The purpose of a political party is to get as many members of that party elected to public office as possible.
Period.
So why is it that so many members of Nevada’s Republican Party seem to care so little for their central mission? Why are a large minority of them seeming to act against that mission?
~~~
When I say, “The Party,” I’m of course talking about the actual, formal organization, not regular rank and file registered voters who declare themselves to be “Republicans”. To a lesser extent I’m talking about the county Central Committees, but mostly I mean the state Nevada Republican Central Committee, of which I am in full disclosure an elected member.
This last Saturday, as most people know, the NRCC met for a regularly scheduled meeting to elect some new officers to the board, and also to discuss some issues regarding our caucus procedures.
It was one of the most frustrating meetings of any kind I’ve ever had the displeasure of taking part in. And I’ve been to a lot of crappy meetings. There were plenty of annoyances, but the fundamental problem that caused me so much consternation was the steady realization that a loud minority of petty, clueless, and enormously selfish would-be “revolutionaries” seemed to have decided that the one job of a party structure should be the last thing on their mind when they meet.
Let me ponder again – if you aren’t at a Republican Central Committee meeting to figure out how best to elect Republicans, what the heck are you doing there at all? Anything that loses focus on that ONE mission is at best a waste of time, and at worst a gift to Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
~~~
The NV GOP has been making some serious strides forward lately. After years of ridicule, dysfunction, and being aggressively and probably deservedly ignored by most Republican elected officials, (and suffering the electoral results one would expect from such a situation), we were finally professionalizing. We hired paid, full-time staff, money was starting to flow in, and senior elected officials were getting more involved in the party organization side of things. Most importantly, voter registration numbers were starting to tick up, and it looked like the party was starting to build some real credibility with regular registered Republicans, major donors, and even the media.
The showed some muscle and willingness to use it, successfully litigating and winning their case against the CD2 “Ballot Royale” which would likely have ended with Congresswoman Kate Marshall in Washington. Then the party efficiently chose their candidate, and then in spite of a few ninnies who thought Mark Amodei of all people might be a secret RINO or something, got behind that candidate with their full might. The result was a crushing, national momentum-making victory for the Republican candidate.
That credibility as a serious organization dedicated to winning elections cannot be overstated. Most people who donate money to such things, whether they’re small dollar single donors or big check writers, won’t bother without some chance of a return on their investment. Why would they?
With an understanding of their true mission, the executive board of the party continued to press their advantage. The next target was, of course, President Obama, and Nevada was poised to be be a pivotal state in the nominating process for the eventual GOP challenger. The board acted boldly to help really make the upcoming caucuses a big boost for the party, while at the same time trying to deal with the absurdities of other states along with feckless and spineless national party leadership.
The reward for those efforts should have been universal acclaim. Instead, sadly, it was just a lot of knives in a lot of backs, giddy Democrats, and an arrested momentum that only a crash test dummy could truly appreciate.
Large and rapid changes in your momentum will generally have pretty much this effect. Damn you, laws of physics!
~~~
You Had To Be There to Believe It
I won’t air more dirty laundry than necessary (not that it matters, it was of course done in full view of the press), but suffice it to say that the meeting very quickly devolved into bickering over the finer points of Roberts Rules in order to embarrass the Chair, attempts to change the debating rules midstream and otherwise, and even an attempt to formally adopt a rule that would allow for official personal insults upon one another (seriously). (Bob Hastings has another great rundown, too, which is well worth a read.) With each attempt to deviate from the agenda came melodramatic sanctimony about “the voice of the people being heard!”
(These cries rang out from the same people who killed the planned debate on same-day caucus registration. Many of them also rang out from the same people who were determined to silence the 86% of Nevada Republicans who didn’t vote for Ron Paul back in 2008, too. But then, intellectual honesty is often in short supply in any political endeavor.)
