Author: Fritz Pettyjohn

Things have sputtered to a halt in South Carolina.  We’ll have to try again next year.  This is the strangest legislature in the country, and one of the most ethically challenged  — by design.  They make $10,000 a year and are in session five months.  “Outside income”, whatever that may mean, is necessary for a legislator to make a living.

85 year old Senator Hugh Leatherman is a real life Boss Hogg.  He’s run the Senate with an iron fist for 30 years, and everybody goes along.  He won’t talk to anyone except a select group of fellow Senators.  He was a lifelong Democrat who only switched parties to stay in the majority.  He wanted an increase in the gasoline tax and held everything else hostage.  The bizarre rules of the South Carolina Senate allow him that kind of power.

As far as I’m aware no one has any real idea of what to do with this guy.  The entire Senate is up for reelection next year.  You file between March 16 and March 30.  Maybe he’ll run, maybe he won’t.  Maybe that would help, or not.  Who the hell knows?  We’ve got seven months to figure out South Carolina.  We’ve got to come up with plan B.  It may involve the Reagan Initiative.  True regulatory reform would be a boon to the economy of South Carolina, just like the rest of the country.  It might motivate the business community to get involved.  Maybe we have to figure something else out for this state.

Next year, between February 9 and February 20, South Carolina will be at the center of the Republican nomination drama.  Maybe the fact that it’s the only southern state that hasn’t passed a BBA Resolution will get some attention.

Contrary to my understanding, NCSL starts on August 3rd, so we’ll have to move the date of the Article V Summit.  Either to Friday, August 7th, or to  Saturday, July 25th in San Diego, just after the ALEC meeting.  Whichever one Senator Faber will be able to attend.  All they need to do is agree on 1) One state, one vote 2) one Amendment, on one subject  — balancing the budget and 3)   assurances that wayward delegates would be recalled and sanctioned.  Then we can adjourn for cocktails and the awards dinner.  If we can’t get the Peterson Foundation to sponsor this there’s something wrong with us, and with them.

It’s interesting to compare the calendar of the nomination contest with the calendar for passage in our last six states.  I’m going to do that in my next post.  The first two phases of the nomination end on March 15th, with Missouri, Illinois and winner take all Florida.  At that point we could have passed our Resolutions in Oklahoma, Idaho, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, getting us to 33.  We would need wins in Arizona or South Carolina.  If Kasich’s still in the race he could raise holy hell in those states, and get everybody fired up about their useless legislature.

Maybe that’s how we get 34.

In America we respect self made men, guys like Eisenhower and the Gipper.  We don’t like guys who are born on third base and think they’re triples hitters.  Guys like Jeb Bush.  And, maybe, Rand Paul.

I like a lot of things about Paul, but there seems to be something missing.  It’s hard to put your finger on it, but I definitely get the sense that he’s in politics, at least in part, to redeem his father’s good name.  Ron Paul ran for President several times, as a Libertarian and a Republican.  He had a loyal, rabid following, but was never more than a fringe candidate.  No one took him seriously.  He was disrespected, called a crank and a kook.  I think this bothered Rand, who idolized his dad.  If he becomes President, he will redeem the good name of his father.  I think that’s a big part of why he’s running.  And that’s not a good reason to want to be President.  We have a recent example of it as evidence.

Mitt Romney loved his father, George, who rose from nothing to become the President of American Motors.  George was a successful Governor of Michigan who ran against Nixon for the nomination in 1968.  When he claimed that the American military had brainwashed him into supporting the Vietnam War his campaign nosedived and his elective political career was over.  I think Mitt got into Presidential politics to redeem the good name of his father.  It explains a lot.  He won the nomination only because of a very weak field.  When the time came for him to man up and seize the moment he just didn’t have the balls.

