Lt Gov = RINO
Why do Texans put up with this?
Some school voucher supporters are calling Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick a "RINO," Patrick is teaming up with the Republican Party of Texas to blast one of the most conservative members of the Texas House, the Texas GOP is also spending campaign cash against Speaker Dade Phelan in his district, and there's a proxy war between Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott over the redesign of the electricity grid.
http://www.quorumreport.com

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

---

I don't understand your point here.

If we plot the three people mentioned on a scale from least to most conservative, it would run = Phelan, Abbott, Patrick. I would put a little daylight between them, and I'd say only Phelan deserves the moniker from time to time (although it is fair to say Abbott never takes a step to the right without checking first to see whether or not DeSantis is already there).

Conservatives surely use the R-word when Republicans become obstacles to getting pieces of the Republican platform enacted into law. (In Texas, that usually manifests itself into frustration at the Speaker of the Tx House, who by tradition is a centrist). Republicans thusly accused are usually defensive about it (except for the Tx speaker, who if you corner them can be quite smug about it.) I cannot recall a Republican anywhere on the spectrum complain about someone not on the spectrum using the R-word.

And I think you're missing context. Tx lege is in session. It only sits for 140 calendar days, after which a Gov must call a special session to get additional things done. TIME is the enemy of every bill. Most bills fail because the session ends before it can be voted on. That makes the Calendar Cmee the most important one of all, and it will do the Speaker's bidding. Things the speaker doesn't want passed will not make it out of the calendar committee, or will get otherwise fatally delayed along the way. That's the specific context of the spat between Toth and Patrick.

And in a larger context, there is always a lot of tension between a Speaker, a Lt. Gov (presiding officer of the Tx Senate), and Gov. when session is in, over legislative agendas. And with respect to the constraint of time, Gov is the weakest of the three.

Phelan is a classic rino, a person who genuinely lconsiders himself a conservative but actually is not ideologically driven at all. When they say "I'm a conservative" what they REALLY mean is "I'm not one of those crazy liberals." They actually are plain old pragmatic moderates, whose most common error is engaging in gargantuan middle ground fallacies.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

---

I don't understand your point here.

If we plot the three people mentioned on a scale from least to most conservative, it would run = Phelan, Abbott, Patrick. I would put a little daylight between them, and I'd say only Phelan deserves the moniker from time to time (although it is fair to say Abbott never takes a step to the right without checking first to see whether or not DeSantis is already there).

Conservatives surely use the R-word when Republicans become obstacles to getting pieces of the Republican platform enacted into law. (In Texas, that usually manifests itself into frustration at the Speaker of the Tx House, who by tradition is a centrist). Republicans thusly accused are usually defensive about it (except for the Tx speaker, who if you corner them can be quite smug about it.) I cannot recall a Republican anywhere on the spectrum complain about someone not on the spectrum using the R-word.

And I think you're missing context. Tx lege is in session. It only sits for 140 calendar days, after which a Gov must call a special session to get additional things done. TIME is the enemy of every bill. Most bills fail because the session ends before it can be voted on. That makes the Calendar Cmee the most important one of all, and it will do the Speaker's bidding. Things the speaker doesn't want passed will not make it out of the calendar committee, or will get otherwise fatally delayed along the way. That's the specific context of the spat between Toth and Patrick.

And in a larger context, there is always a lot of tension between a Speaker, a Lt. Gov (presiding officer of the Tx Senate), and Gov. when session is in, over legislative agendas. And with respect to the constraint of time, Gov is the weakest of the three.

Phelan is a classic rino, a person who genuinely lconsiders himself a conservative but actually is not ideologically driven at all. When they say "I'm a conservative" what they REALLY mean is "I'm not one of those crazy liberals." They actually are plain old pragmatic moderates, whose most common error is engaging in gargantuan middle ground fallacies.

---

My point is that you guys see yourselves as the judges of what is acceptable conservatism. You get to pass judgement and then use RINO to denigrate a fellow Republican. In this case it was some of the more
conservative folk who made the slander.

Wouldn't it be nice to have 2 RINO US senators in Georgia and Arizona? In your case, maybe not.

As to the Calendars Committee, who does that for the senate? I think it is the lite gov. Not a committee, but one person.

While we're on the lege, most conservatives I know want fewer bills to pass and want to make it easier to kill bills.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

---

I don't understand your point here.

If we plot the three people mentioned on a scale from least to most conservative, it would run = Phelan, Abbott, Patrick. I would put a little daylight between them, and I'd say only Phelan deserves the moniker from time to time (although it is fair to say Abbott never takes a step to the right without checking first to see whether or not DeSantis is already there).

Conservatives surely use the R-word when Republicans become obstacles to getting pieces of the Republican platform enacted into law. (In Texas, that usually manifests itself into frustration at the Speaker of the Tx House, who by tradition is a centrist). Republicans thusly accused are usually defensive about it (except for the Tx speaker, who if you corner them can be quite smug about it.) I cannot recall a Republican anywhere on the spectrum complain about someone not on the spectrum using the R-word.

