Saul Anuzis’ Scary Boogieman Report | Jen Kuznicki

Saul Anuzis’ Scary Boogieman Report

By On February 25, 2013 · 22 Comments

I’d like to offer an argument that I think exemplifies what is wrong within the Michigan Republican Party, by using by former state chair and former committeeman, Saul Anuzis.

Saul was taken to task last year, and replaced by the grassroots on the RNC Committee, directly because of his actions in the 2012 Presidential primary in Michigan.  Along with Bobby Schostak, the newly reelected chair, Saul changed the rules after the primary, which changed the number of delegates awarded to Romney and Santorum.  Under the rules, Romney and Santorum would have tied in the state, but instead, because of Schostak’s, and Anuzis’ actions, Romney was awarded more than Santorum.

A political price was paid for Anuzis’ actions, and anyone who really cared about what the grassroots thought, would be humbled and try to find a way to make amends, apologize, look to his betters and peers and reach out to explain that he has seen the light.

Instead, as I show here, Saul hasn’t learned a damn thing.

 

Bobby Schostak re-elected as Michigan GOP’s  State Chairman

Congratulations to my good friend Bobby who was re-elected to serve a second term as Chairman.  An interesting coalition of some Tea Party activists, Liberty Movement folks and others with alternative agenda’s rallied together to make this a closer race than it should have been.

Notice how Saul does not mention Reaganites, Conservatives, or Constitutionalists, yet that was what his good friend Bobby was challenged by.  Todd Courser came within less than 3 1/2% of winning the chairman position.  Instead, Saul suggests that Frankenberry and the Boogieman conspired with an alternative ‘agenda.’

The ‘alternative agenda’ that should have been quite clear to Saul was that people like transparency and truth, and Todd is a good man and I doubt he is going away.

Bobby has proven to be a solid conservative who has worked tirelessly for the party.  I’m proud and glad to see him there for another 2 years.

I would like Saul to define the word solid.  With so many people throwing around the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘RINO’, I would just once like someone to explain their qualifiers.

 In order to win elections we have to grow this party, stand on principles and work together.  Throwing “some�? people out for the sake of “change�? and arguing for a less inclusive, less tolerant and less broad based party isn’t the answer.

OK, as far as I can figure, Saul used quotes around the word “some�? because he means to respond to those who have called Schostak a RINO.  But what is more interesting is why he used quotes around the word, “change.�?

Of course people were ready for a change in the chairman.  The possible scandals, the DeleGATE situation, and the fact that after a punishing primary, during which Santorum supporters were told that if they didn’t get behind Romney, they would have no seat at the table when he became president, and the fact that Santo supporters won the same amount of delegates as hometown guy Romney, and then we went on to lose….I mean, come on, there is always a political price.  But Saul won’t see this, he still maintains he did nothing wrong, it’s somebody else’s fault, he was nothing but fair, yada, yada, yada.

It was clear that the rules were changed after the fact, Rick Santorum, although he truly thinks it is water under the bridge, agrees completely.

On facebook and twitter, I see a lot of moderates post similar accusations as Saul has about ‘less inclusive, less tolerant, less broad based’ party participants.  There is no doubt that it is a slap at tea party people, constitutionalists, and social conservatives.  But then, Saul would try to purge such patriots from the party, as he was at the Tampa convention when Romney’s lawyer tried to change the rules in order to silence the grassroots, and lied to others about what the rules were about.  Morton Blackwell made it clear what the rules were about here.

NO one is talking about moderating our values or principles, but watching our “tone�? and respecting others who may disagree with one another on various issue is just good politics not to mention common courtesy in a civil society.

It is true that no one talks about moderating, they moderate while telling all that they are conservative. THAT is the problem.  I do agree we need to watch our tone, just never moderate it.  The truth is the truth, and to some people, no matter how nicely you state the truth, they just don’t want to hear it.

Snyder kicked off his re-election with the closest public statement to a re-election announcement that he’s made.

However, some folks, regretfully, are still focused more on intra-party battles than beating Democrats.

Politicians are our employees.  We pay them.  There is a difference between my disagreeing with another party volunteer, and a politician.  The party volunteer cannot raise my taxes, nor can they regulate my business, nor can they legislate against my belief system.  In this state, led by Republicans, people whom I employ have done all of that.  I do not check my first amendment rights at the door when I join the Republican party, and I will continue to call out this Governor when he embraces liberalism.  There is no beating the Democrats when you have already joined them.

Now, having said that, Saul’s entire post was a passive-aggressive attempt at blaming conservatives for all the party’s woes, and he refuses to see what is happening.

If the leadership of the Michigan Republican Party reacts to the near-win by Todd Courser in the same manner as has Anuzis, a third-party grassroots wildfire will commence.  It’s just human nature, after having been repeatedly told to sit down and shut up.

 

Tagged with: • • •
 
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Loading Loading IntenseDebate Comments...