Debriefing the Primary Election

Texas was part of super Tuesday, holding our election on Tuesday. Mr. Spherical Model and I worked at our polling place. And I’d like to do something of a debrief, because there are things to learn and other things to be concerned about. This isn’t going to be about who won any races.

As usual, Mr. Spherical Model served as presiding judge (PJ), and I was a bilingual clerk. I worked only part of the day. I came in at noon and worked through closing, precinct convention, and delivering our polling materials to the drop-off center. Anyway, I didn’t experience the setup. But I experienced the results of it all day.

Against all our requests, the middle school we were in refused, again, to place the Republican and Democrat polling places in separate rooms. So we shared the orchestra room. It’s tight enough to cause some discomfort—maybe especially for voters. But it was not quite impossibly awkward.

Mr. Spherical Model and our alternate judge (AJ), who, because this was the primary, is also a Republican, came to the school late in the day Monday to set up. This included setting up tables, and placing—but not opening or unsealing—the e-slate booths. And JBCs, e-pollbooks, and papers remained at our house until Tuesday morning, with the official cell phone being charged overnight.

The Democrat workers came later. Mr. Spherical Model had set it up so that each party could have two welcoming tables for check-in, more or less parallel. But the Democrat PJ wanted to assert her independence by setting things up differently. That’s their choice. But the consequences affected us all day long.

I’ve drawn up a diagram, because this was pretty crazy.

Our voting room, a middle school orchestra room, not necessarily to scale.
I think the voting booths took up more space than shown.

All voters come in the same door. Then they meet a greeter who guides them to a check-in table for their chosen party. You can see that the Republican tables—both of them, are easily accessible. The Democrats’ check-in table (they only wanted to use one, with both JBC machines on it) was over to the far half of the room, but not in sight. Around a corner. Past all their voting booths. You can’t see in my drawing, but, because of the height of the booths, their check-in table was invisible until they rounded the corner.

If they had had a greeter who would meet their voters and guide them to their table, fine. But they didn’t. They did have a greeter outside (so did we) to direct people to our room, which had its own door to the outside, so they wouldn’t wander through the school. Occasionally the Democrats had someone, down beyond that random table for paperwork, who would guide them to the check-in table, if we could get them that far.

The difficulty was, if they saw our second table, but not that far side of the whole room with nothing directing them there, they would head to our second table. Right in front of them, on our table, was a sign indicating it was for Republican voters, and a sign taped to the front of the table as well. And we had tried to explain to them, “Republicans are voting in this half of the room; Democrats are voting in that side of the room,” pointing all the way over there.

We’re not supposed to presume things. But we know from statistics that 90+% of blacks vote Democrat. A fair percentage of Hispanic voters as well. Anyway, all but one of the Democrat workers were black. None probably from this precinct, which has what is probably a normal distribution of around 12% black (none live on our very diverse street). So, if they were black and started walking toward one of our tables, we would have to ask, “So you’re a Republican voter?” At which they would look horrified at us, say, “No! Democrat.” And we would have to walk them past their tiny entrance sign, and sometimes walk to the aisle between their voting booths, and point to their check-in table.

After the first twenty or so, I was finding that to be pretty annoying. Why not let them just flounder until the Democrat workers took care of the problem of their making? But Mr. Spherical Model reminded me to smile and be a goodwill ambassador. Which I did.

There was a man, well into the day, Hispanic, who answered the “which party” question with, “Democrat. I don’t like Republicans,” right to my face while I had been smiling and treating him respectfully. Mr. Spherical Model saw the exchange and said, “Smile anyway.” Maybe at some point they’ll realize the good people helping them were Republicans. And maybe they’ll even notice the ones setting up the room badly and making their lives more difficult in many annoying ways are often Democrats. Who knows? At least we are who we are, regardless of what they say about us.