And I think you're missing context. Tx lege is in session. It only sits for 140 calendar days, after which a Gov must call a special session to get additional things done. TIME is the enemy of every bill. Most bills fail because the session ends before it can be voted on. That makes the Calendar Cmee the most important one of all, and it will do the Speaker's bidding. Things the speaker doesn't want passed will not make it out of the calendar committee, or will get otherwise fatally delayed along the way. That's the specific context of the spat between Toth and Patrick.

And in a larger context, there is always a lot of tension between a Speaker, a Lt. Gov (presiding officer of the Tx Senate), and Gov. when session is in, over legislative agendas. And with respect to the constraint of time, Gov is the weakest of the three.

Phelan is a classic rino, a person who genuinely lconsiders himself a conservative but actually is not ideologically driven at all. When they say "I'm a conservative" what they REALLY mean is "I'm not one of those crazy liberals." They actually are plain old pragmatic moderates, whose most common error is engaging in gargantuan middle ground fallacies.

---

My point is that you guys see yourselves as the judges of what is acceptable conservatism. You get to pass judgement and then use RINO to denigrate a fellow Republican. Wouldn't it be nice to have 2 RINO US senators in Georgia and Arizona? In your case, maybe not.

As to the Calendars Committee, who does that for the senate? I think it is the lite gov. Not a committee, but one person.

While we're on the lege, most conservatives I know want fewer bills to pass and want to make it easier to kill bills.

---

1) to a Republican, conservative means supporting the party platform, which is written in a highly collaborative process and voted upon by anyone who desires to participate in that process. Further, a voting record is what it is. If an elected official doesn't want to be called the r-word (attacked from the right), then that official should vote more in line with the platform. If an elected official finds virtue in frustrating key planks of the party platform, then that official should wear the r-word as a badge of honor. Either way, whining about use of the r-word is so unseemly as to suggest unsuitability for office.

2) the Chairman of calendars is appointed by the party leader in the House and Senate, always a most trusted lieutenant.

3) your statement presumes existing law is always satisfactory. Reality is, self governance is premised on the notion it is not. I would like to see Tx pass school choice legislation. A super-majority of the public supports it. Biggest reason it didn't pass last time and might not pass this time is that our Speaker owes chits to the education and local govt PACs and he will try to kill it.

Local govt PACs are very powerful at the state level. None of them have agendas which square well with the GOP platform. Very frustrating to what is allegedly the reddest state in the Union that somehow always follows rather than leads other states on key issues of the day.

I like that there is vigorous debate within the party about what is best for the party and state. It's a healthy dynamic. A way bigger tent than the bigots on the left who go way beyond words and straight out cancel anyone who doesn't toe the line.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

---

I don't understand your point here.

If we plot the three people mentioned on a scale from least to most conservative, it would run = Phelan, Abbott, Patrick. I would put a little daylight between them, and I'd say only Phelan deserves the moniker from time to time (although it is fair to say Abbott never takes a step to the right without checking first to see whether or not DeSantis is already there).

Conservatives surely use the R-word when Republicans become obstacles to getting pieces of the Republican platform enacted into law. (In Texas, that usually manifests itself into frustration at the Speaker of the Tx House, who by tradition is a centrist). Republicans thusly accused are usually defensive about it (except for the Tx speaker, who if you corner them can be quite smug about it.) I cannot recall a Republican anywhere on the spectrum complain about someone not on the spectrum using the R-word.

And I think you're missing context. Tx lege is in session. It only sits for 140 calendar days, after which a Gov must call a special session to get additional things done. TIME is the enemy of every bill. Most bills fail because the session ends before it can be voted on. That makes the Calendar Cmee the most important one of all, and it will do the Speaker's bidding. Things the speaker doesn't want passed will not make it out of the calendar committee, or will get otherwise fatally delayed along the way. That's the specific context of the spat between Toth and Patrick.

And in a larger context, there is always a lot of tension between a Speaker, a Lt. Gov (presiding officer of the Tx Senate), and Gov. when session is in, over legislative agendas. And with respect to the constraint of time, Gov is the weakest of the three.

Phelan is a classic rino, a person who genuinely lconsiders himself a conservative but actually is not ideologically driven at all. When they say "I'm a conservative" what they REALLY mean is "I'm not one of those crazy liberals." They actually are plain old pragmatic moderates, whose most common error is engaging in gargantuan middle ground fallacies.

---

My point is that you guys see yourselves as the judges of what is acceptable conservatism. You get to pass judgement and then use RINO to denigrate a fellow Republican. Wouldn't it be nice to have 2 RINO US senators in Georgia and Arizona? In your case, maybe not.

As to the Calendars Committee, who does that for the senate? I think it is the lite gov. Not a committee, but one person.

