Saul Anuzis’ Scary Boogieman Report | Jen Kuznicki

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:

22 Responses to Saul Anuzis’ Scary Boogieman Report

  1. Guest says:

    I'm pretty sure he was referring to how many of our conservative and liberty friends are being used as pawns of the Establishment, namely John and Chuck Yob.

  2. pkwalkerblog says:

    Mr. Courser was an excellent candidate, however he lost, we don't need sour grapes because your guy lost, we need unity. To even suggest a third-party grass-roots organization is irresponsible and will hand every election to the Democrats by splitting everyone who calls themselves a conservative. Anyone close to this will see how this plays out, split the party with a third party, we lose across the board in 2014, then blame Bobby Schostak for the loss. Essentially suggesting 'some' people are willing to sacrifice losing our current seats held by Republicans for a agenda that isn't purist enough? Michael Shirkey said it best: "Lord, grant us the serenity to accept the outcomes we cannot change, the wisdom, courage, and energy to continue to fight for the things that must be changed, and the discernment to know how best to accomplish these changes without compromising Your commandments and principles.

  3. saulfolks says:

    Funny interpretation. I am NOT blaming conseratives, Constitutionalists or anyone else…I am referrring to "some". We need to build our party. In order to win, we need a center-right coalition. I am a conservative and a strict Constitutionalist…not to mention as Austrian. So your spin, interpretation and is ironic if not just incorrect.

    Having said that, I encourage you to continue your fight and hoepfully "mature" politically in helping build a stronger conservative movement rather than a smaller one.

  4. Michael Mikolajczak says:

    There is more but you did hit the nail on the head. Good for you.
    Mike – Capac

  5. Granny55 says:

    I say it is high time for a Third Party!!!

  6. Tim Bos says:

    Thank you, Jen!

    It should become common knowledge that Lt. Gov. Brian Calley had a "Come to Jesus" discussion with us on the Couser leadership team prior to the announcement of results of the election for the state chair.

    It started with demands being made that Courser concede a unanimous vote in order to us even being able to speak with Brian, which was immediately laughed off. Establishment heavy-handedness and demands were met with disdain and disbelief, which soon forced them to accept the reality that the Conservative grass roots are a viable and legitimate force to be reckoned with.

    Eventually, Calley did speak with us, and soon admitted that Republicans can not get elected without us, that significant changes do indeed need to be made, that they will be made, and that the Conservative grass roots should be an integral part of the MRP.

    During this post election discussion, it was pointed out to the Lt. Gov. that while there are philosophical differences between the grass roots and "establishment" types, they don't require philosophical sainthood to back the Gov or the legislature. But they do vote their principles, they are issues-oriented, and regardless of what we tell them to do, they will remain true to their beliefs that tax increases, health insurance exchanges, and growing an already bloated govt is the exact opposite of what they expect from their GOP politicians.

    Failure to act accordingly by Lansing and the Party will result in a lack of support during election seasons by the Conservative grass roots, and that's not a threat- just a mere statement of fact and reality. The line in the sand has been clearly drawn for the Governor and the legislature, and it must be known that while we lost the election, we clearly had the numbers for a different outcome- had all of the liberty folks from the 2nd District actually shown up. Those people alone would've swung the results into a win for Courser, and while they didn't show up to have their votes counted, they still are active members of the party who are opposed to the status quo.

  7. saulfolks says:

    By the way, I think a Third Party is a great idea and we should consider using the "fusion" system that NY State uses…it would change politics for the better. Check it out.

    • Rich Anderson says:

      I actually agree with you 100% on this comment Saul! I made this argument a few weeks ago to some friends.

    • Jen Kuznicki says:

      Saul is anxious for a third party that comes in second and only activates when a Republican candidate is not offered. He is also for the Nat'l Popular Vote, and doing away with the electoral college. No thanks.

      • saulfolks says:

        Sorry Jen, wrong again. I am NOT for eliminating the Electoral College. I'm for getting rid of the winner take all system currently used by 48 states.

        Also, you clearly don't understand the "fusion" system or looked into before commenting.