There were veiled and not so veiled accusations of various fraud and perfidy against sitting board members and various GOP elected officials – all without evidence, of course. I’m sure that – not unlike the car I saw after the meeting in the parking garage of the Venetian which displayed a “Ron Paul 2012” bumper sticker prominently beside his “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” decal – they just wanted to “ask the questions,” and hey – what harm could there be in that?
"To be fair, most of the NRCC Executive Board DID fly down to Vegas in black helicopters..."
The group had effectively killed a planned panel debate on the issue of same-day voter registration ahead of time – it was taken off of the agenda in an attempt to appease the mob. But they then made a motion to bring it up again just so they could kick it – without allowing any actual debate on the idea, of course, before moving on to some other perceived grievance. I went to go get some more caffeine at that point, but I think by then they were blaming the poor guest parliamentarian for getting the 16th Amendment passed through various forms of deceit and treachery under the direction of the CFR, the Bilderbergers, and Colonel Sanders himself.
The only thing that didn’t create any controversy was probably the one thing that should have spurred more debate – the actual date of the caucuses. (The prime worry of these folks seemed solely that we could have lost half of our delegates, something which hasn’t mattered for over three decades and won’t matter this cycle, either. The only rational explanation for this is if the Ron Paul folks hope to pull the same junta-esque convention stunt this year that they did four years ago. God help us.)
And finally, when their attempt to take over the entire Executive Board failed when Amy Tarkanian’s expected challengers realized they didn’t have the votes to unseat her (and would, you know, actually have to accept responsibility for something if they won), they started a little impromptu (and false) conspiracy theory of their own that held a certain mark on a ballot could be considered a “no” vote and then we just wouldn’t have a chair at all! That would have certainly shown Obama.
And that doesn’t even count the stuff that they weren’t able to accomplish.
The lunatics started taking over the asylum, and the NRP’s budding credibility laid in tatters by mid-afternoon.
~~~
We need a secret back door deal to stop all these secret back door deals!
All of this was actually planned in advance, ironically, via secret E-mails and conference calls. One might even describe it as a “back room” conspiracy type deal. Fortunately, several people who found themselves on the lists and are equally frustrated with the insanity on display forwarded them to me.
One of the E-mails sent to this group afterwards was an after action report. It’s the most interesting for it’s utter paranoia, and also for it’s admissions of dishonesty, perfidy, and promises to continue along this path for the foreseeable future. (For example, we learn that while former Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald publicly declared he wouldn’t challenge Tarkanian for the chairmanship out of friendship and unity, he’s secretly just “biding his time.”)
It is a promise of division and cleansing. It is a screed of subtraction. And the veiled and hushed-tone accusatory statements against the current executive board members resembles nothing so much as a bad post-apocalyptic movie where crazed “revolutionaries” are reading show trial charges against former low level government officials right before they get shot in the head in the middle of a soccer stadium.
And it was sent in the name of “TRUNC” – that’s right, that group that claims “Uniting” right in their name.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony!
~~~
One would think that after Sharron Angle’s campaign strategy based on stoking paranoia of “RINOs” underneath every bit of sagebrush failed to beat one of the nation’s most unpopular and vulnerable politicians, these people would sober up and get a clue.
I never attribute to malice or conspiracy what can be blamed on incompetence or stupidity. But honestly – if these TRUNC folks were getting paid by Harry Reid to infiltrate the GOP and sow confusion, hate, and discontent, is there anything they’d be doing differently?
~~~
Nobody with a brain could possibly think any of these shenanigans could help get a single Republican elected. Nobody with said brain would trust this group to get a group of cub scouts in a canoe, much less help choose the policy makers of the state. There were multiple elected officials in attendance, and I very much doubted a single one was ready to trust their reelection fates to this crowd.
So what was the point of it all?
I found the answer summarized perfectly in a blog comment on Elizabeth Crum’s Nevada News Bureau’s E!! Politics blog:
My take is that this vote had little to do with any “perks” and more to do with sending a message to the politicians who thought they could usurp the authority of the State Central Committee. I hope this message was heard loud and clear.