While we're on the lege, most conservatives I know want fewer bills to pass and want to make it easier to kill bills.

---

2) the Chairman of calendars is appointed by the party leader in the House and Senate, always a most trusted lieutenant.

---

I can't find the name of the chairman of the Senate calendars in last session. Do you haver a link?

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

---

I don't understand your point here.

If we plot the three people mentioned on a scale from least to most conservative, it would run = Phelan, Abbott, Patrick. I would put a little daylight between them, and I'd say only Phelan deserves the moniker from time to time (although it is fair to say Abbott never takes a step to the right without checking first to see whether or not DeSantis is already there).

Conservatives surely use the R-word when Republicans become obstacles to getting pieces of the Republican platform enacted into law. (In Texas, that usually manifests itself into frustration at the Speaker of the Tx House, who by tradition is a centrist). Republicans thusly accused are usually defensive about it (except for the Tx speaker, who if you corner them can be quite smug about it.) I cannot recall a Republican anywhere on the spectrum complain about someone not on the spectrum using the R-word.

And I think you're missing context. Tx lege is in session. It only sits for 140 calendar days, after which a Gov must call a special session to get additional things done. TIME is the enemy of every bill. Most bills fail because the session ends before it can be voted on. That makes the Calendar Cmee the most important one of all, and it will do the Speaker's bidding. Things the speaker doesn't want passed will not make it out of the calendar committee, or will get otherwise fatally delayed along the way. That's the specific context of the spat between Toth and Patrick.

And in a larger context, there is always a lot of tension between a Speaker, a Lt. Gov (presiding officer of the Tx Senate), and Gov. when session is in, over legislative agendas. And with respect to the constraint of time, Gov is the weakest of the three.

Phelan is a classic rino, a person who genuinely lconsiders himself a conservative but actually is not ideologically driven at all. When they say "I'm a conservative" what they REALLY mean is "I'm not one of those crazy liberals." They actually are plain old pragmatic moderates, whose most common error is engaging in gargantuan middle ground fallacies.

---

My point is that you guys see yourselves as the judges of what is acceptable conservatism. You get to pass judgement and then use RINO to denigrate a fellow Republican. Wouldn't it be nice to have 2 RINO US senators in Georgia and Arizona? In your case, maybe not.

As to the Calendars Committee, who does that for the senate? I think it is the lite gov. Not a committee, but one person.

While we're on the lege, most conservatives I know want fewer bills to pass and want to make it easier to kill bills.

---

2) the Chairman of calendars is appointed by the party leader in the House and Senate, always a most trusted lieutenant.

---

I can't find the name of the chairman of the Senate calendars in last session. Do you haver a link?

---

The admin Cmee does the consent calendar. The LtGov office does the contentious stuff.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quorum Report is ****-stirring with clickbait. More details on the Patrick-Toth spat.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/lt-gov-dan-patrick-blasts-state-rep-steve-toth-for-baseless-accusations-against-him/

Nothing unusual going on. base and establishment tusssling over what should/will get passed or not during lege.

No reasonable interpretation would put Dan Patrick on the RINO end of the GOP.

Same cannot be said for Phelan. Traditionally, Texas Speaker is a Moderate chosen by the opposing party.

---

So you guys can use the "r" word but not others? Typical

---

I don't understand your point here.

If we plot the three people mentioned on a scale from least to most conservative, it would run = Phelan, Abbott, Patrick. I would put a little daylight between them, and I'd say only Phelan deserves the moniker from time to time (although it is fair to say Abbott never takes a step to the right without checking first to see whether or not DeSantis is already there).

Conservatives surely use the R-word when Republicans become obstacles to getting pieces of the Republican platform enacted into law. (In Texas, that usually manifests itself into frustration at the Speaker of the Tx House, who by tradition is a centrist). Republicans thusly accused are usually defensive about it (except for the Tx speaker, who if you corner them can be quite smug about it.) I cannot recall a Republican anywhere on the spectrum complain about someone not on the spectrum using the R-word.

And I think you're missing context. Tx lege is in session. It only sits for 140 calendar days, after which a Gov must call a special session to get additional things done. TIME is the enemy of every bill. Most bills fail because the session ends before it can be voted on. That makes the Calendar Cmee the most important one of all, and it will do the Speaker's bidding. Things the speaker doesn't want passed will not make it out of the calendar committee, or will get otherwise fatally delayed along the way. That's the specific context of the spat between Toth and Patrick.

And in a larger context, there is always a lot of tension between a Speaker, a Lt. Gov (presiding officer of the Tx Senate), and Gov. when session is in, over legislative agendas. And with respect to the constraint of time, Gov is the weakest of the three.

Phelan is a classic rino, a person who genuinely lconsiders himself a conservative but actually is not ideologically driven at all. When they say "I'm a conservative" what they REALLY mean is "I'm not one of those crazy liberals." They actually are plain old pragmatic moderates, whose most common error is engaging in gargantuan middle ground fallacies.

---

My point is that you guys see yourselves as the judges of what is acceptable conservatism. You get to pass judgement and then use RINO to denigrate a fellow Republican. Wouldn't it be nice to have 2 RINO US senators in Georgia and Arizona? In your case, maybe not.

As to the Calendars Committee, who does that for the senate? I think it is the lite gov. Not a committee, but one person.

While we're on the lege, most conservatives I know want fewer bills to pass and want to make it easier to kill bills.

---

2) the Chairman of calendars is appointed by the party leader in the House and Senate, always a most trusted lieutenant.

---

I can't find the name of the chairman of the Senate calendars in last session. Do you haver a link?

---

The admin Cmee does the consent calendar. The LtGov office does the contentious stuff.

---

So 1 guy (Lt gov) is the calendars committee for the senate?

whiterock said:

---

1) to a Republican, conservative means supporting the party platform, which is written in a highly collaborative process and voted upon by anyone who desires to participate in that process. Further, a voting record is what it is. If an elected official doesn't want to be called the r-word (attacked from the right), then that official should vote more in line with the platform. If an elected official finds virtue in frustrating key planks of the party platform, then that official should wear the r-word as a badge of honor. Either way, whining about use of the r-word is so unseemly as to suggest unsuitability for office.

---

Are you saying that a Republican who does not support every plank of the Republican platform is not a conservative and is a RINO? LG Patrick didn't take
RINO as a badge of honor. Why?
A small group of Republicans write the platform (platform committee) and then a small group of Republicans (delegates) vote on it at a convention.
The senator or state rep represents many more people. A senator represents close to 900,000 people and a state rep represents close to 200,000. They have an obligation to their constituents, not to a relatively small group of Republicans.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

1) to a Republican, conservative means supporting the party platform, which is written in a highly collaborative process and voted upon by anyone who desires to participate in that process. Further, a voting record is what it is. If an elected official doesn't want to be called the r-word (attacked from the right), then that official should vote more in line with the platform. If an elected official finds virtue in frustrating key planks of the party platform, then that official should wear the r-word as a badge of honor. Either way, whining about use of the r-word is so unseemly as to suggest unsuitability for office.

---

Are you saying that a Republican who does not support every plank of the Republican platform is not a conservative and is a RINO? LG Patrick didn't take
RINO as a badge of honor. Why?
A small group of Republicans write the platform (platform committee) and then a small group of Republicans (delegates) vote on it at a convention.
The senator or state rep represents many more people. A senator represents close to 900,000 people and a state rep represents close to 200,000. They have an obligation to their constituents, not to a relatively small group of Republicans.

---

You're trolling.
--"vote MORE in line with the platform" (what I actually said) does not mean "always vote the platform" (your spin). The GOP platform is an enormously long document. I am persuadable on the frequent critique that it should be short enough to fit on a pamphlet (good idea in theory; not entirely practical.).

--There is a vanishingly small number of people who agree with the proposition that LtGov Patrick is a RINO. John McCain, on the other end of the spectrum, cultivated the "maverick" image as a RINO. Joe Strauss was furthest thing from a maverick, but he worked against the base of the party so hard it was almost as if he calibrated the correctness of his position by how frequently and angrily the R-word was hurled against him.

--You should know the full facts. The platform committee is appointed by the Chairman with representatives from each of the 31 Senate districts. That committee reports out a proposed platform, a draft document more correctly described as an updated version of the prior platform, with only minor additions/subtractions/revisions. It is then voted on in 31 separate Senate caucuses report their votes at a general assembly session which ratifies the final document. The Tx GOP convention has +/- 9000 delegates, the largest political convention in the world. Yes, that is about 5% of a state house district. It is also not chopped liver. There is rarely more than a half dozen sentences in it contentious to anyone who feels a need to call themselves a conservative. More to the point: each state elected official runs in a primary, invariably promising to promote the platform. They promised. They promised to vote conservatively, to everyone who voted in that primary. And when they break that promise, it is right to hold them accountable. You see, in Texas, if you vote in a Republican primary, you ARE a Republican. So, technically, the number expecting performance on a GOP platform is not "9000 Republican activists" but usually more like 40-60k general election voters. (in each House district....a 7-digit number statewide).

Nice try.

Why are you so cranky?

I don't like a small minority of any group trying to dictate how my elected representatives vote.

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't like a small minority of any group trying to dictate how my elected representatives vote.

---

Dictate is an odd word choice, given that they cannot do that. They're also not a small minority. They are speaking for somewhere between a quarter and a tthird of the electorate (ymmv depending on the issue). Most polling shows self-identified conservatives as a plurality at 40% of the population give or take a point or two.

What they can do is speak their mind as you do. You could organize like minded people if you want to, as well. It's called self-government. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech.

Odd how moderates deem themselves the tolerance brigade until they hear stuff they don't like.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't like a small minority of any group trying to dictate how my elected representatives vote.

