Actor Glenn Morshower is not a household name. But as one of the hardest working men in Hollywood, literally, you’ve likely seen his face at one time or another on either the big screen or the little one.
He is perhaps best known as Agent Aaron Pierce on the television series “24,” in which I believe he was the only character other than Kiefer Sutherland’s “Jack Bauer” who appeared in every season.
As Wikipedia notes, he’s appeared in three different Star Trek series, The Dukes of Hazzard, Matlock, The West Wing, Quantum Leap, NYPD Blue, The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, JAG, Deadwood, ER, NCIS, The Closer, Bones, Full House, Criminal Minds, Friday Night Lights and more. He’s also been in dozens of movies, including Transformers, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Blood Work, Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, Godzilla, Under Siege and Tango and Cash.
So yes, you’ve almost surely seen Mr. Morshower even if you didn’t know who he was.
In any event, I had the pleasure of hearing Glenn speak at a conference in L.A. last year…and what a fun-loving guy.
For example, he and his young son used to grab their fishing poles and head down to a certain busy intersection in Los Angeles after heavy rainfalls and pretend to fish out of the large puddle that always formed there. He would hook a large trout from Ralph’s Supermarket on the line; then watch astonished motorists drive by as he reeled it in!
Glenn also told us about a little good luck charm he invented when auditioning for a part in the Transformers movie; a role he really wanted but feared he might not get. So he spread a little peanut butter on the top of his feet before he put his socks on and headed to the audition.
And got the part!
OK, I tell you this story because the kids’ soccer team I coach has been on a pretty long losing streak. And our team sponsor – a wonderful man named Bobby Ellis of SNAP Towing – deserves better. So desperate times called for a desperate measure.
And yes, for our game last week I broke out the Skippy and spread a little “good luck” peanut butter on my feet before putting my socks on. I then told the kids before the game about my “secret weapon” and assured them there was no way we were going to lose that night.
And darned if we didn’t shut out the other team 7-0!
So what does any of this have to do with politics or public policy? Absolutely nothing. Unless a candidate shows up at your door smelling like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich this election season. If so, thank Glenn Morshower!
There still exists some significant confusion over the Nevada Republican Party’s endorsement policy even after the endorsement votes were postponed until the state GOP convention in April. And the problem seems to be internally with folks being confused over whether they are actually “endorsing” candidates or simply giving them a “seal of approval.”
To most of us, if you endorse candidates that means the Central Committee is expressing a preference, for whatever reason or reasons (philosophical, electability, able to hit a three at the buzzer, etc.), of one candidate over another (or others).
So let’s say Candidate A and Candidate B in a particular GOP primary race each requested evaluation by the party’s Nominating Committee and both candidates were “Recommended” for an endorsement vote because both met the minimum requirements of whatever criteria was established by the committee.
You would think that means that both candidates would appear on a ballot in April…and convention delegates would vote for one or the other…and whichever candidate got 50%-plus-one would get the GOP’s officials “Endorsement.”
But it appears that some party leaders instead desire to have their cake and eat it, too.
As such, two Silver State Confidential subscribers have told me that instead of both candidates appearing on the ballot together, with one of them winning the endorsement, each candidate will be voted on individually and separately.
So if Candidate A gets 50%-plus-one of the vote he gets endorsed. Then the delegates will vote separately and individually on Candidate B. And if Candidate B also gets 50%-plus-one of the delegate votes, he TOO will be endorsed.
Which means the endorsement will mean absolutely nothing. As said in The Incredibles, “If everyone’s special, no one is.”
I HOPE it’s not true that this is how the party intends to proceed with its endorsements in April…and I’m trying to get clarification as we speak. Will let you know as soon as I know.
So in the Republican primary race for Assembly District 26 in Washoe County, you have moderate incumbent Assemblyman Randy “Kirner Tax” Kirner (RINO-Kirner Tax) and two challengers – Lisa Krasner, a constitutional law professor and mom, and Robb Archie, a 1960s folk-singer who looks like “Doc” from “Back to the Future”.
