Unfinished: Writing (Life) is Unrelenting

“Clearly, blah blah blah”

During my reporting from the convention I used this phrase nearly a dozen times over 5 posts.

The key to good writing is to avoid using the same phrase over and over. The same is true for conversationalists as. Phrases used too often become abused and the reader or listener start to focus on the phrase rather than the message. I had a teacher who would say “Blah Blah a Variety of Different Things” which was not only redundant but maddening. Another teacher would say “with the idea that…” over and over. I once counted him using that phrase over 100 times in less than a half hour.

It’s so hard to write and speak well. We all have verbalized pauses (ah, umms, andah…) but some of us try to outsmart our minds and replace a verbalized pause with a phrase. This is what led to my Health teacher using the phrase “A variety of different things” fifty times a class and nearly brought about a classroom rebellion.

For years I have tried very hard to speak and write well. But evertime I removed or fixed something another would take its place.

More MNGOP Inside Baseball

Recieved this email from a BPOU chairman who wanted to expound on one of the constitutional/bylaw changes that happened at the convention:

Final Thoughts and Reactions from the Convention

-This state convention got me to really appreciate the 7th district convention I went to earlier this spring. At the 7th, the Ron Paul people were interviewed by the nominating committee and were then approved to run for National Delegate as long as they made it clear who they intended to vote for at the National Convention. The Ron Paul delegates were on the ballot, spoke at the convention and we held an election. Their delegation failed to win. The process was fair and open. The nominating committee chairman (Neil Nelson) made sure the process was fair and the convention was quite orderly and respectful (especially when compared to the state convention).

–Andy Aplikowski and Kevin Ecker both had reactions and suggestions regarding the convention and like usual their writings are filled with common sense (though don’t expect common spellings from Andy).

-Clearly, the chairman of the Republican Party, Ron Carey, was trying to railroad the Ron Paul supporters. The deck was stacked against the Ron Paul delegates. Their slate for the national ballot was not approved (based on ambiguous rules). The adopted rules were ignored to allow Pawlenty and Coleman to become delegates without having to meet in Rochester (as the rules states). Basically, Carey attempted to orchestrate the entire convention.

-Frankly, I don’t think this is the kind of convention John McCain would have approved of. He would have wanted a fair and open process which respected the rights of the body to decide business however they pleased. I’m sure members of the MNGOP will say “the will of the majority were reflected in the results of the convention” but I would point out the rights of the minority were trampled on, and beyond that, the rights of the body as a whole were trampled on.

Nominations from the floor should be allowed if a majority of the body agree. People should be allowed to vote for only whom they wish to, if a ballot has twenty names and you can vote for 10 but you only like five people you should be allowed to vote for only the five you like. Forcing people to vote for those they disapprove upon penalty of ballot invalidation is wrong. Not allowing people to write-in a name is another issue.

-There were two people who chaired the meeting. A man and a woman, I will refer to the male chairman as simply “the Chairman” and the female chairman as “the Madam Chairman” (backstory).

-The Chairman had a clear agenda but had enough self respect to be fair and he would even attempt to be objective every now and then, though clearly he failed. Madam Chairman was a different story. She wasn’t very good at all, and at times it was clear she was on the brink of losing her cool. Whenever Madam Chairman was running the meeting I was thinking “there’s blood in the water” but the Ron Paul people didn’t have anyone with a clear knowledge of ParlyPro or any real plan of attack regarding the convention. A bad chairman is an opportunity if you know what you’re doing. Both Chairmen spent way too much time talking to the parliamentarian. You’re running a meeting, make a decision. It’s okay to peak over at the parliamentarian once in a while but having conferences every time someone had a point of order was tiresome and unnecessary. If you don’t know what you’re doing pass the gavel to someone who does.

-Ron Carey got to his position by leading his own little insurgency against the previous MNGOP chairman. He plays hardball, a cliché anyone in politics needs to understand intimately. Clearly, Carey has no sympathy for people who aren’t willing to push back in a political fight.

-The Ron Paul People (RPP from now on) weren’t prepared at all for this convention. They should have expected to get railroaded and they should have been ready to play hardball with Ron Carey. They clearly didn’t have anyone who knew parlypro enough to lawyerball. Some organization would have gone a long way. First, two or three people should have been reviewing the MNGOP Constitution, Standing Rules and Robert’s Rules to find all the possible motions they could make. Next, they complained about not getting on the microphones often enough. Come on, there’s an easy answer to that, always have someone in queue for each microphone. Make sure those people have one or two motions in case they actually get called upon.

Incredibly, there were a few times when the chairman would actually say something like “To do what you want to you would have to make a motion to suspend the rules” or “What you would have to do is move to appeal the chair” and guess what? They never did what the chairman suggested. All you need to say, when a chairman lays out a plan of action for you, is “so moved.”

-Some other ideas the RPP could have used included: making their own ballots for national delegates and moving to use their “fair” ballots instead of the other pre-prepared ballots. I would have also held a poll outside the convention where delegates could vote on a “fair” ballot that included the RPP slate. A petition would have also been an easier idea, asking delegates to sign a petition stating the convention was held in an unfair manner. There are lots of stunts which can be pulled which can call into question the legitimacy of the results of a convention.

-Another tactic to use when you have enough people (and the RPP did) is to make sure at least one or two of your people always votes with the opposition. Have witnesses. This will allow you to move to reconsider a motion that doesn’t go your way.

-Someone asked me about the “illegal lit pieces” and I found out from one of the sergeants at arms that all lit pieces needed an address to be “legal” as per FEC rules. It’s another example of how stupid campaign laws are and how they truly are an abridgement of 1st amendment rights.

-Said it before: Learn the Rules, Play to Win. I have an entire list of tactics and strategies for meetings and conventions, which I will eventually publish.

-I believe in a fair and open process which protects the rights of everyone in a specific body to be heard. I believe in the rights of the entire group to function as it pleases and the rights of the minority to be heard. Meetings aren’t just about the will of the majority.

-FYI, Morton Blackwell was the youngest National Delegate for Barry Goldwater and wrote a piece designed to help people become national delegates. It’s informative and a candidate for the Conservative Canon.

-Just as an example of how easy it is to take specific votes out of context (a common campaign literature tactic) one could easily portray me as a flip flopper at this convention. I voted for Pawlenty to be a national delegate, then I voted in favor of suspending the rules but I voted against confirming my own vote for Pawlenty. Yet my goals during the convention were pretty clear, I wanted a fair and open process and I wanted to get my initial slate (all these are available in my convention notes posts) elected as national delegates. I never wavered from my values but when taken out of context it looks like I contradicted myself (I also voted for and against adjournment).

Specific votes shouldn’t be taken out of context, all the votes must be aggregated and put into context to come to a certain conclusion about the voter.