---

Dictate is an odd word choice, given that they cannot do that. They're also not a small minority. They are speaking for somewhere between a quarter and a tthird of the electorate (ymmv depending on the issue). Most polling shows self-identified conservatives as a plurality at 40% of the population give or take a point or two.

What they can do is speak their mind as you do. You could organize like minded people if you want to, as well. It's called self-government. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech.

Odd how moderates deem themselves the tolerance brigade until they hear stuff they don't like.

---

Dictate is exactly the right word. Texas senate districts have about 900,000 people and the state has about 34 million. The stat Republican convention has what? How many delegates? How many are on platform committee? If my state rep or senator don't vote the way you like you start this mau mau process with the RINO BS.
But when somebody calls your Lt Gov a RINO they are out of bounds.

I'll just watch from the Independent stands and make my judgements as my conscience dictates.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't like a small minority of any group trying to dictate how my elected representatives vote.

---

Dictate is an odd word choice, given that they cannot do that. They're also not a small minority. They are speaking for somewhere between a quarter and a tthird of the electorate (ymmv depending on the issue). Most polling shows self-identified conservatives as a plurality at 40% of the population give or take a point or two.

What they can do is speak their mind as you do. You could organize like minded people if you want to, as well. It's called self-government. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech.

Odd how moderates deem themselves the tolerance brigade until they hear stuff they don't like.

---

Dictate is exactly the right word. Texas senate districts have about 900,000 people and the state has about 34 million. The stat Republican convention has what? How many delegates? How many are on platform committee? If my state rep or senator don't vote the way you like you start this mau mau process with the RINO BS.
But when somebody calls your Lt Gov a RINO they are out of bounds.

I'll just watch from the Independent stands and make my judgements as my conscience dictates.

---

Apply your logic to the tex lege and you'll see the manifest fallacy. Those 9000 delegates to the Tx GOP convention are elected, too. The county party chairmen actually stand for election before the public on the primary ballot.

Your argument implicitly presumes the Tx GOP has power to remove someone from office. It does not. Neither does the Tx GOP have power to prevent someone from placing their name on the ballot. (except in a very rare statutory circumstance). So what you're really saying is you like a more genteel form of politics. That would be nice.

Republicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

whiterock said:

---

Republicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

---

I've just told you that what you are saying is not correct. Yet you continue to believe what you need to believe. You don't complain about the left doing the mau mau.
You actually DO the mau mau yourself. (but that's different because you feel strongly about it.)

Your good governance notion is just that - a notion. Means absolutely nothing. Reality is, every single Republican elected to the state house ran in a Republican party primary. Every single one of them signed and pledged and promised to promote the party platform. Every single one of them will be mau mau'd by the left if they honor that promise. And they will be mau mau'd if they don't by the right. That's the way the process works. But you don't like the process. You want things to be insulated from the process. Good Governance. Elected and appointed officials just quietly executing responsibilities. You will punish Republicans who get too conservative and shrug when leftists get elected in their stead and start using their power to push agenda that are the antithesis of "good governance."

Again, every single Republican that gets elected wins a primary where they are weighed against alternatives with respect to which candidate will do the best job of promoting the party platform. Sounds like your beef is with the primary system itself. what are you, some kind of royalist?

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

---

I've just told you that what you are saying is not correct. Yet you continue to believe what you need to believe. You don't complain about the left doing the mau mau.

Again, every single Republican that gets elected wins a primary where they are weighed against alternatives with respect to which candidate will do the best job of promoting the party platform. Sounds like your beef is with the primary system itself. what are you, some kind of royalist?

---

The left does mau mau. I was hoping for better

I want a Republican who doesn't take orders from the Establishment - you small clique of 9,000 who think they should make decisions for the 34 million of us.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

---

I've just told you that what you are saying is not correct. Yet you continue to believe what you need to believe. You don't complain about the left doing the mau mau.

Again, every single Republican that gets elected wins a primary where they are weighed against alternatives with respect to which candidate will do the best job of promoting the party platform. Sounds like your beef is with the primary system itself. what are you, some kind of royalist?

---

1. The left does mau mau. I was hoping for better

2. I want a Republican who doesn't take orders from the Establishment - you small clique of 9,000 who think they should make decisions for the 34 million of us.

---

1. But if you don't get what you want you will happily let the left do the mau mau on not just their own kind, but the entire country.

2. Now wait a minute. You are wandering all over the map on the establishment and the grassroots thing. Firstly, again committing your basic governance error - it's not the 9,000 who make all the decisions on who gets to run on the GOP ticket. It's every single person who votes in a Republican primary (which in Texas is a 7-digit supermajority of all primary voters.) Secondly, you are calling the entire GOP "the establishment," as if there never was an establishment/grassroots battle over things like Ford v. Reagan, Reagan v. Bush, McCain v Huckabee, Cruz v. Dewhurst, etc......in primaries. You are lumping the Bushies in with the Tea Party, the McCainiacs with the UltraMagas. In one argument, you say the whole party is Establishment (moderate), yet in another you complain that the Trumpers (grassroots) are in control. You criticize the entire party as the Mau Mau, yet gave money to the establishment crone doing an ACTUAL mau mau on the grassroots.

you are so full of it the **** is dripping off your chin.