Now here’s the reality: If both Krasner and Archie file, they will probably split the anti-Kirner vote and the moderate will be re-elected. However, if one of them drops out, here’s the alternative…
If Archie runs one-on-one against Kirner, he’ll lose. He’s lost to Kirner before. And he’ll lose again. Philosophically, he’s conservative. But he’s not electable. He’s undisciplined and comes unhinged easily and is running as a single-issue candidate.
If Krasner runs one-on-one against Kirner, she’s got a good shot at winning.
This isn’t rocket surgery folks. One candidate has a chance to remove a tax-hiking, mushy moderate Gumby Republican from the Legislature. The other has a chance to do the right thing. He won’t. But he should. If he REALLY wants to help the conservative movement, that is.
Which he doesn’t. It’s all about Robb.
Back in 1990, Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams was leading his Democrat opponent in the polls by a comfortable 20-point margin – until he stuck his Texas-sized boot in his mouth by likening rape to bad weather.
“If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it,” the Texas oilman joked, dooming his campaign.
I guess it’s a good thing Mr. Williams doesn’t live here in Nevada, because there are three political inevitables on the horizon that we surely would not want him commenting on.
The first is gay marriage, which has actually been inevitable for a long time; it’s just that a lot of people are only now beginning to realize it.
When the notion was first put forward in Hawaii in the 1990s, it was a state issue. But once Congress and President Clinton got involved and passed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, it became a federal issue.
And the 1960s Supreme Court decision in the “Loving” case – which declared marriage a “right” – all but guarantees that gay marriage will soon no longer be a state issue, but the law of the land…the entire land, including Nevada.
Indeed, as long as the government extends special benefits to married couples, the argument is no longer about defending the “traditional definition of marriage,” but equal protection under the law. So the big mistake for tradition marriage supporters isn’t in letting gays into the institution of marriage; it was letting the government into it.
The second inevitable in Nevada is the lawful use and possession of marijuana. Not just medicinal marijuana; recreational as well.
It’s a generational thing. The “Reefer Madness” generation is dying off and the largest segment of the voting-age population is now Baby Boomers who grew up smoking weed in the ’60-70s (long before Barack Obama started snorting coke).
While marijuana advocates certainly aren’t about to admit it, “medical” marijuana was just the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. And once smoking a doobie became acceptable for cancer patients, it was a short, inevitable step to general acceptance.
Of course, it hasn’t hurt that the nation’s Drug War has been an expensive, miserable failure.
The third inevitability is the re-election of Gov. Brian Sandoval (R&R-Advertising).
Upon recent announcements that State Sen. Tick Segerblom (D) and Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak (D) would not challenge the incumbent, the Left and much of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) bemoaned the fact that Democrats wouldn’t have a gubernatorial candidate this year.
I beg to differ.
Gov. Sandoval has raised taxes, increased spending, grown government, implemented ObamaCare, expanded Medicaid, given driver’s licenses to unlawful immigrants and done absolutely nothing for school choice. In reality it’s conservative REPUBLICANS who don’t have a gubernatorial candidate this year!
Relax and enjoy it.
As I understand it, while the Nevada Republican Central Committee (NRCC) voted on Saturday to postpone voting on extending any official endorsements of candidates until the GOP convention in Las Vegas in April, the party’s Nominating Committee – which has been reviewing, screening and vetting candidates for the past couple of weeks – did issue a list of candidates who have been “Recommended” for endorsement.
Again, if I understand this process correctly, this is extremely important because candidates who have been reviewed and “Recommended” will only need a simple majority vote of the convention delegates to get the party’s endorsement in April, while candidates who have not been endorsed will be required to obtain a 2/3 vote of convention delegates.
So let’s say – for simplicity’s sake so Mark SureWould can understand it – that there are 300 convention delegates in April. That means that Lisa Krasner, who is running in the Assembly District 26 GOP primary and has been “Recommended” by the Nominating Committee, would need 151 votes to get the party’s official endorsement…while Robb Archie, who is running in the same race but has NOT been “Recommended” by the Nominating Committee, would need to get 200 votes.
That could be a big difference in some races!