So politicians are there to serve first and foremost this small group of party insiders who have found clever ways to manipulate arcane rules of procedure? The party apparatus has “authority” over elected officials? Funny – I thought this was exactly what the tea party movement was supposed to be against.
Is it that we don’t want successful, conservative senior elected officials like Governor Sandoval or Senator Heller to help grow and maintain the party structure that helps keep them in office as opposed to a Democrat?
Apparently none of that matters as long as “we” send “a message” to “politicians” that they can’t tell “us” what to do.
The real irony is that for these people – who should not be confused with the wider tea party movement – the motivations are indistinguishable from the Occupy Wall Street loons. It’s fundamentally about a perspectiveless and hugely selfish sense of entitlement. The only thing they cared about in this meeting was having their voice heard, and for everyone else’s voice to be silenced. They cared about exercising their own power just for the sake of wielding it, without any consideration for the ultimate consequences of their actions or the other people they were trampling all over.
They were children throwing a very well coordinated tantrum.
~~~
What ISN’T the Purpose of a Political Party
The sad thing, too, is that I think a lot of these people think that they’ve accomplished something in government by taking over a political party. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The NRCC doesn’t vote for a single tax cut.
The NRCC doesn’t vote for a single spending reduction.
The NRCC doesn’t vote to simplify or eliminate a single business-stiffling regulation.
The NRCC doesn’t vote on a single unnecessary traffic law.
The NRCC doesn’t vote on so much as a single budget line item.
The NRCC doesn’t vote on any military action.
The NRCC doesn’t vote on immigration policy, nor can it enforce it.
The NRCC doesn’t approve contracts with public employees or their unions. They don’t have any say in how public infrastructure is contracted or funded or priced. They don’t chair a single legislative committee, or introduce a single bill.
Only elected officials can do any of that. And only Republican elected officials will possibly vote the way conservatives want most of the time.
So if these guys actually cared about policy instead of their own egos, you’d think they’d be focused on the sole mission of their party organization.
It’s almost as if they don’t really care that much about policy at all, so long as they can beat their chests every few months. It’s almost as if their “feelings” trumped serious consideration of changing the direction of a not-too-big-to-fail government that’s currently hurtling off of a cliff.
~~~
What’s the Fastest Way To Get Ignored By These Elected Officials?
And for all these people who feel frustrated that politicians aren’t listening to them? Here’s yet another irony. The only real impact the NRCC can have on elected officials is if those elected officials believe that they need the party structure to help get or keep them elected, and therefore feel like the opinion of the NRCC members matters.
For years, because of the perceived dysfunction within the party activist ranks, Republican elected officials held the party at arm’s length, if they acknowledged them at all. Sitting Senators and Assemblymen rarely attended party events or county central committee meetings, and if they did, they kept their own operations distinct. They ran their own campaigns, used their own staff, and handled their own GOTV efforts. Sadly, this hampered the kind of coordination and resource sharing that could have made a huge difference in any number of close races.
That was starting to change. But I bet it changes back. (It already has – just today Senator Heller sent out an E-mail announcing his own, independent grass-roots GOTV effort, days after very publicly expressing his dismay with the NRCC’s decisions.) When the politician doesn’t need you or your organization to stay in power, or worse, thinks you’re openly hostile towards him, he won’t pay you any attention. And when he sees that you play politics by subtraction and that you can’t raise any money, he isn’t going to fear your primary challenge, either.
By taking a hard “us v. them” attitude against politicians of their own party, these folks have ensured the irrelevancy of their political voices in the one place it really matters.
~~~
This isn’t about “Conservatives” vs. “Moderates.” It’s not about the tea party movement as a whole. It’s not about Ronald Reagan vs. George H. W. Bush, it’s about Reagan vs. Barry Goldwater. It’s about Brian Sandoval vs. Sharron Angle.