The Democrats were unprepared in many ways—some of which got reported (because I took our AJ outside and called our ballot security guy on my phone for her to report to) for being essentially illegal, even though I am unaware of anything they did to commit any actual voter fraud.

There’s a protocol for setting up a polling place. Everything comes very organized. Boxes containing big, labeled envelopes and accordion folders, with papers for certain purposes. There’s a checklist. All you have to do is go down the checklist, and you’re set up correctly. If you do that correctly, the day tends to run smoothly, and then you just follow the closing checklists at the end of the day.

They didn’t use the checklist. They just laid everything out all over their back table, spread it around, looked for what they thought they needed, and did it their way. They had the machines connected to take voters at 7:00 AM, but any other business, like signing in workers and giving them the oath, got left undone. And there were papers they said they weren’t given, so we shared ours with them. Our AJ their original supply lying around on their table later; they just hadn’t found them, because, as their bristly PJ said, “I have my own way of organizing things.”

By law we’re required to give a voter count every two hours. It prevents fraud by showing what kind of voter traffic there was throughout the day. You get the count from your JBC machines added together. Their PJ was reminded by one of their workers that she needed to do that. She didn’t want to bother. This is what it looked like at the end of the day.

their mostly unmarked vote count at the end of the day

I can find out how many in my precinct voted on election day, and in early voting. But, because of countywide voting (first time it’s been done in a primary election here), I can’t find out how many voters came to vote Democrat at our polling place. Also because of countywide voting, we no longer get a printed tape of voting on each machine for that day, since the machine now includes ballots from all over the county. That’s one less check against fraud.

Only once during the day did we have to cancel a vote because the voter got all the way to the booth with her code entered in the machine before realizing she had the wrong ballot in front of her. So we had to cancel that, which, because it’s a rare occurrence, was a bit of a challenge to do correctly, so that she could afterward go to the Democrats and get a new code. If we hadn’t been so diligent in getting voters to the right party, that painful problem could have been happening all day long.

We got a lot of questions from voters. I don’t mind answering these. You don’t know what you don’t know sometimes—until you ask and learn about it. One common question was, “Why are we separated? Don’t we usually just vote together?” Yes, but this is a primary election, in which you decide which candidates should be representing your party on the November ballot. “Oh, OK.” They learn by asking. But it’s concerning they were voting in a primary election without knowing what a primary election is.

A variation that I find humorous is, “Why can’t I vote straight ticket?” Because all the candidates on your ballot are of the same party; this is to decide who the candidates for your party will be. I mostly didn’t mention that straight-ticket voting has now been ended by the legislature, so there will be no more one-button voting for Democrats anymore. Republicans tend to be deeper thinkers and want to read all the way down the ballot, and will leave blanks where they don’t know enough about the candidates in a particular race. Too many Democrats follow orders: “You don’t need to know anything about the candidates; just vote Democrat, and that’s all you need to know.” So they’re confused about how to vote a primary ballot. And this year the Democrats will be starting a campaign to get their voters to go all the way down the ballot, instead of just voting top of the ballot and leaving.

Ignorance can be solved by education and experience, so there’s hope for change. But you can’t fix stupid. One voter said, “How am I supposed to know who to vote for when I haven’t heard of any of these names?” Indeed. Maybe you should do some research, using your sample ballot and the internet (before you show up to vote in ways that affect us all, I also thought but didn’t say).

At one point I had a nice little conversation with their outside greeter that made my day. He’d said it was good to show the world how well we get along. Because the news makes it sound like we’re all at war. But really we’re all just people, people who happen to disagree on some things, but we can let that go and get along. I really appreciated that. It was more like other times we’ve shared the polls with Democrats, who are not mostly different from us; they just haven’t been educated to think through issues the way we have.

What I think is, many blacks and Hispanics around here are religious people, who serve God and value strong families. It makes no sense to me why they would vote Democrat, when that agenda is anti-religion and anti-family, and has the added deficiency of causing huge economic roadblocks. People who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization shouldn’t be voting for tyranny, poverty, and savagery by voting Democrat.