Here’s the list of “Recommended” candidates released at the NRCC meeting this weekend…
- Mark Amodei – US Congress
- Sue Lowden – Lt. Governor
- Adam Laxalt – Attorney General
- Barbara Cegavske – Secretary of State
- Dan Schwartz – State Treasurer
- Carl Bunce -SD20
- Dr.Vick Gill -SD9
- Kelly Hurst – SD8
- Vickie Dooling – AD41
- Jim Wheeler – AD39
- Robin Reedy – AD39
- Ron Knecht – State Controller
- Cort Arlint – State Controller
- John Hambrick – AD2
- Michelle Fiore – AD4
- Chris Edwards – AD19
- Richard Bunce – AD22
- Rick Fineberg – AD25
- Lisa Krasner – AD26
- Amy Groves – AD29
- Adam Khan – AD30
- Jill Dickman – AD31
- John Ellison – AD33
- Victoria Seaman – AD34
- Brent Jones – AD35
- Wes Duncan – AD37
- Robin Titus – AD38
Again – and this is important to understand because it has been poorly explained and misreported by some in the press – the fact that Republicans such as Gov. Brian Sandoval (R&R-Advertising), Sen. Moderate Mike Roberson and Assemblyman Pat Hickey have refused to participate in the process, does not mean they can’t and won’t get the party’s endorsement at the convention. It just means they’ll have to get a 2/3 super-majority vote of the convention delegates rather than 50 percent-plus-one.
So as it stands right now, for example, lieutenant governor candidate Moderate Mark Hutchison, one of those who refused to participate in the evaluation process, will still be able to get the Nevada GOP’s endorsement in April if he gets a 2/3 vote of the delegates, while his opponent, conservative Sue Lowden, will be able to obtain the endorsement if she gets just a simple majority of delegate votes.
So let’s say Hutch gets 60 percent of the convention delegate vote and Lowden gets 40 percent. Hutch still won’t be able to earn the party’s official endorsement simply because he chose to blow the party off and didn’t reach the 66% threshold. On the other hand, Lowden could snare the endorsement by beating Hutch by a margin of just 51-49%.
Now take a look at Assembly District 39. In that race, both Assemblyman Jim Wheeler and his challenger, Robin Reedy, went through the review process and both candidates were “Recommended” by the Nominating Committee. That means that either could win the party’s official endorsement in April with a simple majority vote of delegates.
On the other hand, consider the race for governor.
Again, Sandoval – who have been trying to crush the party for the past three years and refused to participate in the evaluation process – will need a 2/3 super-majority vote of convention delegates to get the party’s official endorsement. His announced primary opponent, Eddie Hamilton, has also not been “Recommended” by the Nominating Committee, so he’ll need a 2/3 vote to get the party’s official endorsement, as well.
So what could happen here, is that NEITHER Sandoval nor Hamilton get the endorsement. There would simply be no endorsement at all in that particular race.
Confusing, yes. But any candidate seeking the party’s official endorsement would be well advised to get their people signed up to participate in the county party caucuses and conventions and start wooing Central Committee members.
This is, in reality, a pre-primary primary that will help demonstrate organizational abilities for campaigns with convention delegates serving in the role of the electorate.
Last point: I *believe* the Nominating Committee will continue evaluating candidates who request consideration for the next several weeks (at least through the end of the filing period in March), so it’s still possible for candidates who have not been “Recommended” to still be “Recommended.”
For those who have thus far blown off the process, it might be a good time to reverse course and do a little sucking up!
So there’s this gal named Tiffany Ruegner.
She’s is listed as the Director of Logistics and Outreach for the Western Representation PAC founded by Roger Stockton – who is the guy who stuck his nose into the Nevada GOP endorsement brouhaha last week and leaked his letter criticizing the process to liberal blogger Jon Ralston.
Well, after I wrote criticizing Stockton for criticizing something he knew nothing about, Tiff got into a huff and ripped me a new one on her Facebook page…
“The political flip flopper, Chuck Muth of Muth’s Truths decided to write an article against Battle Born, born conservative organization Western Representation PAC saying that the founder Roger Stockton is a nobody because he has only a few dozen twitter followers.”