To borrow a phrase, it’s about the winning of elections, stupid.
~~~
Silver Linings in the Silver State
It’s not all bad news. The Washoe County GOP is led by a very solid, sane group – most of the crazies were from elsewhere in the state. And Amy Tarkanian – a smart, well connected person who sees the big picture in my view and who continues to help Nevada Republicans raise strong amounts of money – is still in place for the next two years. The large majority Republicans and even of GOP activists and volunteers are good, hard working people who are willing to do what it takes to save their country, in spite of the loons who have lost any sense of perspective. We will find a way to work around this, because we don’t have any choice.
The pressure from real campaigns in an important election year should keep these guys under their rocks for awhile – their need for secret E-mails reveal even they know on some level that they aren’t particularly popular with either elected officials, the broader public, or even a majority of Republicans.
But the reason I’m writing this is because the TRUNC folks will be back and they’ll be continue to be destructive as long as they can hide from the disinfecting light of day. I considered not posting it in the name of “unity,” or “moving forward together,” but since this particular cabal has no interest in such a thing, and since they’ve demonstrated actions (and have promised future actions) which will cause great harm to the cause of getting Democrats un-elected (a necessary prerequisite to saving the national and state economies), there is really nothing to lose by exposing this little cancer for what it is.
After all, these people already lost us the last Senate election – how long do the rest of us need to stand silently by while they attempt to lose another one?
And quite frankly, I’m sick and tired of being painted with the same brush as these people in the media. I’m sick of the tea party movement as a whole bludgeoned in the press because of the antics of these fools.
Besides, I’m sure all these TRUNC people will appreciate the transparency. We don’t want any backroom, secret dealing by party officials, after all.
~~~
Throughout history, the track record of revolution in the name of liberty is bleak. From Ancient Rome to Fidel’s Cuba to the Arab Spring, rebels just can’t help be drunk with their own sanctimonious self-righteousness. Because their cause is just, they think that alone somehow makes them immune to the human frailties that always follow a rise to power. And the result is nearly always a regime more oppressive and more incompetent at actually governing than whatever they replaced. The American Revolution was a lucky aberration of history pulled off by serious men who knew their history and respected their own potentials as sinners, not a part of any inevitable movement.
While I’m not (too) worried about any of these Roberts Rules wielding buffoons taking deposed members of the Executive Board “to the Wall!”, these historical examples should still give every Republican activist in the state some pause. And the tactics of this particular group should raise the warning flags even higher.
Changing the leadership of an organization is meaningless at best and destructive at worst when you forget the fundamental and only legitimate mission of the group you’re taking over.
So say it again with me, one more time:
The purpose of a political party is to get as many members of that party elected to public office as possible.
Period.
Let’s just talk about what happened at the NRCC meeting regarding the agenda and the method for proposing motions in writing. You talk of transparency, but let yourselves get hammered on a procedural move that looked like you were trying to stiffle motions. It move was transparent.
[Orrrr…. it’s just extremely helpful to have motions written in advance, so we don’t have the constant wonderment of exactly what is being voted upon. It doesn’t take that long to write one out – certainly not long enough to actually “stiffle” (or stifle) anything. Here’s a tip – when you assume that every last action, however reasonable an explanation there might exist, is the product of some nefarious secret ploy or scheme, you frankly sound like a crazy, black helicopter-fearing whackjob.
I want to thank you in particular for posting, Walter, because you perfectly illustrate how absurd this group really comes off. (I’m also going to inject a little Muth snark here, and note that he would just have deleted your comment, as opposed to engaging with you. I, on the other hand, think your dissent actually strengthens my point, and so I welcome it.) — OJ]
Thankfully, the NRCC membership peered right through that ploy and insisted that motions from the floor be entertained.
