Losing Our "Primary" Focus; All For One And None For All by Doug Wrenn

Losing Our "Primary" Focus; All For One And None For All

By Doug Wrenn

April 02, 2007

I haven't written about Secretary Of State Susan Bysiewicz very often. Like that whacko in Iran who wants to blow up the world 20 times over because his sensitive self-esteem got bruised 20 years ago when he tried to seduce his goat and got rejected, our SOS's name is way too much trouble to spell. But as Bob Dylan sang, "The times, they are a changing." Sensing something that is not broken and requires fixing, Suzie Q wants to push up our primary election date. It's not her fault. She's a Democrat. It's their nature.

Despite living in this secular, socialist festering boil that seldom, if ever, represents or upholds any of my political and moral values, I am a big states' rights kind of guy. Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution grants certain limited rights to the states regarding the electoral process. I think that's a good thing, but just because I'm a Nutmegger, it doesn't mean I stopped being an American.

President Reagan was often attacked by the left for allegedly being lazy and taking frequent naps. But Reagan accomplished more in a shorter workday than Bill Clinton would in burning the midnight oil. There is a great story about our favorite "9-5" President. One time, as he was passing through one of the halls of the White House and past one of the offices of his staff, it was about quitting time in the rest of the world and "Curious Ron" popped his head in the door. He was amused at the feverish diligence with which his staff was still plugging away. Noting his presence in the room, they all suddenly stopped what they were doing and the room fell silent. "What are you doing?" asked the President. "Uh, working," replied a nervous staffer. "Go home," Reagan retorted, adding, "You're not that important." Reagan's tongue-in-cheek remark was particularly funny because it was true. If the leader of the free world could go home at 5:00, certainly his staff could as well. With the same kind of no-holds-barred kind of logic, just what does this pipsqueak, called the State of Connecticut think it is with all of a whopping seven electoral votes?

If this brainstorm was Suzie Q's secret wish when she last blew out her birthday candles, it may be coming true. The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted in favor of changing the primary date from March 4, 2008 to February 5, 2008. This was the first legislative hurdle in making this bill law. If the bill is approved, Connecticut will join almost two dozen states that will cram their primaries onto the same date, which is already being dubbed, "Super-Duper Primary." Gosh, golly, gee whiz. That's just super-duper. Or is it?

It never ceases to amaze me. The same liberal, double-talking sycophants of campaign finance reform are the same ones who are the very cause of the greed and corruption that so taints our electoral process. Follow the money. Connecticut has again recently been ranked # 1 in affluence of the 50 states. No one knows this better than politicians. State GOP Chair Chris Healy hit the nail right on the head when he recently called Connecticut the "ATM" for both major parties. Yet as much as we whine about the influence of money in politics, our ideas, decisions and actions, sometimes devious, and other times, just loopy are the root and lifeblood of this corruption.

With such a front-loaded primary, the rest of the year for the other 25 or so states is practically a moot issue. The result will be a future of candidates who are feasible for both nomination and election not because of their credentials, but because of their wallets. It's also just a matter of time before the other states pile on and before you know it, we'll have infinite campaigning in every four-year cycle, and in each cycle, the richest candidate will be nominated practically overnight and just get richer until Election Day. We have had judges in this state dictate that late-filing candidates be placed on the ballot despite election law so that the voters can have a "choice." What kind of choice does this manipulative legislative rigging give the electorate?

I'm not someone who typically votes for the candidate whom everyone else says I should vote. Conventional wisdom is grossly overrated. Yes, I liked Pauline Keezer over John Rowland, and it now appears that I was right. I never did like Dubya. I tolerated him at best. In the small hamlet that I called home in 2000, I was only one of 13 Republican voters who voted for Allan Keyes in the 2000 primary. That was the proudest vote I ever cast. But even Keyes wasn't my first choice. Before that, I think I was the only Nutmegger actively working for Bob Smith's campaign down here in God's Forgotten Little Acre. In the booth on Election Day, my finger suddenly twitched. I voted for Dubya. By 2004, I learned my lesson and did not repeat that mistake. Last year, I refused to vote for Jodi Rell. I've already had the last word on that decision. If Teddy Kennedy is the "Liberal Lion" then Jodi Rell is "The Liberal Liar." And here's a newsflash, I wouldn't give you two bits for John McNut, Mitt Smiley, or Rudy Libliani, either! I like waffles, but only for breakfast. Don't liberally pee on my leg and tell me it's raining conservatives! Endorsements and polls are for hacks, lemmings and uninformed nimrods afflicted with an "American Idol" addiction. I don't need to stand in a crowd of agreement to know I'm right on fact and principle.