I don’t assume my Democrat neighbors are bad people; I assume they don’t know enough. The question, then, is how to reach out and speak to voters who have been blindly voting Democrat, because they’ve been told “they’re the good guys,” when what these voters really want is the freedom to live their lives as they choose, in ways that lead to directly out of poverty toward prosperity, and in ways that coincide with their natural love of civilization. We’ll all be better off if they can hear that message and have it sink in.

Not All Parties Are Worth Celebrating

Midterm election season is underway. Early voting started in Texas on Monday and runs through next week. Voting day is Tuesday, November 6^th. This isn’t a primary election, where you have the opportunity to choose who the candidates will be on the ballot. We did that last spring. Now it’s a matter of choosing to go with your party’s candidates or not.

For people who are paying attention, party choice happened a long time ago. The swing voters, the independents—those are the ones who decide elections. And they’re also the ones who pay the least attention, and make their decisions later, and possibly with less information. And often they’re susceptible to whatever the quick and easily available news tells them.

I write here mainly for people who choose freedom,prosperity, and civilization, rather than the alternatives: tyranny, poverty, and savagery. My effort is to help all of us practice ways of saying things clearly enough that those as yet undecided—or persuadable—can understand and be persuaded.

Democrats probably wouldn’t say they seek tyranny, poverty, and savagery, but since we know what leads in that direction, we can see the connection between their policies and those negative outcomes.

That is not to say that the Republican Party is always the champion of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. But it’s what we have to work with. I am a Republican, a precinct chair. And here in Texas we have pretty good success at directing the party in the right direction, so it’s worth the work I put into that.

I think we’d be a lot better off if the two parties were Republican and Libertarian. Both spend a lot of time above the equator in the freedom zone. Democrats do not. And they get more entrenched in the tyranny zone as we become more polarized.

The solution is not to give in and “compromise” to go just a bit less toward tyranny, rather than run headlong into it. The solution is to be totally clear so that those with ears to hear will hear, and hearken.

Earlier this week Allie Beth Stuckey, a conservative young woman commentator, kindly provided a new three-minute election ad for Democrats. It’s a parody, but as good parody does, it tells a lot of truth about what the Democrats are for:

In contrast, an Austin, TX, group of Beto O’Rourke for Senate cheerleaders put out an ad (watch it here) that is not a parody. Really. Why vote for Hispanic poseur Robert Francis O’Rourke? Because he’s crush-worthy, even though married with kids? Because he used to play in a rock band, like Bernie, but with a tan? If you watch this, think seriously about whether this respects women in any way.

candidate comparison
found on Facebook, source unknown

Which brings us to some other claims of Democrats claims that deny history and reality. Here’s setting some of the record straight:

·       All slave owners at the time of the Civil War were Democrats; no Republicans were ever slave owners. Democrats even in the North supported slavery.

·       Civil Rights legislation was passed by Republicans, while Democrats resisted; but then Democrats (led at the time by LBJ, who was a verified racist) took credit, for political opportunism.

·       Democrats claim to be compassionate, but they mean with your money collected in taxes, to be spent as they see fit. They fail when it comes to charitable giving.[i]

·         Democrats claim they’re the tolerant ones, but they’re the ones running people out of restaurants, or out of business, for the sin of not towing the Democrat line. They treat people of their party this way as well, if they stray from the script. In other words, “tolerance” to them means “you have to believe what I believe, or I will destroy you.”

·       They proved during the trumped up charges against Justice Kavanaugh that the rule of law doesn’t matter; only tribalism matters. And the tribes they hate most are white males, or anyone who disagrees with them about their hierarchy of intersectionality.

·       They’re horrified at capital punishment for the most heinous serial murderers, but they think murdering the innocent unborn is a right some essential that should be funded with taxpayer dollars.