Actually, I said no such thing. I responded to Ralston’s characterization of Stockton as a “prominent tea party leader.” I pointed out that he actually wasn’t; that his PAC really hasn’t been all that “prominent” in Nevada. Which is hasn’t been.
That is not to say Stockton is a nobody. Nor is it to say he’s not a good guy. Nor is it to say he’s not a good conservative. Actually, he’s all of those things. But he’s not a prominent tea party leader in Nevada.
Anyway, Tiff ranted on a bit further and then concluded with this…
“(Muth’s) empty National Inquirer gossip column style of writing is really juvenile and unrefined and well… politically childish garbage.”
Actually, it’s National Enquirer, not National Inquirer…but let’s not be Ralstonesque about this.
But since Tiff decided to get personal, let’s consider the source. Here’s what I know about her…
During the 2012 GOP presidential primary, she somehow glommed onto the Gingrich campaign. And I was hired to do some work for the Super PAC that was formed to help promote Newt’s campaign.
Part of that work included helping to organize a fundraising event for Newt at George Harris’ Mundo restaurant in Las Vegas. At the time, Tiff was emailing and calling me frantically as Gingrich’s supposed Nevada rep, wanting to do this and that.
But the Gingrich folks I was working for on the event all but BEGGED me not to let her anywhere near it. As one DC operative complained to a friend of mine, Tiff was “driving away all of the young Republicans working on Newt’s campaign.”
How? Consider this characterization of Tiff I received over the weekend from someone who once worked with her at DC event…
“Horrible, horrible. The best way to put it is…..combine a narcissistic, egotistical personality with a ‘driving need to be somebody’ and mix it with a ‘I don’t care who I walk all over to get where I want to be.’ No organizational experience. No ability to get people to help her after they work with her for a little while!!! That was the short story!!!!”
How’s that for juvenile, unrefined politically childish garbage?
When you have to intentionally and misleadingly misname a legislative or public policy initiative in order to make it more palatable to the citizenry, you just know it’s a bad idea. Case in point…
The horribly misnamed Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.
As we all know now, the President’s government take-over of our health insurance industry has been anything but “affordable” for millions of Americans who not only have seen their premiums skyrocket, but have lost entirely the health care plans they were told they could keep if they liked them.
Ditto here in Nevada with the misleadingly named stink pickle called “The Education Initiative.”
TEI is, in reality, a gross receipts business income tax that will suck millions of dollars out of the private economy and dump it into that cold, black hole known as “public education.” If approved, this “margins tax” will sock it to “family-owned restaurants, medical clinics, daycare centers, repair shops, veterinarians, janitorial services, ranches and farms.”
It’ll also hammer the gaming and construction industries, which is why organized labor – led by the AFL-CIO and Culinary unions – is now adamantly opposed. In fact, the teachers union, which will benefit directly from this ginormous tax hike, is the only major union still supporting the measure.
This tax is so bad in so many ways, it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s begin with the fact that it will slam many businesses that don’t even make a profit. Indeed, it could very well put many businesses out of business. What a way to create jobs, huh?
Worse, the revenue that’ll be sucked out of these businesses will be earmarked for the public schools…as if more money is the answer to these failure factories.
While we’re here, how about we expose this “big lie” about our schools stinking on ice because we’re “underfunding education” and all we need to do is throw more good money after bad.
Did you know that the worst of the worst of our public schools – usually in low-income, minority areas where a quality education is the ticket out of poverty – get a ton of extra money that the average schools don’t get? I’ve heard that some of these schools are getting DOUBLE the per-pupil funding.
Has all that extra money improved the academic performance of the poor students trapped in those government indoctrination centers? If only.
Let’s face it, the “Education Initiative” isn’t about improving education. It’s about improving the paychecks of the teachers union – which is singularly responsible for blocking true and much-needed education reforms that would actually, you know, improve education.
Wanna do something to really fix our schools? Ban the teachers union for the next 100 years. Improvement would begin the very next day. So let it be written; so let it be done.