In the second debate Candy Crowley interrupted him to assert, mistakenly, that Obama had immediately labeled the Benghazi attack as terrorism.  This was his moment.  A man with balls would have won the election right then and there.  All he had to do was reprimand her, respectfully, for inserting herself into a debate she was supposed to be moderating.  And then refute her, forcefully, on Benghazi.  He let it slide, and it cost him the election.  Maybe he thought it was ungentlemanly to argue with a woman.  Whatever.  A real man, a self made man, was what he was not.

G.W. Bush had daddy issues as well.  I’ll never forget Governor Anne Richards give the nominating speech for Clinton in ’92.  She mocked Bush, saying, in a thick Texas drawl, “Poor George, he can’t he’p it.  He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth!”    The crowd went wild.  Two years later W took her out.  I think he ran for Governor of Texas only because of that speech.  He wanted to redeem his father’s good name.  And I think he invaded Iraq, in part,  to punish Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his father.

We’ve never really had a national political dynasty like the Bushes.  We’re not Argentina or India.  They’re un-American.  If Jeb Bush is elected President I’d be shocked.

When Rand Paul decided to run for reelection to the Senate, as well as President, it was a tell.  He wants to remain in the Senate.  Marco Rubio, on the other hand, manned up and rolled the dice.  I saw Rubio on Fox yesterday.  I really like this guy.

He’d make a great Vice President.

If two things are accomplished at the Seattle Summit it will be a success.  Get as many states as possible, at least 26, to declare individually and collectively that voting at the Amendment Convention will be one state, one vote, and that only one Amendment, to balance the budget, will be considered.

At our meeting yesterday morning Senator Faber gave a little riff on the subject.  He said, in two or three minutes, in his own words, what we want every legislative leader to say  — it’s one state, one vote, or else no Convention.  And one Amendment on one subject  — balancing the budget  — will be the only topic of discussion.

I’ve asked my old Alaska friend David Cuddy to record all this on film.  I want 30, 40, 50 legislative leaders, Democrat and Republican, to be recorded saying essentially what Faber did, only in their own words.  Except that would be too long.  I don’t think we want to produce anything over half an hour, but then I’m just guessing.  We’ve got plenty of time to figure out the best format.  We want something to demonstrate to the runaway fear mongers that their worries are complete fantasies in the real world.  We’ll figure it out.

Every Democrat presiding officer should agree to the same thing.  There are only 30 of them, and aside from New York, California and Illinois it’s in their best interest that we have a one state, one vote rule.  And would any of them have a problem agreeing that a BBA should be the only topic under consideration?  I think not.  So we should have virtually unanimous support.

I’m floundering, trying to figure out how to convey this.  It should definitely be on a video, but in what format?  I really don’t know.  We’ve got time to think about it.  Whatever we come up with, it would be an attraction to attend the Summit.  What politician wouldn’t want to be featured in this video?  None that I’ve ever met.

I emailed Cuddy, hoping to get him to take this on.  Whoever does the video of Seattle will be in line to be the official video crew at the Amendment Convention.  That would be a plum.

Because Faber agreed to send the invitation to Seattle, the trip to Savannah was a success.  There was no way I was going to pull this off myself.  With Faber and Senator Long of Indiana “sponsoring” the Summit, in the sense of issuing the invitation, we’ve taken a huge step forward.  The Summit will happen, and it will be a success.  But, to what extent?

They start small, gather mass and speed, and become powerful.  You gotta start somewhere, so I started in Alaska, then to Washington, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and on through the west.  But to really get rolling we need precisely what we got from Senator Faber this morning.  He agreed to co-sign an invitation to the Seattle Summit, along with his friend President Long of Indiana, to all presiding officers, 97 in all.  He’s responsible for finalizing Ohio’s budget, which ties him up until July 1st.  After that he agreed to do conference calls with fellow presiding officers, leading up to August 3rd.

Faber’s term limited out next year, and it’s pretty obvious what his next move is  — a run against very liberal Sherrod Brown for the U. S. Senate, or a prominent role in the Kasich administration.  Maybe both.  Republicans in Ohio have their act together, and plan these things out.