The list goes on. Note that if they are accusing Republicans of something, it’s something they are in fact doing. Their lack of self-awareness is astounding.

So, there’s a huge contrast between Democrat Party ideology and civilized people who love freedom and prosperity. This isn’t an election in which “I vote for the person, not the party” makes sense. Why would you vote for a person who champions tyranny, poverty, and savagery? You’d only do that if you choose evil on purpose, or you don’t know better.

There are occasions when the candidate of my party doesn’t meet my standard either. In those rare cases, I advise a third-party protest vote, or leaving that race blank.

Here’s some inside information about our local Harris County races. For years Democrats have gathered up voters, driven them to the polls, and directed them to vote straight ticket Democrat. That means you press one button, and the whole ballot (of partisan races, which may exclude school boards or city council) gets cast by party. It’s quick and easy and requires no thinking. Straight ticket voting has been ended; but this is the last election in which it still applies.

We’re close to 50% Republican and 50% Democrat in Harris County. Two years ago, the county went Democrat. Some of that had to do with a controversial District Attorney race. While Trump won very red Texas, Hillary Clinton won Harris County. And because of straight ticket voting, that meant that every countywide race on the ballot went Democrat.

We have the longest ballot in the country. It’s because we vote on our judges. There are dozens of them. This county is bigger than several states, with around five million people. So that’s just how it is. Lots of civil, family, and criminal courts. Plus other county races.

Not every race comes up every two years; many are four-year positions. So they alternate. Everything that wasn’t up for election in 2016 is up for election now—with straight-ticket voting still in play. That means it’s very important for Republicans—who resist voting blindly—do their research and vote all the way down the ballot. And get out to vote.

You can vote the easy straight ticket, or vote singly. You can vote straight ticket and then change individual races. But—unless this has changed since the last time I tried it—you cannot vote straight ticket and then change a particular race to blank.

The point is, if you go only partway down the ballot, you are granting uninformed straight-ticket Democrat voters the right to choose for you. And, if that happens again, every countywide position will be filled with a Democrat—someone who believes in legislating from the bench, instead of following the law. And we will have removed all long-standing experienced judges and officials.

Voter integrity nationwide has really flowed out of Harris County. We’ve made great improvements here in efficiency and voter protections. Some thanks should go to Stan Stanart, our County Clerk, for these improvements. Democrats have particularly targeted him—because they like to be able to control voting and counting of votes—for nefarious reasons. His race is way down at the bottom of the ballot. It’s important to vote the whole ballot.

Back to the broader national discussion, it’s an important time to vote Republican all over. I cringe at the possibility of Nancy Pelosi returning to power. Those were not good years. And their plan going forward (backward?) is to impeach the president and obstruct anything that even hints at lower taxes or less regulation.

On the Spherical Model website I wrote about the place of the parties on the sphere. This was in 2010. Still true, but maybe more so. Here’s how I’d still describe the Democrats:

The Democrats are a symbiotic mix of people demanding that government provide for their needs—health care, education, housing, redistribution of wealth, regulating use of resources, even making jobs: the demanding needy, we could call them—along with the elites who are willing to pander to the demanding needy in order to increase their personal power: the would-be dictators.

Republicans tend to think Democrats are uninformed, or motivated by emotion rather than reason. Democrats think Republicans, or all others who disagrees with them, are evil.

We need voters who do better than go with their gut—which is influence by media and academia mischaracterization. Whether you think Republicans are perfect or not (and they’re not, by the way), they are certainly not evil as portrayed by Democrats.

---

[i] Read Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares? The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, © 2006.

Primarily Speaking, Part III

We’re going through the long ballot for the Texas Primary, where we vote for judges, in addition to the more typical elected positions. In Part I, we got through the statewide races. In Part II, we covered the statewide judicial races and a few local races. I expect we’ll finish today, with district (Harris County) judicial races and whatever we’ve else is left (county party leadership). Today covers a few of the more interesting races I’ve been wanting to think through. We’ll go in order, however, rather than just most interesting first.

