Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Political thoughts... a different view.

I think all public officials have an obligation to understand that their party allegiance, professed at the time of their election, should be the basis for their political judgment on the facts and think matters through using those political philosophies before arriving at a position on a matter of public policy.

In other words, if you claim to be GOP, then vote like it.

If I didn’t believe that, then I would conclude that there is absolutely no point in even having political parties.

If a politician is going to ignore the tenets of their party affiliation after election, it’s fairly clear that they used their alleged affiliation in a fraudulent manner to even get elected and they should end any involvement with any political party they identify with that they subsequently abandon, for public consumption.

Marc Boldt did that by running as an independent, even though he's been a non-functioning PCO for the last 3 years in the GOP... until, of course, he came crawling back to the GOP to try and weasel their endorsement to match that of the Young Communists.

I believe this extends to political party leaders as well, either in or out of the party.  Some throw a fit and quit the party they wrongly believe they should still, somehow, control… as if their opinion actually matters within the party organization.

Some may disagree with them, but if they ultimately see things their way… meaning, do things the way those who disagree with them want, those disagreeing will respect them… until the next disagreement.

They do not respect group think, cults of personality, or making decisions based solely on preconceptions without meaningful considerations of facts that may show those preconceptions wrong, unless the conclusions arrived at match the agenda of those complaining.  Then those involved will slavishly support those in the political organization or philosophy where agreement is achieved.  Otherwise, it’s all trashing, all the time.

They claim they’re not much for labels or mindless talking points.  Unless the candidate has an “R” after their name.  Then, even though they claim to be Republican, they could vote like Lenin and, if anything, that would increase their approval and allow them to support the complete and utter betrayal that may have gone on for years.

They always chose to see bad faith on the part of those they disagree with but now they see disagreement with their conclusions much more often. And they’re rarely open to the likelihood that those who disagree with them see something they missed and that they could be wrong.  Honesty and integrity rarely have any place with them as it's easier for them to share the left's hatred meme and to ignore the individual if they chose... like their efforts in the county chair election.

Making decisions based on emotion or when in an emotional state should be avoided, unless they want to do it, such as the idea of signing a letter asking us to ignore a politician's actual voting record while demanding we should ignore the party they’ve been thrown out of or quit… in an emotional state… and vote for their candidate anyway.

The ends, as a rule, don't justify the means, unless the ends in question are the ends THEY want.  Then, any lie, any exaggeration, any falsehood is fine with them.

This post is aimed at anyone or any group who doesn’t go along with their program, which I have repeatedly observed over the years… and is part and parcel as to why this country is so completely screwed up today.

I freely admit this was sent to me and I heavily modified it to reflect the reality of the situation, instead of the one-sided, self-serving pap of the original author.

You see, I was born on a Saturday... but not LAST Saturday.  And the main problem with the original post, now heavily modified here, was the double standard where the man who wrote this has REPEATEDLY violated every tenet he claimed when it suited him... even as he wrote this.

Just sayin.


Martin Hash said...

What's one person's Party position is another person's WTF. The only concrete issues are in the Party's platform: if the platform doesn't say it then a RINO is just a person who doesn't think exactly like you.

Also, if a candidate clearly makes a stand on an issue that is contrary to the platform they are under, I would allow them to abstain from voting when that issue comes up, NOT vote opposite the Party platform, simply don't vote.

Just a guy said...

Well, in this instance, those who take the view espoused by, say, your typical political supporter of Boldt, a Boldt who has made it clear on occasion that he's not read the GOP platform, could care less about the platform in question.

The letter, signed by 5 chair's who've been out of power for years now, advocates that we ignore Boldt's voting record (which is an almost complete match to Steve Stuart's voting record) and vote for him anyway.

For me, that's the dichotomy. These 5 former GOP chairs now advocate that the positions of the party... as well as Boldt's own voting record, be taken out of the realm of consideration... and that we should just vote for Boldt anyway... regardless of his voting record, his lack of vision (I damned sure haven't heard what he plans to turn this county into, for example) his inability to engage in meaningful introspection (I have seen nothing to indicate a willingness on his part to understand or acknowledge anything he did that was wrong during his tenure as a commissioner... and his party betrayal was completely over his head.

In short, some of them... particular and especially Brent Boger, who wrote the little FB essay that I modified into something a bit more realistic and reflective of his history, have done everything they claim they haven't... when it suits them. And I hate that "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy.

Boldt actually got up in front of the PCO's (Who he hadn't attended a single meeting or function with in the 3 years he'd been a PCO) and then told them he could do a better job as Chair without a party affiliation... as a part of his spiel asking for the GOP endorsement. Something he told to one of THE most partisan groups in this county... which was a slap to their face.

The only indications we'd have of Boldt or any other Republican as to their affiliation is both what that person may claim... and then, how that person may vote.

The idea that one claims to be GOP and then votes, rhetorically speaking, like Stalin casts doubt on that affiliation conclusion... but the Gang of 5 could care less.... for reasons that I know... but which they never talk about: mainly their disdain of Madore... and conservatives generally.