On July 1st, when his budget is done, Faber led us to believe that Kasich will make a decision on running.  All signs point to a go.  The first debate is in Cleveland on August 6th.  I will offer to do what I can, in California and the west.  Faber talked a little about Kasich’s plan.  Do well enough in New Hampshire and South Carolina to be considered a top tier candidate, and go from there.  Kasich can raise the money to do it.  No one has any idea how long it will take to clinch.  California’s primary is on June 7th 2016, with around 10% of the delegates, 20% of a majority at the Convention, at stake.  The Democrats in Sacramento have complete control of this process, and no one knows for sure what they’ll decide to do.  Anything from winner take all to strict proportionality is possible.  A serious campaign has to allow for the possibility that the whole thing could come down to California.  The last time I recall that happening was 1964, but you never know.

The guy with some clout is my partner Lew Uhler.  He’s known everybody in California politics for the last 50 years.  Lew’s pretty hard core, like I am, and wants the most conservative candidate who can win.  I’m going to talk to him about Kasich.  Kasich can not only win, he can govern.  You can’t say that, with any confidence, about Paul, Rubio or Cruz.  Walker could govern, but in pandering to the ethanol lobby in Iowa I’ve lost confidence in him.  As he describes himself, he’s unintimidated.  But he certainly didn’t display any balls in Iowa.  Plus, of course, where the hell is he on Article V and the BBA?  MIA.  Perry’s from Texas, and sounds and acts too much like G.W. Bush to go anywhere.  IMHO.

Faber sealed the deal for Kasich when I asked him about the Mideast.  I’m an antiwar libertarian, and I’m damned if I’m going to support anyone who wants to nation build or get boots on the ground in that lunatic asylum.  Israel’s security is one thing.  Our guarantee of that is absolute.  But beyond that we don’t need the Mideast, or their oil.  We’ve got  our own.  No more war for oil.  No more war.  Faber said he’s gun shy himself, but that Kasich is even more strongly committed to staying out of that mess.  Rand Paul appealed to me because he’s got the balls to say no to war.  I believe Faber when he says Kasich does too.

Merle Madrid was passing out bumper stickers, and I took a few.  I’ll put one on my truck.  I haven’t had a Presidential bumper sticker on my vehicle in 35 years.  I haven’t had a candidate to support since then.  I’m picky.  I don’t do these things lightly.  Kasich’s not the Gipper.  I’m under no illusions.  But he’s a real guy.  That’s rare, and refreshing.  Article V is more important than any Presidential election.  And we’re certainly not going to become an arm of the Kasich campaign.  But it’s nice, for me, to finally have a candidate.  I talk to a lot of people from all over the country.  Conservative Republicans.  They all rule out Bush and Christie, but they don’t know who to be for.

Now I’ve got a suggestion for them.

Sen. Faber has a trial scheduled for August 3rd.  If he settles, he’ll make it to the Seattle Summit.  If not, he’ll send someone in his stead.  He lives 60 miles from Indiana Senate President David Long, his close ally.  He can get Long, or Long’s representative, to attend as well.

This means we’re half way to 26, a magic number.  I feel confident Biddulph and I can get eight more.  If Faber, or another leader, can get us five more we’ve got a quorum.  Once we get a quorum we have the kernel of an organization.  An organization that can be formalized in a second, Annapolis, Summit in December, also taking place in conjunction with an NCSL meeting.

Faber is skeptical about the Reagan Initiative.  New ideas take time.  It takes a while to sink in.  I believe he has an open mind .  That’s enough for me.  I’ve got seven months to convince him.

Right now there are Fish and Wildlife agents in Washington state who are out killing owls.  These are beautiful animals  –barred owls, a larger and more aggressive species than the spotted owl.  They’ll kill about 3,600 of these marvelous animals, because they’re behind the decline in the spotted owl population.  Not habitat loss, but competition from a superior species of owl is the problem.

Why are people crazy?