Gaahhh!!! This additional avalanche showed up
in the mail while I was writing Part III

 

District Judge 246^th Family Court:

This is an open bench (no incumbent) with two candidates, Angelina Gooden and Charley Prine. I heard both of them briefly. Gooden has 24+ years of experience in family law, appointed by the court to represent children. Prine has been an associate judge in the county, for Judge Sheri Dean. His work as a grassroots Republican go back to working for Phil Gramm, and campaigning for Reagan. Both candidates get 50% support from CCHC. Prine gets the nod from TCR, HRBC, DA, and PC. Considering his judicial experience, I’m going with Charley Prine.

 

District Judge 247^th Family Court:

This is also an open bench, and one of the most difficult to decide—because there are good choices. We’ve been hearing from the candidates for this position since last spring, and they’ve been coming faithfully, so that we feel like they’re part of us. I’m not going to endorse, because I want to be open to change my mind up until the last, but I’ll give you some info about each. Melanie Flowers and MLWalker are both African American women—not what you’re told you find at Tea Party meetings. (If I recall correctly, Angelina Gooden fits that demographic as well, as does Governor candidate Lisa Fritsch.) Walker has been functioning as associate judge in this court for some time. Flowers has a certification in family law (the only candidate with this credential, but it isn’t a requirement to do the job).  John Schmude is the third candidate (there used to be a fourth, who dropped out). When he came to our Tea Party to introduce himself, he gave one of the best 10-minute speeches on Constitutional philosophy that I had heard. It was impassioned and memorable. If I were going just by my first impressions based on those 10-minute talks, he would have earned my vote. But there is more. Walker is currently doing the job, for example. And she gets support from my DA friends, as well as one of our regular Tea Party members who has a family law practice. She also has continued to come to our meetings, to become one of us. Only Melanie Flowers has done that more. I see her everywhere—she hands out flowers to remind voters of her name, and I’ve gotten a bouquet-ful.  

I got a heads up to ask the question about long-term conservative principles. Only Schmude voted against Obama in 2008. He has always been conservative. I asked Walker about her vote at a Tea Party meeting, and she answered with considerable grace. Up until that point in her life, she wasn’t political, didn’t pay attention to politics. She voted for Obama, caught up in the hype about it being a historic moment. But shortly into 2009 she realized what a mistake that was, started paying attention, became a Republican and hasn’t looked back. Someone asked Melanie Flowers that question at a forum elsewhere. She admitted she voted for Obama in 2009 (not 2012), because it was historic. She was at that time a GOP precinct chair, which strikes me as unacceptable. Disqualifying? Maybe. But I didn’t get to talk with her about it, and I don’t know of anything else I disagree with her on. Of all the candidates, I think I’d feel most comfortable going to lunch for fun with her, and I think she’d probably do well as a judge. But in this close race, not realizing what a disaster Obama would be is a significant problem. 

Schmude gets 89% support from CCHC, my guess is because conservative philosophy is his native language. He also gets support from PC. Walker gets support from DA, TCR, and HRBC. I hope this is enough info to help you make a decision. Fortunately, it looks like you can’t really make a terrible choice.

 

District Judge 263^rd Criminal Court:

The candidates are Jim Wallace and Robert Summerlin. Wallace has been the sitting judge on this court since 1994. DA as well as TCR support him. But Summerlin gets 100% support from CCHC, plus HRBC and PC. Hmm. I don’t know if the challenge is just because he’s been there so long. It’s odd to challenge a sitting judge. It does appear the challenger has conservative bonafides. He has experience as both a felony prosecutor and defense attorney. I’m not sure which way I’ll go, but the CCHC recommendation has me leaning toward Robert Summerlin.