The '04 race was pretty much a done deal between Dubya and that Boston Brahmin Gumby look-a-like who has an impairment in standing because one foot is so often buried in that haughty mouth of his. That was no race.

I saw far more truly quality candidates in the 2000 race, and I see the same for '08, at least on the GOP side of the aisle. In 2000, we had Gary Bauer, Bob Smith, John Ashcroft, Dan Quayle, Allan Keyes, Orin Hatch, and OK, maybe Steve Forbes. And I've probably forgotten at least a couple. The Constitution Party ran Howard Phillips, another quality choice for true conservatives and independent-minded patriots. I terminated my brief membership in the hypocritical and so-called Christian Coalition when it zealously endorsed Dubya early on without any regard to other candidates who had far stronger pro-life credentials. Conventional wisdom, via the GOP and the media told us we should only vote for DUH-bya or McNut. No real choice there. If we're going to keep having coronations, then why do we still insist on calling them elections?

I see the same pattern now. I don't want any of the three not-so-wisemen. All three of them are liars. They're die-in-the-wool liberals who now can't sleep in the beds they made. On top of that, I seriously question the stability of one with a legendary violent temper, another has bedded almost as many wives as Henry the Eighth and the other guy smiles way too much for me. Someone that perpetually happy like a giddy hyena is either more devious than a WW II German U-Boat captain or the cheese slipped off his cracker. Not only would I not vote for him, but I wouldn't even buy a used car from him.

Contrary to "conventional wisdom," I don't have to waste my vote on Rudy, Mitt or Curly, or any other Tammany-like approved stooge. I still have plenty of other fine choices: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, John Cox (Haven't heard of him? Look him up.), and again, my apologies to anyone I may have forgotten. Fred Thompson is also toying with the idea of running, as is Newt Gingrich, for whatever that's worth. These are basically all good conservative candidates, and yes, with some warts on some issues, but that's for industrious and informed voters to research, learn and discern. (Hint, you won't find the answers on the sports page!)

These "back tier" candidates are struggling, and have no illusions about what they are up against. But if Suzie Q, the media, both major parties, other states and the Commissars in our socialist state's Kremlin have their way, the spread-out primary that normally gives lesser known but otherwise high quality "ham and egger" candidates more time and opportunity to build their campaigns up from the grassroots level, will soon be little more than romantic memories on yellowed pages of a dusty history book. These candidates will be severely out-gunned in terms of ability to build money and momentum. This race and every race after it will be settled simply by money if this ugly, harmful and narcissistic trend continues.

Yes, I said, "narcissistic." Suzie Q says she's worried about Connecticut voters being "disenfranchised" (Gag!). What is this incessant drivel about being "disenfranchised"? That word makes my skin crawl about as much as the equally overused and abused word, "self-esteem." (See my reference to Muslim fanatics romancing goats, paragraph 1.) We have picked up a bad habit of making ourselves wimps and victims so that liberals can forward their agenda via cheap sales tactics, kind of like how Jodi & The Tax-ocrats keep telling us that another $3.4 billion for education is an "investment." So saidith the mugger as he absconded with your wallet, but an "investment" of what and for whom? Likewise, Suzie Q makes us think we are victims so that we can be easily soft-soaped into buying into her inane idea. Yes, both parties want our money, but the candidates don't want to come stump here. It's kind of like how RINOs court the pro-life vote and then do an about face and reopen the gates to Sodom and Gomorrah after Election Day. What is "disenfranchised"? When the local chain-run burger joint in your neighborhood closes up, it is "disenfranchised." But we could have our primary the day before Election Day and still not be "disenfranchised." Newsflash folks: Much like Reagan's over-zealous staff, we Nutmeggers and our whopping seven electoral votes just aren't that important in the big picture.

