Comments (14) | Add a comment
Vin Suprynowicz
Time to bring back the smoke-filled room
Updated: Feb. 12, 2012 | 8:15 a.m.
Did everybody have fun at those Saturday morning Republican caucuses?
I almost didn't go myself, figuring the "Stick with the unprincipled RINO Bob Dole-George Bush-John McCain-Mitt Romney" lemmings already had their done deal.
The 16 members of my precinct who actually bothered to show up Feb. 4 were expected to squeeze their adult butts into those molded chair-and-desk thingees in which sixth-graders now sit in little squares. (Wouldn't want them to actually sit facing the teacher's desk. That would be so 1940s.)
And then we waited.
No one had brought us an instruction sheet or even the presidential ballots. Some party volunteer with a name tag showed up and told us that stuff would be forthcoming. His only other bit of information: "Your votes here are binding."
"How will they be binding?" I asked. "What's the punishment for a delegate who goes to the convention and votes differently from how we want?"
"All I can tell you is your votes are binding," the gentleman said.
"They're not binding," I replied. "When we did this four years ago, our delegates went to the state convention and tried to put together national convention delegate slates different from those they were handed, so Sue Lowden and company told them they were out of time, they hadn't paid for the room past 6 o'clock, everyone go home, we'll reconvene later. But they never reconvened, and we have no idea who chose our delegates to the national convention. Sue Lowden and Beelzebub, for all I know." (For the record, Sue Lowden was once a courageous state senator.)
"Well, if you think they're going to cheat us and not pay attention to our votes, maybe you shouldn't be here," the gentleman said.
Smartest thing I heard all day. I believe I've gone through my last such farce.
In fact, when you finally go to the polls on Nov. 6 and vote for Gary Johnson or Barack Romney or Willard Obama, even that vote won't be binding. They won't tell you, but what you're really choosing is a slate of electors who will convene as the Electoral College and choose our president.
In 1972, Richard Nixon won the popular vote in Virginia. Among the electors expected to ceremonially cast one of Virginia's electoral votes for Nixon was the late lawyer and television producer Roger MacBride.
But he didn't. MacBride decided California Libertarian Party nominee John Hospers would make a better president -- at least there was a chance Hospers would obey his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" -- so MacBride cast his electoral vote for Hospers.
History remembers MacBride -- who for his courageous act was named the Libertarian Party's 1976 presidential nominee -- a "faithless elector." But as David Boaz wrote in an obituary in Liberty magazine, "faithless to Nixon and Agnew, anyway, but faithful to the constitutional principles Rose Wilder Lane had instilled in him."
Binding, schminding.
Our chair-gal asked if everyone's mind was made up, or if they wanted to hear speeches. A loud sentiment was voiced for "no speeches."
Since we had to sit around for more than an hour, though, there was some chatter. The two oldest gentlemen in the room allowed as how they couldn't vote for Ron Paul, because he'd called the prisoners held at Guantanamo "alleged" terrorists.
A young lady across the room -- almost certainly the only other Ron Paul voter -- volunteered that maybe he used that word because no one had determined their guilt -- not even a military tribunal.
The two older gentlemen allowed as how they didn't need any of that due-process malarkey. "Sometimes you just have to use your head."
They're not entirely wrong. If you're actually at war, with people shooting at you or trying to blow up your buildings, the correct response is not to apprehend your enemies, assign them public defenders and allow them to turn your courtrooms into bully pulpits.
Problem is, Congress hasn't declared war on anyone since 1945, and our vastly expensive, "nation-building" foreign wars are doing more harm than good.
I volunteered the opinion that -- while you don't have to be a veteran to be president -- I might invest a little more trust on an issue like this in a candidate who's actually served. Have any of the current five candidates ever served in the armed forces?
The general opinion in the room seemed to be that none of the four GOP candidates had served.
"Actually," I said, "Ron Paul was a flight surgeon, which means he was a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force. I think I'd trust him not to strip our defenses to the point where we'd be in any danger."
It was amiable chatter. No one's mind was changed. After sitting around for 90 minutes, the little ballot slips finally arrived and Precinct 2711 voted Mitt Romney 7, Newt Gingrich 6, Ron Paul 2, Rick Santorum 1.
Mitt Romney gave us socialized medicine in Massachusetts with RomneyCare.