 

District Judge 269^th Civil Court:

Dan Hinde is the sitting judge on this bench. He was appointed by Governor Perry in 2008 and was a number 1 target of democrats in 2010, but stayed put. He has reduced his docket backlog by 27%. His opponent is John Wittenmyer. All my resources except TCR are behind Hinde (including 100% from CCHC), which means he’s perceived as doing well as the sitting judge. Dan Hinde suggests you remember, “Be kind, vote Hinde, for 269.”

 

District Judge 311^th Family Court:

This is an interesting if confusing race. As an outsider, I’m uncertain if I have all the facts. Denise Pratt is the sitting judge. She has four challengers from her own party. That suggests there’s a problem in that court. The Houston Chronicle agrees the court has problems. In December, hundreds of cases were dismissed without a ruling. Pratt explains that the lawyers had been detaining and then failing to follow up and reschedule—some for years. She insists that she considers the child individually in each and every case. When she spoke at our Tea Party meeting, she seemed sensible, although I wondered about the defensiveness about not being pressured to rule, because we’re all aware of how inefficiency is a huge failure for justice. She was impressive enough that she won our straw poll by a single vote (a snapshot opinion of those attending that day, including candidates and their helpers if they choose to vote). I saw later one of her supporters citing that victory as if it were an endorsement from us. Not true. And we do not, as a group, endorse any candidates. She did not win the next straw poll. Denise Pratt got 65% from CCHC, which is not an endorsement, but a response to specific questions, which relate to conservative principles, not to orderly running of the court. I can see how that could happen in the absence of additional information. 

I had heard about this court previously, but I didn’t immediately make the connection, since there are so many courts, and we’ve met so many candidates, in pretty random order. But what we hear from people dealing with this court is that it’s a huge problem. They say the judge comes in late, leaves early, and simply fails to make rulings. Some have speculated either unadmitted health issues or mental issues, although I don’t see evidence of that from Judge Pratt in person. But there’s enough rumbling that I think it’s fair to say she isn’t doing a good job of managing her court. The challengers have gone as far as to say, “I don’t even care which one of us you vote for; we just have to get someone who will do the job.” Wow!  

So the challengers are Donna Detamore, Alicia Franklin, Philip Placzek, and Anthony Magdaleno. I tend to lean toward whomever I’ve heard from lately. Donna Detamore is supported by PC. Alicia Franklin is supported by DA (which might sway me) and TCR. Anthony Magdaleno is also supported by PC. In straw polls I’ve voted once for Detamore and once for Magdaleno. And there’s a good chance I’d support Franklin as well. Without additional info or support for Placzek, I guess I’ll eliminate him. But otherwise I think the choice is anyone but Pratt.

 

Judge County Criminal Court 10:

There are four candidates for this open bench. Dan Spjut brings experience from 27 years at the Houston Police Department with 14 years as an attorney. (He doesn’t seem old enough, so I’m not sure if the attorney years are included in the other.) Mary Heafner has been a private detective, and worked for the FBI, and in real estate, plus 30 years as a defense attorney. (I’m often amazed at the impossibly long careers of judicial candidates, and wonder if I’ve gotten numbers wrong. Similarly, I fail to understand billable hours.) Tonya Rolland McLaughlin has been a Harris County prosecutor and defense attorney. She points out that she has been through hundreds of trials, while her opponents combined have tried less than 10 cases. The other candidate, Ken Wenzel, I have not met. Spjut gets support from TCR and HRBC. But McLaughlin gets 60% (less than an endorsement) from CCHC, plus DA and PC. I think I’ll go with Tonya Rolland McLaughlin. She suggests you remember, “Tonya for the 10^th.”

