Who Do You Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes?

There is a larger point to make about the media, specifically Democrats in the media (there I go being redundant), giving free advice to conservatives about who they should run against Hillary in 2016 but I am going to try and stick with this one instance of unsolicited advice from the left.

President George W. Bush will be regarded by history as the last Republican President of the United States, according to Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), if the GOP does not embrace and pass immigration reform.

“If you do nothing on immigration, I guess you can take comfort in knowing that, from Abraham Lincoln to George W. Bush, you had a pretty good run,” Gutiérrez added. “Freeing the slaves, winning the Civil War, interstate highway system; those all go in the highlight column. And there have been some low lights as well.”

Well, I guess that is it for the Republican Party (though there are many who would question how conservative Dubya was, including myself). The death of the Republican Party is, to borrow a term from another group of activists, "settled science." Unless we on the right agree to grant citizenship to 30 million low-skilled, non-english speaking illegal aliens then the Democrats will win until the end of time...or at least until they can't print any more money to finance the welfare these future marginally attached to the workforce laborers will need to survive in our horrible Kochconomy.

I will leave you with this, as I could spend days linking to and expanding upon articles about why this is not just bad politics for the right, but basically the worst idea for the economy since ObamaCare. Suffice to say, if even the more popular and easy to achieve piece of immigration "reform" is based on a total lie the reality of what would happen if full-blown amnesty is passed will probably be far worse than our practical minds will allow us to comprehend. I mean, we have to believe that Rep. Gutierrez has the best interests of the conservative movement and the country in mind...right?

Nevada: Ground Zero for the battle inside the GOP

This falls under the category of "Right conclusion, wrong reason."

Social conservatives say the Republican Party should deny Las Vegas’s bid to host its 2016 presidential convention after the Nevada Republican Party erased from its platform the pro-life and traditional-marriage language.

Diana Orrick, a Nevada RNC member, said grumbling over the changes is “ridiculous.”

“If you look at what is happening across the nation. I think a lot of Republicans are recognizing the social issues are destroying the Republican Party. They really are,” she said.

The Washington Times reported this month that the move came under fire from some Republicans, including Oklahoma Republican National Committee member Carolyn McLarty, a staunch opponent of abortion, who called the action an “attack on God and family.”

Ed Martin, chairman of the Missouri GOP and an RNC member, said that the move is a “big blow” to Las Vegas’s chances of hosting the party’s quadrennial made for television event.

There is a lot to work with here, but first let's knock down the idea that Las Vegas is a good location for the GOP convention. The Nevada state GOP platform shouldn't have anything to do with it because the Nevada state platform is not the star of the show, it is a 4-day rally to get the troops motivated and to formally introduce the nominee to the nation. The reason a Las Vegas convention is stupid is because there are too many ways to get in trouble and there will be cameras EVERYWHERE. Not just TV cameras and reporters, but anonymous trackers for liberal orgs who will be ready to upload every single step everyone associated with the convention online. There is absolutely no reason why Republicans should pick a location where the negatives far out-weigh the positives. What happens in Vegas would soon be on HuffPo.

Now, onto the other subject at hand, which is the fight between social conservatives and the more libertarian element in the GOP. The Nevada GOP is doing what the Nevada GOP thinks is best for the GOP to succeed in Nevada. This doesn't mean the pro-life movement will be ignored in the state (especially because GOP primary voters are generally overwhelmingly pro-life) or that the GOP is suddenly going to hold hands with the left and turn the state into one giant Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, the GOP in Nevada will continue to attract pro-life candidates the only difference being that if someone like their current Governor comes who happens to be pro-abortion that they won't be put off by the party platform (not that he was in the first place). All politics is local and this is what the Nevada GOP thinks will put them in position to win elections in the coming years.

What bothers me more isn't so much the "this is an attack on God" stuff but the complete disregard for inter-party federalism. I would put money on the people who are angry about the Nevada GOP removing social issues from their platform are the same people who are upset about Common Core and other areas of federal overreach because "people in Washington don't know what is best for me." They are absolutely right, which is why the 10th Amendment exists (and why it needs to be enforced more strictly). People in New Hampshire don't know what is best for people in Florida and the people of Oklahoma don't know what is best for the people of Nevada. I don't agree with what Nevada did, but the fact of the matter is that I don't live in Nevada because it is a state that doesn't appeal to me who a wide range of issue, this now being one of them.

Lastly, no one votes for a party platform. I understand why they exist, but why can't it be short like "The Republican Party: We believe you know what is best for you and your family." People vote for candidates, not platforms, and as a free market evangelist why not have a Nevada GOP platform candidate out there running nationally? The market will end up deciding if they succeed in being elected. Even as a pro-lifer I am far more offended at the idea that I know how to run the lives of people in a different state (and their party) more than they do than I am at the Nevada GOP pulling social issues out of their platform. Maybe the folks in Nevada are right and I am wrong. I don't think I am, and I will always be pro-life, but if states are the "laboratories of democracy" when it comes to policy, why can't it be this way for political parties as well?

Oh, and the Nevada GOP held a 2016 straw poll as well. The winner? Pro-life Senator Rand Paul.