You COULD get involved in the party. you COULD go to a monthly GOP meeting and meet elected officials and grassroots types (who get along fine), and get to listen to an elected official or policy wonk give a talk. You could go to the precinct convention on primary night (or shortly thereafter). You'd be more influential than you realize, as conventions are in most precincts attended by single digits of voters. You could then go to county convention and give input on the platform and on ballot resolution. From there you could go to state convention and do the same. If you did all that you'd be a lot more educated on how the process works than you are now. You'd understand the logic behind some of the stuff you don't like. Might even change your mind on some stuff (like I did). Or you could continue to do the monkey routine, throwing feces and banana peels at passersby every time the golden haired elephant Trumpets something that offends your sensibilities.

I think we all know how the story will go.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

---

I've just told you that what you are saying is not correct. Yet you continue to believe what you need to believe. You don't complain about the left doing the mau mau.

Again, every single Republican that gets elected wins a primary where they are weighed against alternatives with respect to which candidate will do the best job of promoting the party platform. Sounds like your beef is with the primary system itself. what are you, some kind of royalist?

---

1. The left does mau mau. I was hoping for better

2. I want a Republican who doesn't take orders from the Establishment - you small clique of 9,000 who think they should make decisions for the 34 million of us.

---

1. But if you don't get what you want you will happily let the left do the mau mau on not just their own kind, but the entire country.

2. Now wait a minute. You are wandering all over the map on the establishment and the grassroots thing. Firstly, again committing your basic governance error - it's not the 9,000 who make all the decisions on who gets to run on the GOP ticket. It's every single person who votes in a Republican primary (which in Texas is a 7-digit supermajority of all primary voters.) Secondly, you are calling the entire GOP "the establishment," as if there never was an establishment/grassroots battle over things like Ford v. Reagan, Reagan v. Bush, McCain v Huckabee, Cruz v. Dewhurst, etc......in primaries. You are lumping the Bushies in with the Tea Party, the McCainiacs with the UltraMagas. In one argument, you say the whole party is Establishment (moderate), yet in another you complain that the Trumpers (grassroots) are in control. You criticize the entire party as the Mau Mau, yet gave money to the establishment crone doing an ACTUAL mau mau on the grassroots.

---

1. Nope.

2. You are the Establishment and want to hang onto the power your clique has accumulated. Every single person who voted in your primary didn't get to vote on the platform by which you assume the power to grade elected officials. It is your right to mau mau, but drop the crap about every primary voter having a say about the platform. I am saying you are the Establishment and you like that power. For all we know, you are being paid by Trump. You're on the board of directors and you like the power.
I do criticize the 9,000 for dictating to elected officials and expecting them to mind you. Everyone has the right to petition the government and you do well when you do. But you guys won't be happy until you are in the minority again.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

---

I've just told you that what you are saying is not correct. Yet you continue to believe what you need to believe. You don't complain about the left doing the mau mau.

Again, every single Republican that gets elected wins a primary where they are weighed against alternatives with respect to which candidate will do the best job of promoting the party platform. Sounds like your beef is with the primary system itself. what are you, some kind of royalist?

---

1. The left does mau mau. I was hoping for better

2. I want a Republican who doesn't take orders from the Establishment - you small clique of 9,000 who think they should make decisions for the 34 million of us.

---

1. But if you don't get what you want you will happily let the left do the mau mau on not just their own kind, but the entire country.

2. Now wait a minute. You are wandering all over the map on the establishment and the grassroots thing. Firstly, again committing your basic governance error - it's not the 9,000 who make all the decisions on who gets to run on the GOP ticket. It's every single person who votes in a Republican primary (which in Texas is a 7-digit supermajority of all primary voters.) Secondly, you are calling the entire GOP "the establishment," as if there never was an establishment/grassroots battle over things like Ford v. Reagan, Reagan v. Bush, McCain v Huckabee, Cruz v. Dewhurst, etc......in primaries. You are lumping the Bushies in with the Tea Party, the McCainiacs with the UltraMagas. In one argument, you say the whole party is Establishment (moderate), yet in another you complain that the Trumpers (grassroots) are in control. You criticize the entire party as the Mau Mau, yet gave money to the establishment crone doing an ACTUAL mau mau on the grassroots.