We have a plethora of undisciplined little brats today who fear the word, "no," as much as they would any other stranger. We dote over their precious self-esteem and indoctrinate these little developing rug rats that they are "special" so much that they soon believe they can do no wrong when excessive self-esteem snuffs out all humility. Little changes in adulthood. Many women have become domineering little princesses who had their precious little tushes kissed far too often by "Daddy" and now expect the same royal treatment from Hubby, the slave. I heard one woman whine shortly after Valentine's Day that her boyfriend had the audacity to buy her candy from K-Mart. What an unspeakable atrocity! A thousand pardons, M'Lady! I'll tell you what, Sweetheart, give that discount store candy to some woman in Haiti, or for that matter, Appalachia, and see if she turns her delicate little nose up to it. Settle down, fellows. Never mind the chuckles and high-fives, you're next. While the radical feminist, gay-loving left has emasculated many of you, you also brought much of it on yourselves. By time I was about 20, I was living (totally and independently) on my own and I put myself through college while the rest of you were still hitting Mommy and Daddy up for beer money, the occasional hot meal and laundry services on weekends while you slept in late. For many of you, you knocked up the friction bunny of the week, AKA: "What's her name," gallantly cut her a check for the "procedure" and promptly skedaddled to your next "no-strings-attached" hook-up du'jour. Many of you guys are missing a full set where that echo now exists in your shorts, but while one of the paired components may have been culturally stolen, rest assured, you willingly gave the other one away. When we have a society made up of brats for kids, gold-diggers for women and wimps for men, and all of whom are indoctrinated into obsessing about their shallow, instant gratification and overblown "self-esteem," putrid words like "disenfranchised" are not only highly effective, but downright impactful. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Suzie Q couldn't care less about any of this state's conceited, self-absorbed, myopic saps being "disenfranchised." She wants another four years in the SOS (Save Our Socialism) office, or maybe even a loftier ambition, and the country, and for that matter, the state, be damned. She's deceptively playing her gullible audience like fiddles with riddles. If this bill passes, and I sadly believe it will, Corrupticut will be no more relevant in the overall electoral picture than a scratch on someone's butt qualifying for a legitimate disability, despite the fact that Senator Gumby negotiated his way into getting a Purple Heart for a similar injury when he "served," for lack of a better term, in Viet Nam. Meanwhile, while Suzie Q, The Pied Piper from Hamelin (and Hartford) melodiously plays her flute, and all the brainwashed rats from both sides of the barely distinguishable Connecticut political aisle follow to their yet unrealized but destined drowning, we will only continue to hear another overused phrase in future elections, "holding my nose." I wish I received a nickel every time I heard some "disenfranchised" "Connecticut Republican" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) say he had to hold his nose while voting for so-and-so, the all-too traditional "lesser of two evils." It's simple arithmetic, folks: settle for little, lose much. This lame-brained (or devious, take your pick) scheme of drastically offsetting the balance of the primary election schedule will only continue and strengthen that sordid tradition, as money will overtake any real possibility of any quality candidate of sincere ideology, ability and virtue from ever even being considered for public office. We have just began to sound our own self-imposed electoral death knell, and the door to Pandora's Box of corruption and ineptitude will soon be wide open, instead of just by a crack. But that's OK. Look on the bright side, at least you and your precious, self-centered, in-bubble-grown self-esteem won't be "disenfranchised" any more.

This whole saga reminds me of a scene in the movie, "The Untouchables". During a raid of a Prohibition-era Chicago Post Office for bootleg booze, a feisty and seasoned Irish cop named Malone, played by Sean Connery, uses the butt of his shotgun to silence a mouthy mob hack who loudly protested the raid. To paraphrase Malone from that scene, "How do you think you feel now, better…. or worse?"