[And there it is – it’s a secret, nefarious “ploy” that only you were smart enough to see through! In all seriousness, please – read this back to yourself. You must see how insane it actually comes across in the sober light of day. — OJ]
And one would ask why that ploy was considered to be in the best interests of the Party. The press were watching and we both know that they are no dummies, but even worse, they can spin it any way they wanted to and not in favor of Republicans.
[The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Here, the simplest explanation is that it makes a clear record for the secretary taking the minutes, and makes the motion clear for those voting on it. Most of us realize that clarity is in the interest of the voting membership. — OJ]
And yes, the purpose of a political party is to get their candidate into office, but I submit that reaching that goal using cloudy maneuverings is nothing more that casting aside any self-respect and honor you ever had. No, getting into office at any cost is not the price I care to pay. And if I get labeled as a radical because I will not compromise my beliefs, then please brand me with a red “R”.
[If you seriously think that empowering a committee chair to run a tight meeting according to a predetermined agenda is “dishonorable” or “compromising your beliefs,” then you simply don’t understand what those terms actually mean. And again, the only “cloudy maneuverings” going on were coming from the folks who had pre-planned a disruption/takeover of the meeting. It is always interesting how people assume motives in others that they themselves actually possess… And while the ends shouldn’t justify the means, the ends do, in fact, matter. If you are content to lose honorably, I submit you might as well just vote for Obama. I, on the other hand, intend to win. Honor doesn’t require a lack of aggression. –OJ]
I would submit that business as usual has not worked in the past for our Party and it is time to bring our ideals fully into the light and begin teaching them to everyone.
[I agree that we need to stop with “business as usual” in the Nevada GOP. But what you clearly don’t understand is that what happened on the 22nd WAS “business as usual.” “Business as usual” for our party in Nevada has been that a few lunatics waste a bunch of time in central committee meetings, while Republican politicians actively ignore the party. So thanks, Walter, for helping maintain the dysfunctional status quo. — OJ]
And so that you all know who I am.
WALTER M. NOWOSAD
DCRCC
I read with interest the articles posted by Orin Johnson and Bob Hastings concerning the NRCC meeting held Oct. 22nd in Las Vegas. Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hastings were concerned with a group of people who looked at the agenda, felt it did not reflect the will of the members and set out to change things. Mr. Hastings went as far as labeling these folks, most from Clark County, as the “Black Suit Mafia” while Mr. Johnson asked the question: “What is the purpose of a Political Party”?
While I personally was not included in the “Black Suit Mafia”, as an elected member of the Douglas County Central Committee and of the NRCC, I was at that meeting and would like to offer a slightly different perspective of the proceedings. While some of the tactics seemed to be adversarial, and even got a bit heated at times, in my opinion it was exactly what the NRCC representatives were elected by their respective Central Committees to do. That’s right, elected. Something everyone seems to forget. Everyone in that room was first elected to serve on their prospective county committee and then elected again to represent that committee, and it’s will, at the state level. This is their job. Their responsibility. Their very reason for donating their unpaid time and their own expenses to be a part of the proceedings. And at this particular meeting, there were certainly some hot button issues that needed to be addressed. The main ones were same day registration and the caucus dates.
Mr. Johnson asks the question: “What’s the purpose of a political party”? Then answers it with the statement: “The purpose of a political party is to get as many members of that party elected to public office as possible. Period”. While you are correct in your assessment, you don’t quite go far enough in your answer. And as the old saying goes: “The devil is in the details”. While the purpose is to get members of that party elected, the main purpose is to get the RIGHT members of that party elected. Members who share the same values and principles as the majority of the party. After all, what good does it do to get someone elected who does not share your values? That, sir, is not acting against your mission. It is acting in perfect concert with your mission.
