Saturday, August 29, 2015

Only one side in the Boldt bruhaha are "ideologues."

"But Paul, Marc Boldt can't win."  (In response to an observation that he will win.)

Even during the GOP meeting, that theme was repeated over and over and over again.

Now, a Boldt supporter is sure that he will win.

You can say one thing about those opposed to conservatives:

They're all over the map. The thing they have in common is hatred for the current local regime in the GOP.  And that hatred is what is driving their prognostications.

I prefer to try and stick with the political, practical realities.  And the practical political reality is this: with Boldt and Dalesandro on the ballot, there is zero possibility of a conservative winning.

The democrats endorsed Dalesandro, and the even more fringe-left Young Democrats endorsed the supposedly conservative, supposedly Republican, Marc Boldt; an endorsement he sought out and accepted.

None of this means a thing to Boldt supporters and CCGOP haters.

Leftists are whining about the CCGOP "ignoring the will of the people," as if the left ever cared about that... and as if the people, ultimately, won't have the final say in all of this.

Boldt fears a discussion of the issues because he knows he's taken incredibly unpopular stances on those issues in the past... and those stances have, in fact, cost him his seat on the county commission.

Instead of learning from those mistakes, he's doubled-down on them.  And because it was politically expedient, he dumped the GOP altogether to get on the ballot... until they became a threat.

Then, all of a sudden, he declares himself through his surrogates as being more GOP than Goldwater.

An obvious ploy, this GOP organization... and those running it, who, I might add, were not in charge when the GOP threw Marc out in 2011, rejected it for what it was:  An obvious attempt by Marc to protect his right flank.

Boldt put himself through that humiliation... and it was a humiliation for him, but one of his own doing (The speech snippets Gillespie tweeted out showed a stunning cluelessness on Boldt's part: here's a clue, Marc - don't get in front of one of the two most partisan groups in Clark County and tell them, in effect, that you don't want to be one of them.) because he knows what I know:

A properly ran, properly financed, properly messaged campaign will beat him to a pulp... and he's got no where to run to, given the anchor of his history of kowtowing to the left as a county commissioner.

He sees the threat.  He had to try it... but it was also a sign of desperation as he finds himself in roughly the same position as Madore found himself in the primary... and that's not particularly a place where anyone in politics wants to be.

Those sniveling about this outcome here, continuing to hold Boldt blameless in all of this, have already determined that the GOP has "handed the election to Dalesandro."  Many said so at the time. Many have said so since.  Now, they're claiming that Marc will win.

Can't have it both ways, folks.

Much of this current state of affairs is due to reliance on labeling... Boldt SAYS he's a "Republican," now, when he needs to be one... therefore he is... even though as a PCO, he has shown up at exactly one GOP function... the last one... in the last 3 years and even though he refused to even acknowledge his involvement in the GOP... or lack thereof... repeatedly until it became a direct threat to him.

Then, all of a sudden, Crain has to lead the charge for him, because she isn't driven by her personal hatred against the local party for dumping her in the last election cycle... no... that has nothing to do with it.

The issue, of course, is his record. Had his record been Republican, had he listened to us... the people of this county... listened to us instead of having been a rabid CRC supporter and repeatedly voted to raise our taxes... and acted on our wants and desires instead of those of the Downtown Mafia... he would still be a commissioner... and none of the rest of this would be happening.

It's easy to point to his political opponents and shout "ideologues," but in the end, labeling is what got us into this mess... and labeling won't get us out.

Those opposed to Boldt, who know his record as a commissioner, and are repelled at the thought of his on again/off again dependence on the GOP are no more "ideologues" than those who support him.

Ultimately, the worst that could happen is that Pike loses.  Had no effort at a write-in been made, well, there would be no chance that any conservative would win, so it's a risk well worth taking. As for either of the other two, there's essentially no difference, so it really doesn't matter if either of them wins.

That so many seem so terrified at the thought that ultimately, the people will decide?

Well. How.... democrat of you.

Meanwhile, I support Pike. I would have supported almost any conservative. For a time, until she bailed, I supported Ann Rivers as well.

I could be wrong, because I'm assured by the Crain faction that I don't know anything about Boldt and that I am "lying" about him. In their eyes, it's like I never heard of the man... the fact that I know him much more than any of you could ever hope to know him notwithstanding.

Nothing I say about Marc, none of my concerns or issues with his governance are worthy of consideration because my views don't dovetail with yours.

Yet those opposed to him are "ideologues?"


No comments: