Defining the GOP "establishment."

I've been anti-establishment when it comes to candidates for years... over a decade, in fact.  So here's my definition:

In the old Soviet Union, they practiced a form of politics known as "democratic centralism."

"Credited" to Lenin, it is the organizational system in which policy is decided centrally and is binding on all members.

Democratic centralism is the name given to the principles of internal organization used by Leninist political parties, and the term is sometimes used as a synonym for any Leninist policy inside a political party. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion, unity of action."^[1]

The problems here are obvious in our system.

The questions include: who died and left the people who make these decisions in charge?

Why do they pick who they pick?

How do they pick who they pick?

What about those who refuse to play along (You know... like me?)

In my experience, money determines who makes the informal selection committee.  In this state, for example, every state wide candidate of any import has to make it past what I refer to as the Bellevue Mafia.

The best examples include Dino Rossi and Jaime Herrera. And this year, it's McKenna and Reagan Dunn.

Locally, it's Marc Boldt, former Republican but now a wholly-owned subsidiary of our own local mafia, the Downtown/CRUDEC/Chamber of Horrors version.

The big money is primarily made up of King County/Puget Sound Republicans.  And we all know what a bastion of political success THAT'S been.

The only reason McKenna has a chance is because Jay Inslee is a dolt.  If it were Cantwell, for example, there's a likelihood McKenna would be clobbered.

Most people don't know that the German version of the Bellevue Mafia initially supported... and financed... Hitler, because they believed they  were smarter than he was and they could "control" him.

They couldn't, of course, but as near as I can tell, the motivations are remarkably similar.

No, I'm not comparing these candidates with Hitler.

But I am comparing the motivations with those supporting them and I find them to be remarkably similar and remarkably bereft of concern for the people.

That's why, for example, Boldt can support tolls, loot rail, the bridge while simultaneously laughing at the very idea of any type of county wide vote... and why he supports the gerrymandered CTran taxing district while forcing those of us who weren't allowed to vote to pay the taxes.

I've been attacked by other PCO's because of my positions.  And I could care less.  Tilting at windmills is my particular... and peculiar... specialty.

I despise the establishment because their version of compromise is limited to labels.  I believe they'd support Satan if he had an "R" after his name and they thought they could control him.

What *I* support is independent thought, thought that not only seeks out but is in no way frightened by the will of the people they would serve.

Boldt used to be very big on that "servant of the people" jazz.

Now, he's morphed into something else... something sinister... something uncaring about anything but getting elected so he can be fully vested in the retirement... whatever that takes... whatever principles that ignores... whatever Republican concepts have to be ditched to make that happen.

That and his supporters... all the money types... his fellow democrats... his admitted failure to even read the GOP platform locally... that sort of thing is what makes him an "establishment" candidate... and what makes me despise him, my own brother in law.

I will gladly provide further clarification if anyone wants it.