        Take a deep breath, just because I suggest something doesn't mean it's always bad:)

        • Jen Kuznicki says:

          Did you not argue in favor of the Nat'l popular vote in the past? I could have sworn you said that the demographics are no longer in the Republicans favor, and we should consider a popular vote system. I could be wrong, but that's what I heard. Now, the system in NY is bull because it does nothing to change the unprincipled Republican stance of moderate Republicans. It is ridiculous to say that the system works in NY, when all it does is piggyback the R party, and rarely gets the chance to nominate. And gosh, ain't the New York Republicans taking the world by storm! Oh yeah, Nanny Bloomberg and his ilk, ruining the brand for the rest of us. No Thanks.

          And if you condescend to me again, you are blocked, pal.

  8. Very Conservative says:

    I am a tea party founder. I would not support Todd because of his past behavior and former races he lost big. His lack of infrastructure, campaign knowledge, and yes fundraising were contributing factors. His signs don't show what race he's running for. Afraid to commit? Norm Hughes is a negative associate and has been a divider since he and his Reagan ghost self (who was not that conservative) appeared. I am so sad at the tactics used by Todd's chief supporters. If you disagreed with them, you were instantly vilified and publicly shamed as a liberal. If you are a Republican, act like it and do what's best. Beating up people on the same side is divisive and will help us loose more. My relative was a campaign volunteer for the last few years and they have been very disappointed in this campaign. All those negative emails and phone calls, I thought we were fighting the Dems not each other so vilely. I don't know personally mr Schostak but many people in my county would have voted for them if they were able to drive out.

    I supported his Education race, but now that I know he was unqualified for that.. He didn't have signs, money, or a campaign of his own. I also found out he's run races he's unqualified for before and lost big. Wouldn't the Dems mock us for that? Who hires a looser and then promotes him to CEO? I wish I knew all of this weeks ago! Does he run every single race? A friend posted they were supporting Bobbie and were treated and attacked online. Seeing someone who bashes the republicans all over the web as one of his chief supporters is confusing too. I wish I knew this before. I see the blame someone else like the entitled we are trying to fight against.

    I didn't know Cindy or the lady running with Bobbie or even what they are supposed to do, but she turned me off after meeting her. Acting like this was a war with the other side confused me and my friend. Those Ron Paul people were mean once they found out we were not going to vote for Mr Courser. I am a Christian Conservative and want this meanness to stop. Thank You for letting me post.

    • Jen Kuznicki says:

      there are always going to be people who argue vehemently, this is politics. You had every right to vote who you wished to vote for, it's over. But the people who supported Todd mustn't be cast aside and villified, belittled. Ron Paul isn't running for anything, and I strenuously disagree with them on foreign policy and social issues. And so it goes….politics is argument, debate and let's see who comes out on top. Some people are mean, and some are construed as mean when they are direct.

    • Jen Kuznicki says:

      In fact your post gave me an idea to introduce you to a book I am reading. …

      another good one is Madison's notes.

      there was a lot of debate

    • Jason Gillman says:

      Please feel free to use your name when claiming to be a founder or leader, and especially when critiquing others. It lends credibility, whether agreeable to some readers or not.

      • Tom Stillings says:

        Thanks, Jason. It has always been my practice to heavily discount the credibility of anyone lacking the courage and intellectual integrity to stand up and publicly proclaim their position as being their own. As you well know, when I have something to say, I put my name on it. People may not like me for it, but that's the price we pay for being true to our beliefs.I would hope that "very conservative" will reconsider this. If he is indeed truthful, many of us would probably rally to support his position. Failing that, he is just so much "noise" to me.

  9. lprebble says:

    This may seem off the subject but i think it would be very on point. The philosophy that we in Michigan would be looking for to direct a focus would be the likes of Dr Ben Carson. I know that I'm refering to '16 but his philosophys and his conservative fresh untainted approach to leadership is an example of what you have been stabbing at. Check out some of his interviews and also the movie made about him, "Gifted Hands; The Ben Carson Story". This guy is basic, fundimental and real!

  10. Geoff says:

    I agree. You should sit down and shut up.

  11. task says:

    He (Anuzis) and they want an inclusive party? Only as long as you follow them. Compromising on principles is like a cheating marriage partner whose idea about compromise is to cheat less, or a thief that will steal less, or a liar who will lie less, or an abuser who will abuse less. The behavior is simply unacceptable. Then how do you “stand on principles�? as Anuzis mentioned? As time advances you will notice that he will become more and more moderate because he is mostly a politician and not a reformer.

    It is like anything that becomes fashionable; imitators always look to hitch a ride.They are no different than a lengthy contract that you signed without reading the fine print and then learn that you got what you never intended to buy.

Leave a Reply