in the Party
- How dare he run without first coming to me for my blessing?
Let’s start with the second supposition first. Which is rather easy, as I have dealt with his hubris before. And no, I have no qualms about debating him on it (or this) – heck, in a crowded room of folks that know us both, he can’t even be bothered to return a politely given "Hi, Niel".
The first is such a hoot – he has so alienated himself from many of the local Republicans that he stopped coming to the local meetings. Not that I’ve been around for years – I didn’t start getting involved with the Party until 2006. Yet, for Young’s entitling himself to make that statement, he hasn’t shown up more than a handful of times during the past few years (and I’d have fingers left over as well). But let’s start in with a few snippets from that column.
Some would call me a "negative" person.
More than he knows…and some use "opportunist" as well.
After being active all those years for me to be even a city chairman would not be in the cards: too conservative and principled to walk down the street gladhanding with a RINO as a Republican candidate for any office. And yes, some may say my strong political convictions show signs of a bit of animosity at times.
This I could agree with him on. No, he would not be willing to walk a RINO around. And no, it is doubtful he’d be the Laconia City Republican Chair either (unless his phrase of "a TEA Party of one" was adapted to the situation). And I would agree that his animosity would be the reason for it. Whaddya know, I agree with the Rigor Mortis Conservative for an entire paragraph! But now, for the next one, and we come to the first point:
Where was Jack Kimball all of the years I was involved? No background to point to expect he ran for governor in a primary and lost and now wants to be State Chaiirman of the GOP.
Again, we can quibble about the "involved" part (as much as I can often throw well deserved barbs here). The nub of the real problem is the implied "time in grade". Unlike the Old Guard, the New Republicans look for one thing – what are your principles? This is the time of the "Third American Awakening" – the first two were religious in nature, this one political. In all three cases, principles were the underlying causes – and in each a realization: that a massive straying had occurred and a righteous reaction to that was required. So it is in our political era.
The "time in grade" is a perversion of what can be good. No doubt, often we need to observe one’s true intentions and inner self – but that is a time for a search to know someone, and not how long they’ve been around. It limits those that can be good for a position, and opens the way, perhaps, for those that have merely hung around long enough.
Do we now take a chance on losing what we have gained in the numbers of conservative Members?
This also shows a lack of where all these folks came from – all of these Freshman in the House, for instance. In Young’s scheme of things, one would have to first start at the lowest level of town elected officials ("dog catcher") and slowly go up the position ladder. Thus, none of these folks, these newly elected officials, would be in the positions they are now. Not only that, he is clueless of WHY these folks are where they are – elected on the same principles the emergent TEA Party movement. The same as Jack – it is just that he decided to reach higher. In fact, his work in the movement (rather than in the Party) helped pave the way for some of them.
And Young thinks it is simply because of the Party that they are there? Trust me, the election of Jack to the Chair, for most of these new conservative members would be a cheer and a spur onward, and NOT cause to do as he has done in the past (actively and publicly disavowed being in the Party).
If I had a vote, and I being because serving as a Delegate would not allow me to be there for the Saturday convention and vote. I am on the air weekdays and Saturday mornings. I am hosting and expressing my opinion with an independent, principled, conservative view.
Nice try at a cover, but the actual question would be, would he electable as a Member (not Delegate; the Delegates vote to see who would be a member and he couldn’t be bothered to run for even that). The second is who would he trust to guest host his show for even a single day – the answer is "no one" (sad, that).
And he gives one more dash of Establishmentarianism a try:
I asked earlier in the week and still have no answer – what is Kimball’s record of activism in the GOP aside from his long-shot run for Governor? Has he been active in his town or county committee? Did they even know him before he ran for office? The job of State Chair is more than firing up the faithful with speeches. In fact, that has almost nothing to do with the qualifications for the job. Governor Sununu asked Juliana to run for a reason. He has said she has the qualifications for the job and based on her resume I would say that she does. She is not as well known as Jack but how many of you can name any County GOP Chair aside from your own?
Sad, but he answers his own question – how many of you can name a County Chair other than your own?" That indeed, is a good question. It also lays down a more serious question – if no one knows of her, what would they elected her to the most important office within the NH GOP? The question, also for Young is this – is there a reason why you would take the word of Gov. Sununu over two other elected officials, the two most important political leaders now in the State – Bill O’Brien and DJ Bettencourt?
"And, with Jack Kimball running against ‘the establishment’ (whatever that is supposed to be) what happens if he wins and he IS the establishment?
Then you see that the emergent New Republican wing of the Party, the ones that have been despised and dismissed as merely a fad, have won a most impressive prize:
the bringing of Principle over Party