Liberal blogger Jon Ralston burped up another of his patented anti-Nevada Republican Party rants on Wednesday, tweeting the following…
“Prominent Tea Party leader blasts NV GOP for primary endorsements, suggests party is shooting itself in foot.”
Oh, my. This sounds bad, doesn’t it?
“The Tea Party has arrived in the form of a group that has much more credibility to be anti-Establishment than anyone in this debate,” Ralston frothed in a follow up on his blog (because he no longer has a real newspaper column in, you know, a real newspaper). “This is not an Establishment front; this is the real Tea Party deal.”
Really? Let’s see…
The “prominent” tea party leader Ralston is referring to is Roger Stockton.
What? Never heard of him? Not surprising. I checked his Twitter account. He has all of 37 followers. And the last of his 17 tweets was almost a year ago, while the last blog post on his organization’s website is dated August 13, 2013.
Yeah, real prominent.
And it’s more than a bit hypocritical for Mr. Stockton to maintain that the Nevada GOP shouldn’t endorse candidates in primaries when his own Western Representation PAC…endorses candidates in primaries!
Why is it that people who are already endorsing in primaries – such as Gov. Brian Sandoval (R&R-Advertising) and Sen. “Moderate Mike” Roberson – are opposed to the Republican Party itself doing the same thing that everybody else is doing?
There’s more…but first, let me make it clear I only looked into this organization and am reporting what I found to refute Ralston’s simpleminded argument that a letter from Mr. Stockton – whose PAC is registered in Arizona, by the way – telling the Nevada Republican Party what to do is somehow significant.
It’s about as significant as Sue Wagner leaving the party.
Again, Ralston is trying to make it seem ground-breaking and earth-shattering that this “prominent” tea party “leader” is opposing the Nevada GOP endorsement process. But truth be told, even though I know of Stockton and his PAC, I can’t tell you that they are active in Nevada’s conservative movement.
On the other hand, I know what Vicki Dooling and her tea party organization are doing. They meet every month. And I know what Connie Foust and her tea party group are doing. They meet every month, too. Even that crazy Cathie Lynn Y’all Profant-et.al.-Gizi meets on a regular basis under the tea party banner.
But Roger Stockton and the Western Representation PAC? No idea.
I also checked out the PAC’s FEC filing for last year. Granted, I just did a cursory review, but it looks like the PAC raised less than $80,000 last year…and most of it appears to have gone to paying vendors and contractors and unidentified employees.
In addition, a member of the GOP Central Committee who looked into the organization’s reports sent me the following…
“Thought you might find this interesting…for 2011-12, just under a million bucks raised, of which $755,000 went to operating expenses. They did toss out $100K or so to committees and independent expenditures, but I think if I gave money to this group, knowing that only 10 cents on the dollar went to the cause I’d be a little pissed. I don’t have time to walk through the expenses to see how much the Stocktons made, or through the expenditures to see what candidates actually got some $, but on the surface, Stockton’s set up a nice little election year money machine…”
If the Western Representation PAC is indeed “prominent,” it’s only because they appear to be extremely aggressive at online fundraising, not in actual political operations and organizing in Nevada.
But let’s get to Mr. Stockton’s letter – which, though addressed to the Executive Board of the Nevada Republican Party, was instead sent to the state’s #2 liberal blogger.
What’s that tell you about this guy?
No, seriously. If this guy had a problem with endorsements, why didn’t he pick up the phone and call the party chairman instead of leaking a letter to a liberal blogger? Makes you wonder what the ulterior motive is here.
Anyway, according to Mr. Stockton, adopting a pre-primary endorsement process “is unnecessary because we already have a process in place to endorse candidates: it’s called a primary, and the will of our voters is the imprimatur of legitimacy.”
This is, of course, the stupidest argument possible – and naturally one that Ralston endorses with all his heart.
The primary isn’t the endorsement process. The primary is the NOMINATION process.
And regardless of whether or not the party endorses – the way Stockton, Sandoval, Roberson, et. al., do – the voters will STILL have the final word. This takes absolutely NOTHING away from Republican voters. Nothing.
Stockton continued, “If the party wants to anoint its preferred candidate, it might as well do away with the primary altogether and select its nominee outright.”