---

1. Nope.

2. You are the Establishment and want to hang onto the power your clique has accumulated. Every single person who voted in your primary didn't get to vote on the platform by which you assume the power to grade elected officials. It is your right to mau mau, but drop the crap about every primary voter having a say about the platform. I am saying you are the Establishment and you like that power. For all we know, you are being paid by Trump. You're on the board of directors and you like the power.
I do criticize the 9,000 for dictating to elected officials and expecting them to mind you. Everyone has the right to petition the government and you do well when you do. But you guys won't be happy until you are in the minority again.

---

LOL no one in the party would call me establishment. Is a surrogate speaker for Ted Cruz running against David Dewhurst establishment? Yes, I ran some district committees for our Congressman. But when the Tea Parties wanted to give an award to him for supporting them, they asked me to MC the event where the award was given. Reality is, I'm the "never fight the base of your party" guy, because it's a lose-lose proposition..."because if you win, you win a smaller party, and if you lose, well, you lose." I'm the guy who wasn't ON the Tea Party board, but was usually one of the 1st two or three calls they made for advice, because they knew I valued them as an asset and would give them good advice on how to be effective. When they decided not to back Dan Patrick for LtGov over Dewhurst, I suggested they had two options....do nothing, or give Dewhurst a close look. What do you have to lose by reaching out and talking? I told them. You could still do nothing, but at least you engaged and showed you were willing to listen with an open mind. Net result is a TV ad with pictures of Dewhurst sitting with the board at my dining room table, washing dishes at my kitchen sink and handing them to the TP chairman to put in the dishwasher. Dewhurst lost, of course (no my fault) but the point is I try to get everyone to play team ball. That's my deal. Most of those TP folks today are precinct and county chairman. The TP was a big infusion of talent. So is the MAGA. You just have to get the prior regime to open the door and let people in, and trust the system to take car of stuff that worries you. YOU are the one defending the clique....donating money to an old establshment hack trying to stymie grassroots candidates to restore an old regime. LOL.

Every primary voter does have a say on the platform. The elect the county chairman who selects delegates for state convention. More to the point, they have a say on candidates who pledge to support part/all of the platform. You have never bothered to tell us what parts of the platform you oppose. Probably because you've never read it.

The board fairly represents the Republican voters at large. We had everything, from stodgy bushies to wild-eyed libertarian nutjobs to ultraMaga as well as quiet thoughtful engineers and teachers. A couple of those I served with are in the lege today. One is in Congress. So the board as well as the convention is a pretty broad spectrum, not at all what you need it to be. I did not run for re-election. My replacement was one of those wild-eyed bomb thrower types the bushies did everything they could to stop (I made no endorsement). I helped him every time I had the chance. He moderated a bit. Participation tends to do that. You should try it.

YOU are the one who isn't happy until Republicans are in the minority. You lean toward self-hatred as bad as those folks you've started voting for. Maybe that's the common factor.... LOL

Any way, you are writhing around in the "lose-lose" quagmire my dictum above mentioned. That's what happens when you fight the base of the party. It doesn't help anything. It just makes you more like them.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

whiterockRepublicans are elected in a primary for the purpose of promoting the party platform. Voters ratify that when they elect them in the general election. Reasonable people can disagree on how to get things done, but we know a leopard by its spots. Same for RINOs. The mau mau process is part of the process. If you don't like it, don't play.

---

I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. You are the Establishment, so you would say that.

Republicans aren't happy until they are in the minority.

Independents don't like it and will play a role, e.g. AZ, PA, GA where Republicans used to have 5 US Senators

---

Moderates get beat, too. Like Romeny, McCain, etc.... Because voters sense that moderates all too often just want to old office to hold office, straddling fences, cutting deals that do little but cost much.

In bold you stated a false dilemma that runs throughout your thinking. Neither partisanship nor conservatism are the enemy of good governance.

The principle is on the ends, my friend....people who organize to push big ideas. Those ideas may be good or may be bad at solving the problems of the day, but they are invariably based on sincere belief of benefit. Moderates often premise their thought on the notion that the middle is a static position which must be defended from all ideas, failing to see that such is all to often a case of believing are superior because they believe in nothing.

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels."
-- Ronald Reagan

---

LOL.
You are the Establishment. You are on the board of directors of the Tx Republican Party, you are one of 9,000 people who decide what all Republicans must believe and you want to mau mau my state rep, senator, Congressman, and US senators into voting like you tell them. Texas has a population of 34 million and you brag about this oligarchy that is in control.

Your back has to be sore from carrying all that water for Trump. You guys would cast Reagan out of the party, so don't start quoting him as though he and Trump are similar. After all, Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy to the Court.

In the bold you quote me stating an aspiration, i.e. I hope Republicans are elected to yield good governance, not blind adherence to a political party. I do! Partisanship and/or conservatism don't have to be the enemy of good government; I've never said otherwise.

You want Republicans elected by hundreds of thousands of voters to mind you, one of 9,000 members of a powerful clique. Tell you what. You nominate them & I'll consider them

---

I've just told you that what you are saying is not correct. Yet you continue to believe what you need to believe. You don't complain about the left doing the mau mau.

