I think there's a high probability that the Republicans in DC are going to let us down. And they are likely to be stubborn about doing little more than ‘dole out’ feeble gestures. That has been their pattern of behavior since 2011. So here is how we can gear up to “hold them by the nose and kick them in the pants”.
Imagine if five governors, four senators, thirty House members, hundreds of state legislators, and countless other mayors, state attorneys general, county sheriffs, etc. all united behind a single challenge to a battery of debates about state empowerment.
Such a challenge would be impossible to ignore. And why negotiate a watering down of these debates? Five debates, equal time, no-holds-barred, no moderator, each gets 10 three minute turns during each debate — what's unreasonable about that?
Once over a hundred conservative state legislators, governors [etc.] unite they should reach out to whatever sanity-loving congress members they find to first appeal to and then confront McConnell and Bone-head with this plan [which would require targeted suspension of congress's constitutional amendment rules — and that's the easy part compared to super-majority congressional support].
So long as they set the legislation in motion in the next two years we know they are serious. But we should plan that they will not.
When one of those two leaders snubs this this united conservative front they can build momentum by getting behind a single skilled debater who casts the gauntlet — the five-debate challenge. Then we have a public leader who people can rally behind.
The supporters should belittle the cowardly McConnell or Bone-head [or both] who is so scared of fair debates. Whether or not the challenge is accepted, this simple focus will continue to build momentum.
Other supported debate challenges could put spotlights on other key congressional leaders too until there's a congressional leadership overthrow that paves the way. Either that or the biggest primary fight in US history — or worse.
Rush, Hannity, and Beck would have tremendous combined clout. They can unite for leverage because if they ever agree that conservatives should abandon the Republican Party and form a ‘Ronald Reagan Party’ that would be strong enough support to topple the GOP. If even two of those ‘Big Three’ talk radio hosts simply agree to make a ‘new party’ threat, then the GOP might get cooperative.
The other option is more difficult, but it's overdue anyway. Regardless of whatever else is happening, state-level legislators need to get on the stick and reform their primary systems BEFORE the next primary if they really care about our nation. It's the primary process that can strengthen the GOP and thereby solve problems.
Here are the necessary reforms:
1. Perhaps along the lines of Louisiana to ensure that only majority support within the party wins. More importantly they should ban crossover votes. Democrats and Republicans should be required to stick to their own parties.
2. The ‘qualification’ standards [to be on the ballot] are a joke in some states. Here in the Virginia 2012 primary, our only choices were Romney, President Ebola, and Ron Paul. Remember all the other nominees? Their paperwork was nitpicked to oblivion. That kind of dirty politics MUST come to an end.
One last thing — states could also threaten the federal government with the ‘Utah Option’ [a ‘nuclear option’ that dissolves the entire federal government along with the judicial branch]. But the DNC would most certainly call their bluff. To democrats, this plan we have here is completely unacceptable. But still, it's an ‘unknown’ which certainly does increase state leverage.
Legislators should probably give themselves leeway to ‘fine tune’ mandatory debates over time.
— When should debates be live or prerecorded?
— Should ‘libel suits’ be allowed when someone is outraged over the IRS targeting scandal? [As an example, and I think that slander is the real crime, not venting in public at some creep. Which is why a professor's debate probably should be prerecorded. Are all professors ‘public figures’ for example? Will libel laws change again?]
I would recommend that the invited guest should accommodate the mandated debater’s schedule — so long as it's within seven days of the mandate. For example if some wacko Chief State Executive revered Coast to Coast [unlikely, I know], it wouldn't be right for Art Bell to wake up Senator Cruz at 3 AM for a surprise debate about ‘global warming’.
And if one of our favorite professors [such as Walter Williams] is on a cruise or whatever, he should be allowed a lengthy break two or three times each year and make up for it with more debates later on. But as I said, states will work it all out and consider this with hundreds of fresh viewpoints before any final draft is agreed on.
o o o o
That's ‘it’ for now. FRegards ....