 

Justice First Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3:

The candidates for this bench are Dan Linebaugh, Chad Bridges, and Russell Lloyd. Lloyd has been an assistant DA and has 31 years of civil practice before becoming a civil district judge. He was first vetted by Phil Gram for appointment by Governor George Bush (not approved by the then-liberal legislature, however). David Linebaugh is appeals board certified, and was name a Texas Superlawyer every year since 2008. He has spent 15 years on the jury charge committee, training judges on how to give jury charges. He did litigation for 18 years. Chad Bridges spent 11 years as a prosecutor, and has experience in both small and large counties, covering a large variety of cases.  CCHC gave 90% support to Lloyd, and NRBC, DA, and PC also support him. Linebaugh got support from TCR. I think I’ll go with Russell Lloyd.

 

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Place 2:

A justice of the peace does not have to have a law degree, but it helps. This bench just came open after 30 or so years, so this opening is a great opportunity. The candidates are Lena Engelage, Layssa Korduba, Nasir Malik, Dean Combs, and Louis Guthrie. The first three have come to our Tea Party to introduce themselves. Both Engelage and Korduba have returned and made themselves at home. Korduba also showed up at the King Street Patriots judicial candidate forum.  She has ten years of practice, and 5 years as a judge—in the City of Tomball since 2008, the first woman judge there. She seems to understand the way this court is run, and has ideas for improved efficiency. Nasir Malik is running as an outsider, claiming the other candidates are party insiders. He’s a businessman. I’m unconvinced about his claims of conservatism. I liked Louis Guthrie when he ran for Sheriff last time around, but I don’t think he has any judicial experience, and he hasn’t campaigned anywhere I’ve seen him. Lena Engelage teaches criminal justice at a high school. She has 5 years’ experience with the FBI and 18 years’ experience as an attorney (and doesn’t look old enough). Her background is diverse, which helps with the variety that comes up before a justice of the peace. All of my sources go with Laryssa Korduba (CCHC gives 90% support), and I will too.

 

Justice of the Peace Precinct 5, Place 2:

The two candidates are Jeff Williams and Erik Hassan. Williams is the incumbent. He has 28 years’ experience as a practicing attorney, plus three years as a judge. His opponent doesn’t have a law degree. Again, a law degree isn’t required, but it helps. He handles a staff of 40, with 9,000 new cases a month. It’s not a good place for on-the-job learning. All of my resources support Jeff Williams, and so do I.

 

Harris County Republican Party Chair:

Jared Woodfill is the six-term (12-year) incumbent for this unpaid position. He is being challenged by Paul Simpson. His challenger complains that he’s a corrupt trial attorney, but I’ve hunted and there’s surprisingly little evidence of corruption, so I’m unconvinced. Simpson, by the way, is also an attorney, just not a trial lawyer. Simpson is claiming that things have gone downhill with Woodfill there. Actually, that’s debatable as well. Precinct chairs need to be filled. Both candidates agree on that; I’ve seen Woodfill acting on it; maybe there should be more action, though. Simpson says he will do something about it; but I didn’t catch exactly what he would do. There’s a third person on the ballot, but if she can’t even make herself known to people like me, she doesn’t know how to spread the conservative message for the party in this key county, so I’m not even giving her a mention. 

Simpson claims to be both a longtime Republican grassroots activist, and a party outsider. I’ve also heard that Simpson is part of a group working to move out the most conservative elements of the party. Seriously, I don’t know what to believe. But at our Tea Party, while Simpson was impressive enough, when he said the reason we have Obama is because “Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate to talk about conservatism,” he lost me. He was listening to the enemies of Romney and believing them, instead of vetting the candidate himself. Truly I understand how difficult that is—for someone like me. But I found it pretty easy to find the truth about Romney and always wondered why so many ON OUR SIDE failed to see, and failed to support the best candidate in my lifetime as a result. We simply can’t have someone that obtuse running the party for the county. I don’t actually know Woodfill’s personal opinions about Romney, but when it counted all I saw coming from him was appropriate support. 

Woodfill got 78% support from CCHC. Other sources went for Simpson. I’m open to hear more, but for now I’m staying with Jared Woodfill.