Please don’t get me wrong, there were some petty, and in my opinion ridiculous, motions made concerning the rules in the beginning of the meeting. However, I believe the members had the right to voice their opinions and have them voted on by the full membership. You see, I always remember that this is the Republican Party and by the very definition of is made up of individuals. We are not sheep who blindly follow the party leadership in whatever direction they want to go. Instead we speak up. We voice our opinions. We let those in charge know what it is we want for our State and our Country
The NRCC Executive Board did exactly what they were elected to do. In the absence of a full vote of the membership, and believing a decision was immediately needed, they made decisions regarding both same day registration and the moving of the caucus dates. I don’t believe they were out of line at all in acting as they did. However, in at least one of those decisions, they were wrong in their assessment of what the majority of the members wanted. Specifically, the SDR issue. As long as the Party Platform states an opposition to SDR, the very integrity of the party is at stake in voting for SDR. I know that some will use “lawyerize” language in saying a caucus is not an election and therefore allows SDR while not going against the platform, but I, along with an overwhelming majority of the members, don’t believe this is true. That is why I offered a resolution making it very clear for future boards that caucus’s should be included in interpreting the platform plank. This opinion was backed up by an almost unanimous yea vote by the membership. I believe there were only 3-4 nay votes (including Mr. Johnson’s) out of all those present.
Again, in my opinion, SDR can be a great tool for registering new voters and brining in citizens to our party. But a few things need to happen first: The proponents of SDR must first find a way to make it as foolproof as possible and second must convince the membership that opposition should be removed from the platform. If these things are done, I don’t believe proponents would have much trouble in getting it through the party membership. But instead, it was shoved down our throats as a fait accompli and then when the “secret” emails, conference calls, and county committee resolutions followed, it was unceremoniously removed from the agenda without any discussion at all. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a debate over the merits of the issue. I understand my name was even considered as one of those to speak during the panel discussion that was supposed to happen. I would have gladly accepted.
The second issue was the caucus date. Again, I believe the EB did exactly as it should have. Believing there had to be an immediate decision, they elected to move the date to Jan. 14th after Florida’s unprecedented move. These are the types of decisions we elected them to make. I’m sure they knew there would be widespread dissatisfaction with the date change and the decision must have been very tough to make, but make it they did. Kudos to them for doing so. However, I believe they may have been unaware their decision was in direct violation of the rules we passed as a membership back in April. These rules clearly stated that the caucus would be held in Feb. 2012. Once again, the integrity of the party was at stake. That is what started the next round of “secret” emails and conference calls.
As with any political decision, the situation was fluid. After more posturing by other states the EB made another decision to move the caucus date to Feb 4th. This was looked at by the state Rules Committee and approval was recommended as it was in compliance with the rules as passed in April, even though it was not the original date of Feb. 18th. This committee approval was passed on to the membership and the new date was overwhelmingly approved in the ensuing vote as the membership saw it was the right thing to do. I fail to see the controversy.
In summation, what we all saw on the 22nd wasn’t ”one of the most frustrating meetings of any kind I’ve ever had the displeasure of taking part in” as Mr. Johnson said in his article. What we saw was Democracy in action. What we saw was the same thing our forefathers saw at the very beginning of this nation. An imperfect system muddling it’s way through a bunch of tough decisions the best way it can in a democratic society. What we saw was the very existence of our Republic in action. The very reason we are Republicans and not Democrats. As you say, the Nevada GOP has made some serious strides forward lately. Yes we still have some problems. Yes we still have, and will continue to have, some disagreements. But what you must always remember: We WILL fix our problems. We are Americans, Nevadans, and Republicans. We have done so since the beginning of this great Nation, State and Party and we will continue to do so. You (we) may not like the procedure. But it is OUR procedure and it works.
God Bless America and Nevada.
Jim Wheeler
Douglas County, NV
As a member of ClarkCoRepPartyCentralCommittee and a delegate to the State Party, let me say that there were things not generally known outside the state central committee going on that Mr. Hastings is obviously not aware of. He has an extremely well written piece, based on his ovservation: he just doesn’t have all the facts.