Again, every single Republican that gets elected wins a primary where they are weighed against alternatives with respect to which candidate will do the best job of promoting the party platform. Sounds like your beef is with the primary system itself. what are you, some kind of royalist?

---

1. The left does mau mau. I was hoping for better

2. I want a Republican who doesn't take orders from the Establishment - you small clique of 9,000 who think they should make decisions for the 34 million of us.

---

1. But if you don't get what you want you will happily let the left do the mau mau on not just their own kind, but the entire country.

2. Now wait a minute. You are wandering all over the map on the establishment and the grassroots thing. Firstly, again committing your basic governance error - it's not the 9,000 who make all the decisions on who gets to run on the GOP ticket. It's every single person who votes in a Republican primary (which in Texas is a 7-digit supermajority of all primary voters.) Secondly, you are calling the entire GOP "the establishment," as if there never was an establishment/grassroots battle over things like Ford v. Reagan, Reagan v. Bush, McCain v Huckabee, Cruz v. Dewhurst, etc......in primaries. You are lumping the Bushies in with the Tea Party, the McCainiacs with the UltraMagas. In one argument, you say the whole party is Establishment (moderate), yet in another you complain that the Trumpers (grassroots) are in control. You criticize the entire party as the Mau Mau, yet gave money to the establishment crone doing an ACTUAL mau mau on the grassroots.

---

1. Nope.

2. You are the Establishment and want to hang onto the power your clique has accumulated. Every single person who voted in your primary didn't get to vote on the platform by which you assume the power to grade elected officials. It is your right to mau mau, but drop the crap about every primary voter having a say about the platform. I am saying you are the Establishment and you like that power. For all we know, you are being paid by Trump. You're on the board of directors and you like the power.
I do criticize the 9,000 for dictating to elected officials and expecting them to mind you. Everyone has the right to petition the government and you do well when you do. But you guys won't be happy until you are in the minority again.

---

LOL no one in the party would call me establishment. Is a surrogate speaker for Ted Cruz running against David Dewhurst establishment? Yes, I ran some district committees for our Congressman. But when the Tea Parties wanted to give an award to him for supporting them, they asked me to MC the event where the award was given. Reality is, I'm the "never fight the base of your party" guy, because it's a lose-lose proposition..."because if you win, you win a smaller party, and if you lose, well, you lose." I'm the guy who wasn't ON the Tea Party board, but was usually one of the 1st two or three calls they made for advice, because they knew I valued them as an asset and would give them good advice on how to be effective. When they decided not to back Dan Patrick for LtGov over Dewhurst, I suggested they had two options....do nothing, or give Dewhurst a close look. What do you have to lose by reaching out and talking? I told them. You could still do nothing, but at least you engaged and showed you were willing to listen with an open mind. Net result is a TV ad with pictures of Dewhurst sitting with the board at my dining room table, washing dishes at my kitchen sink and handing them to the TP chairman to put in the dishwasher. Dewhurst lost, of course (no my fault) but the point is I try to get everyone to play team ball. That's my deal. Most of those TP folks today are precinct and county chairman. The TP was a big infusion of talent. So is the MAGA. You just have to get the prior regime to open the door and let people in, and trust the system to take car of stuff that worries you. YOU are the one defending the clique....donating money to an old establshment hack trying to stymie grassroots candidates to restore an old regime. LOL.

Every primary voter does have a say on the platform. The elect the county chairman who selects delegates for state convention. More to the point, they have a say on candidates who pledge to support part/all of the platform. You have never bothered to tell us what parts of the platform you oppose. Probably because you've never read it.

The board fairly represents the Republican voters at large. We had everything, from stodgy bushies to wild-eyed libertarian nutjobs to ultraMaga as well as quiet thoughtful engineers and teachers. A couple of those I served with are in the lege today. One is in Congress. So the board as well as the convention is a pretty broad spectrum, not at all what you need it to be. I did not run for re-election. My replacement was one of those wild-eyed bomb thrower types the bushies did everything they could to stop (I made no endorsement). I helped him every time I had the chance. He moderated a bit. Participation tends to do that. You should try it.

YOU are the one who isn't happy until Republicans are in the minority. You lean toward self-hatred as bad as those folks you've started voting for. Maybe that's the common factor.... LOL

Any way, you are writhing around in the "lose-lose" quagmire my dictum above mentioned. That's what happens when you fight the base of the party. It doesn't help anything. It just makes you more like them.

---

You are the only poster here who writes longer posts than Jinx

Since you've never seen one, link will take you to a copy of the Tx Republican Party Platform. Feel free to elucidate which planks you find objectionable.

Of note, I see only one person on the Platform Cmee who was on the Board when I served. Pretty robust turnover. Not at all the sign of a tight establishment seeking to maintain power. Rather the sign of a strong and inclusive movement welcoming people into a big tent.

https://texasgop.org/platform/