tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434819406898941181.post7312232129411446449..comments2024-03-28T03:13:56.387-05:00Comments on MuskogeePolitico.com: Steve Fair on the CaucusJamison Faughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02717547537110650231noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434819406898941181.post-31244652726997930162009-04-13T14:43:00.000-05:002009-04-13T14:43:00.000-05:00If the caucus intiative fails, then we the conserv...If the caucus intiative fails, then we the conservatives need to get more vocal and active than ever. The change to a primary system coincided with the neocon insurgence into the party. We got a bunch of anti-Clinton Democrats to change parties, but they were not educated in what it means to be a conservative. People like the Oklahoma bailout whores in Washington, Mick Cornett, and various and sundry other corporate fascists could not have been elected were it not for the RINOs that joined the party soley because they didn't like Clinton. Maybe if we the conservatives really reach out to and educate the neocons; and if necessary separate the sheep from the goats, regardless of supposed fundraising ability; we might make true conservatives out of them. Then the caucus initiative could pass next time around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434819406898941181.post-86635111163495643542009-04-11T19:43:00.000-05:002009-04-11T19:43:00.000-05:00Mr. Fair gets it wrong on multiple counts. Beside...Mr. Fair gets it wrong on multiple counts. Besides the fact that he unfairly and publicly questions the motives of those in favor of a return to the caucus system, he gets the following factual points wrong:<BR/><BR/>1. He repeatedly refers to the results of the Iowa caucus. We are not talking about Iowa, nor are we advocating the caucus system for all 50 states. We are talking about Oklahoma. And Oklahoma has proven itself a more conservative state -- particularly in its historical caucus results.<BR/><BR/>2. He asserts that there is no evidence that a larger, more active volunteer and donor base would result from a return to the caucus. To that I say, ask anyone who was active in the Party back then. They'll tell you that participation was far higher. But how can we FAIL to increase volunteers when we will have vastly larger contact lists of interested Republicans to call upon for volunteers?<BR/><BR/>3. He asserts that Iowa receives its attention solely because of its being first in the nation. I would argue that it does not only get its attention from that fact, but I would further point out that if Oklahoma adopted the Caucus OK proposal, Oklahoma would also be one of the first in the nation as our precinct meetings/caucuses occur around the last week of January.<BR/><BR/>4. He asserts that RNC rules would prohibit Oklahoma from holding such an early caucus. This is incorrect. RNC rule 15(b) reads:<BR/><BR/>"No primary, caucus, or convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention shall occur prior to the first Tuesday in February in the year in which a national convention is held. Except New Hampshire and South Carolina may begin their processes at any time on or after the third Tuesday in January in the year in which a national convention is held."<BR/><BR/>The precinct caucuses do not "elect, select, allocate, or bind" any delegates. It is merely a poll which may be used later, by the district and state conventions, to bind delegates, if the convention so chooses (which I expect it usually will). The election of delegates would occur on the same time schedule they always have. We would therefore be among the first in the nation to test the various candidate's popularity through the precinct poll, thereby reaping the rewards of such an early caucus, but also remain in compliance with RNC rules.<BR/><BR/>5. He asserts there is no evidence that a caucus system would yield results reflective of the consensus of the Party grassroots. This one is really simple: Those attending the conventions - the Party grassroots - will be able to bind the delegates based on majority support - not a mere plurality as is the present case. <BR/><BR/>6. He states that the 345,000 people who voted in the primary would be told that their vote doesn't matter. This is simply not true. They would have the same opportunity to vote, just through different means. And with the current system, almost two-thirds of the Republican electorate were told their vote didn't matter because almost two-thirds did NOT vote for John McCain, yet he was awarded all the delegates at-large, and in three of our five congressional districts.<BR/><BR/>7. He asserts that the proposal would not generate any additional revenue and would actually cost the Party money. This is patently false, as the candidates filing for candidacy would pay a filing fee (in an amount decided by the State Committee) to the Party rather than to the State election board. This alone would be a large source of funds. But added to that, since delegate binding would occur through the convention process, candidates would purchase delegate lists and other candidate services directly from the Party for their campaigns.<BR/><BR/>8. He asserts that the proposal would not save any tax-payer money. This is also false. While it is true that this proposal does not change law, it would effectively end the GOP's participation in the Primary, reducing the cost of the Primary itself even if the Democrats continue to participate. However, if we do adopt the Caucus OK proposal, currently-proposed legislation requiring each political Party to finance its own Primary would receive a lot of support in the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate. If passed, the Democrat Party would then have to foot a $1.5 million bill to pay for their own Primary - while it would cost Republicans nothing. It would either force the Dems to drop the Primary as well, or else would give the GOP a tremendous financial advantage. It's a win-win situation.<BR/><BR/>9. He asserts that the fact that Republicans hold more seats in our state legislature than they did in 1988 demonstrates that the Primary works better than the caucus. This is a very weak argument. For one, there was a shift toward the GOP during this time across the nation, and in Oklahoma in particular for ideological reasons - not because of the way we nominated Presidential candidates. However statistically, there is a slight tendency to favor Republican legislatures in caucus states compared to Primary states. But the issue at hand is not so much state legislature races (which are a general election issue), but the Presidential nomination. I believe the case can be well established that the present system, which tends to nominate the media-darling candidate, often by plurality rather than majority, is broken. We were told back in the 80's that we should go to a Primary to get more attention by joining "Super Tuesday" (and as I've heard it, the main proponents of the shift were Democrats). It didn't work. Now we're being told by Mr. Fair that we have to stick with a system that isn't working, and didn't achieve the goals it was meant to achieve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434819406898941181.post-54260676999357607242009-04-07T01:12:00.000-05:002009-04-07T01:12:00.000-05:00Size of crowds is not the only thing to be conside...Size of crowds is not the only thing to be considered. There are better ways to learn about a candidate than "at the precinct". That's a recipe for RINO victories. Pander to the right long enough to win, which is REAL easy to do at a caucus, and then govern to the left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434819406898941181.post-22198265272020522662009-04-04T18:28:00.000-05:002009-04-04T18:28:00.000-05:00It's interesting that Steve Fair (and yourself) ar...It's interesting that Steve Fair (and yourself) are against something you've never experienced! Wow, what a bunch of "open" minds! <BR/><BR/>Those of us who were around when Oklahoma held a caucus remember the standing room only at precinct meetings, the HUGE crowds at county conventions and even larger crowds at State Conventions. Campaigns had large numbers of volunteers, many who helped a candidate because they learned about them at the precinct.<BR/><BR/>I don't see where we are trying to imitate Iowa... it will be an Oklahoma caucus. Most likely the first one in nation to be only Republicans participating in them. <BR/><BR/>Steve is a nice guy BUT he is wrong on the caucus. It's time to give Oklahoma Republicans their voice! Vote YES to restore the Caucus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com