Posted on 05/06/2004 12:10:02 AM PDT by Richard-SIA
This was my fifth state convention, and the worst that I ever attended!
The creeping tendency to "handle" the delegates I noted at the 2002 convention has become full fledged control from the top, the only question remaining is just how high, national or state, this effort originates.
Once again the platform was very limited, only 28 planks.
I think this is a deliberate effort to keep the deep conservatives in the party from proposing any planks that might make GW or the RINO's unhappy in any way.
Despite this manipulation we did get a few very good planks adopted.
My personal favorites are as follows.
#10. "We affirm the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and we support the repeal of legislation infringing on that right".
This is the same language I was instrumental in getting adopted in 2002. An early draft this year had weaker language, I am sure Tanya Metaska, who was on this years platform committee (yes, the NRA Metaska) was responsible for the stronger language being kept intact.
The other plank that particularly pleases me is #13.
#13. "We support proof of U.S. citizenship and county residence in order to register to vote, and oppose allowing any person residing illegally in the United States to be entitled to any benefit of citizenship and we believe it the duty of the president of the United States and the Governors of the states to secure the borders of the united states against illegal entry".
It is important to keep the word "illegally" in mind when considering this plank.
Most of the controversy regarding it came from people who appeared to ignore the presence of the word "illegally".
Of course we can expect #13 to be erased from the national platform, and #10 will probably be watered down.
I was not on the platform committee this year, and am VERY disappointed in how it was run, the poor communication, lack of draft copies, and particularly the manner in which the delegates were prevented from proposing additional planks from the floor.
Yes, I did have two of my own to propose, but was denied the opportunity despite carefully complying with all convention rules.
I met the freeper from 02¢.com, forgot his screen name.
Also met some of the candidates for senate and supreme court.
Not certain of the rules here regards posting candidates campaign info., so e-mail me if you want it.
When e-mailing me you will get a short reply asking you to confirm that you are not a spam program, just answer the challenge and your e-mail will get through to me.
It is an attempt at combatting SPAM that I am beta-testing.
John Mason has a good shot at replacing a liberal on the state supreme court, but his race is being made harder by the person he sought to replace "retiring" very early in the race and so encouraging more liberals to enter the race early on.
This will make the race more expensive, John is not poor, but he will need all the help he can get.
Judge Cynthia D. Steel is also running for the state supreme court. We have the chance to change out three judges, so we can support her too.
I had a chance to ask her strait out if the need for "homeland security" outweighs the Fourth Amendment, she assured me it does NOT.
I met and spoke with both republican candidates for senate.
Cherie M. Tilley is an affable guy, easy to talk to and very sincere.
He is a mining expert with the sense to try and head off future problems in Nevada.
He has some ambitious plans for dealing with future water woes and is a strong supporter of the entire bill of rights.
His disadvantages appear to be that he is older, has less of a professional support structure, and less apparent wealth than his republican opponent.
Richard Ziser is more of a politician, he comes across as more of a "professional" candidate and appears to be the closest to being the designated candidate of the Nevada republican hierarchy, not that they would actually say so this early.
He clearly has an advantage in resources and a slick campaign.
He also appears to believe in an unabridged constitution and bill of rights.
Either senate candidate would be a major improvement over Sierra Harry, but so would my dog!
Do not get me wrong, I actually like both candidates, but cannot help feeling that Mr. Tilley probably closer represents the "Old Nevada" that I fear we are losing too fast.
Reid CAN be beat, despite his having a reported SEVEN Million Dollar campaign chest.
It will NOT be easy, but they said John Ensign would never be able to defeat Bilbray, and he did so, with the help of Nevada's rural voters.
We really MUST get rid of Harry Reid, I learned of a LOT more of his disgusting and crooked behavior at the convention, but he is more clever than Klintoon was and I cannot relate it publicly, as much as I want to.
Congressman Jim Gibbons gave a very good speech, he has been a worthy successor to Barbara Vucanovich and richly deserves our support.
I cannot state how many times he has made me proud to have him as my congressman without having to file a copy of this post with the FEC. ;-)
The above is my own highly opinionated impressions, enjoy or disparage them as you see fit. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.