Actually, that’s EXACTLY what the Utah Republican Party does. Their nominees are selected at the party convention unless a candidate fails to get a super-majority vote of the delegates. Then, and only then, do the rank-and-file GOP voters get a chance to vote in a primary election.
So, um, the Nevada GOP’s decision to simply issue pre-primary endorsements – the way many other party organizations, Democrat and Republican alike, do – isn’t radical at all.
Stockton concluded his whine with this: “Compromise is a part of politics, and a middle ground will have to be forged.”
Spoken like a true sellout.
No wonder Ralston loves this guy…whoever he is.
So there’s this guy in Reno who got all of 28% of the vote running against Assemblyman Randy “Kirner Tax” Kirner (R-Kirner Tax) four years ago who has thrown his tighty whities into the GOP primary race again this year. And apparently he’s running to be the next Mark SureWould.
The guy’s name is Robb Archie and I think he used to sing in the Partridge Family or something.
Anyway, ol’ Arch was whining on Twitter about conservative Lisa Krasner also running in the same GOP primary race and splitting the anti-Kirner vote. So I asked via Twitter, respectfully, why Krasner should get out of the race instead of him considering his less-than-stellar electoral performance the last time. To which Archie tweeted:
“Aren’t you one of the Republican women who left the party in the past?”
“Republican women.” Get it? What a hoot!
Buckle up, folks. You know how I love when these gadflies stick their heads up and shout “Whack me!” More to come…
Dave Espinosa is running for the position of Nevada Republican National Committeeman in the election coming up at the meeting in Fallon on February 15 and is reportedly Gov. Brian Sandoval’s (R&R-Advertising) anointed candidate against two conservative candidates, Pat Kerby and Lee Hoffman.
This past week, Espinosa sent out an email to Central Committee members asking for their support. The following is an interesting response from one of the members who received Espinosa’s email…
I received your email yesterday afternoon (below) requesting support for your candidacy for Republican National Committeeman. I have the following questions based on what you wrote to me:
Under the paragraph below titled, LEADERSHIP, you stated the following:
“I have served as the Chairman of many committees within the Washoe County Republican Party, have been a member of the Nevada Republican Central Committee for several years, and have been a member of the executive board of various conservative organizations, including the Nevada Republican Assembly.”
With respect to the above statement, could you clarify the following:
1. Specifically, which committees of the Washoe County Republican Party (“WCRP”) have you chaired? I have been a member of the Washoe County Republican Central Committee since 2007 and cannot remember you being the chairman of any committees, with the exception of recently resigned chairman, Tom Taber’s appointment of you as Candidate Recruitment Chairman about 4 months ago. Please enlighten me as to which other “Chairs” you have occupied for the WCRP and when you did so and the name of the WCRP chairman that appointed you?
2. Please list the names of the “various conservative organizations” whose executive boards you have served and the capacity and dates which you have served?
Next, under the paragraph (below) titled, FUNDRAISING, you stated the following:
“I was the most successful fundraising Assembly candidate for Northern Nevada in 2012, out raising all other candidates from any party.”
1. You were a candidate for Assembly District 31 in Washoe County. District 31 is a “Republican Edge” district. In other words, there are more active Republicans registered to vote in AD 31 than there are Democrats. Yet, you lost the election to one of the most liberal Democrats in the 2013 Legislature whom you claim you didn’t raise as much money as you did. Can you explain why you were the only Republican in Nevada to lose a “Republican Edge” legislative district in the 2012 General Election despite having all these funds at your disposal
2. Your C & E filings with the Secretary of State indicate that you paid substantial “Consulting Fees” to campaign consultants. This begs the question: Did you or the consultants raise the money?
3. All Republican insurgents, to my knowledge, that won election to the Nevada Assembly in the 2012 General Election, signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. All insurgents that lost their attempt to be elected to the Nevada Assembly refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Do you think your refusal to sign this pledge cost you the election?
Thanks in advance for responding to the above questions as promptly as possible as the February 15th NRCC meeting, where the next committeeman will be selected, is quickly approaching.