Mitt Romney banned firearms, even for Utah permit-holders, at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics so as not to frighten the foreigners, despite the murders committed at the 1972 Munich Olympics precisely because of the Victim Disarmament rules in force there.
And Mitt Romney giddily signed a ban on semi-automatic rifles in Massachusetts in 2004, declaring "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. ... They are instruments of destruction for the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Like redcoats? I believe Gen. Gage told the Minutemen pretty much the same thing in 1775.
Others have called for Nevada's caucus system to be replaced by a government-run, voting-machine primary. While this would more accurately reflect the way the two branches of the Republicrat Party have gone from private associations to mere subsidized adjuncts of the state, I disagree.
I think participation is still way too high, as it is.
I believe we'd be more likely to end up with a principled, smaller-government president if Nevada's Republican designee were chosen by Dean Heller, Sharron Angle, former state Sen. Ann O'Connell, Mina lobster farmer Bob Eddy and a randomly selected cattle rancher and brothel madam meeting in a smoke-filled room in Wells or Austin, with tie votes to be resolved through the use of pugil sticks.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "The Ballad of Carl Drega," and "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Question for the genius beentheredonedope....Do you think a good return on your money is 60 cents on the dollar?...Because we now pay 40 cents for every dollar borrowed...But that probably doesn't concern you because we know you don't work for a living...You sponges don't care because you'll never pay the debt anyway; just add to it, huh?
Back to the subject at hand. Maine was worse than Nevada when it came to the cacaasses. Since Paul People hate government, why don't you get the Demcrats (who like government) to run them for you?
4 more years! HA HA Birth control? Give me a break ...Mitt? He looks like Simon Legree
Not a single GOOD reason in the world to cut the debt and only a barely out of the cave man would think so.
Debt is NOT a bad thing, heck if it were, it would mean only bad people had it and we all know that ain't the case. Its not even the nominative amount of debt that an entity has that is good or bad. The ONLY question that needs to be asked when trying to figure out whether debt is "good" or "bad" is whether the return on the debt, is greater than the cost of the debt.
Only when that question is asked can we really begin to understand why the debt this country has is NOT a bad thing, and in fact is ONLY a good thing; the cost of the debt this country has is FAR less than the return this country gets on that money. Its as if the rest of the world is saying to us "please let us finance ANYTHING that you want to spend money on in the United States including the health of your citizens, the education of your citizens, the defense of your citizens, or any other investment in your country and citizens that you choose. Oh, and by the way, we don't even want practically ANYTHING in return for that money and we are willing to accept LESS than 1 per cent per year as interest on that money that we lend you."
Only in far right wing land, or "libertarian" land, would any country WILLINGLY refuse to accept money given to them under these circumstances; but here we are in "Vin" land where even this is "normal".
Obummer said he would cut the debt in half in four years....Instead he has created more debt in little more than 3 years than all the debt EVER CREATED IN HISTORY!....With more of the same to come - his latest 'budget' is nothing more than political propaganda aimed at 'rich people' ...Anybody in Washington paying attention to the European debt crisis?...Anybody?...Even dumbocrats should be able to figure this stuff out!
It was Led Zeppelin where I was, Winston. "Mit-tens! Mit-tens!"
Would there be room in the smoke-filled room for an old country programmer? I'll light some incense and play some classic early 70's rock to put everyone in the proper mood. Should it be The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" or Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused"?
Turn out was down and Romney supporters were told to go there by the Mormon Church. Romney's campaign is run by people with plastic wings and halos.
nancy, are you referring to President Ø giving billion$ in stimulus money to foreign nations promoting green energy? Does that policy give you the warm fuzzies?
You had me right up to the "smoke filled room" part.
Dr. Paul was FAR & AWAY the least offensive GOP choice. Of course, since Ron is only advocating a reduction of the government's size to get us back to where we were late in GW Bush's second term, he's basically running for Bush's fourth term.
Those other guys promise to deliver us Obama's agenda, albeit at a slower pace.
It's time to institute the so-called "long ballot" and let Nevada voters *directly* choose our (now) six presidential electors. There has GOT TO BE someone more qualified to run this country than whatever clowns the two BIG Government parties will choose for us.
athos...why look to Greece Romney knows how to dismantle a company and still make sure he and his freinds loose no money and the jobs go to China