[Now here again, folks, is an example of the classic conspiracy theorist. Their self esteem is wrapped up in the idea that they know some super secret fact that NO ONE ELSE DOES, and that such facts are OF VITAL IMPORT. Notice that there is no elucidation of said facts, or sources, or explanations – just veiled insinuations that explain nothing and satisfy no burden of proof even if they stated a provable claim in the first place (which Bettye does not do). — OJ]
The media, as usual doesn’t have any of the facts nor would they report them correctly if they did.
[Again – which facts? It’s 2011, Bettye – we’re not beholden to the legacy media any more. My comments section is your forum – what facts weren’t reported? — OJ]
Suffice it to say that is was a victory for the whole state and we sent a message to the old power brokers who have always run things to suit themselves to the detriment of Republicans in Nv.
[OK – now here’s where we go back to the title of my post. How do you define “victory”? I define it as winning elections. You define it as “sending a message.” I submit that your definition is closer to the #OWS hippies’ (and just as “effective”) than your average tea partier. “Sending a message” never changed a single law or cut a solitary dime in spending.
And who are these “old power brokers”? Seriously – can you even name them? If you think it’s Amy Tarkanian or Mark Amodei, keep in mind that they were actually CHANGING how the NV GOP was doing business in the last year or so, and it was having some really great results! Again, this is paranoia devoid of fact. And are you saying you DON’T want power brokers (i.e. people able to donate money and exert influence) involved with the party? Do you seriously think that the NRCC is in any position to influence policy after Saturday’s meeting? — OJ]
The State Central Committee has finally began to come together in a way it never has to work to defeat Liberals. This is very scarry to people who are trying to protect their turf in the R.party and see their strangle hold on the party starting to slip.
[OK – seriously. What happened on the 22nd that made anyone “come together” or trust one another? What specifically took place that will help defeat “liberals”? And who is trying to protect what “turf”? Lord – being the State Chair is an unpaid, thankless, miserable job – I can’t believe anyone would do it, short of being incredibly dedicated to the cause. And being dedicated isn’t enough – you actually have to be, you know, effective. Which requires being knowledgeable on the ACTUAL political landscape of the state. Which requires being sane.
Bettye, if you or anyone else thinks they can win more elections statewide, please make the case. You’ve epically failed to do so here, and failed equally to do so on Saturday. And THAT’S why I’m upset with y’all. — OJ]
My response: http://www.allmightbefree.com/2011/10/26/declared-unity-is-empty-but-unity-of-integrity-and-purpose-drives-resolve/
[For those interested, please do take a minute to read Shawn’s post, and then see my response to it, posted on his blog.
(And the next time one of you sees Chuck Muth, please remind him that this is the way legitimate bloggers engage each other – by promoting links and comments around, even when they disagree.) — OJ]
Mr. Johnson, there was no reason to delay the meeting of the NvRCC for a “debate” over the merits of same day voting. 95% of the central committee were against it and wasting an hour debating it wouldn’t have changed any minds.
[Sooo…. We should let all voices be heard unless someone decides without evidence that too many people are against an idea they haven’t heard all the facts on? Why, it’s almost as if all that preening about “all voices being heard!” and openness is just a bunch of bullcrap, discarded when it’s convenient or when you don’t want to actually have to think about something!
Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that the “against” number was that high. I’ve spoken with several groups on this issue, and of the peopl I talk to, I’d guess that abotu 80% actually change their mind and are for it once the actual facts and the pros and cons are laid out.
And just for the record – are you saying bickering over whether or not we should be able to personally attack each other is NOT a waste of time, but SDR IS? Are you saying that the pre-scheduled panel on SDR was a waste of time, but BRINGING IT UP AGAIN just to demand that the Exec board never ever ever ponders it again isn’t? #whatcoloristheskyinyourworld — OJ]
Why were so many against it? Because the NRP Platform specifically states that the “Party opposes same day registration and voting.” If you wish to change this, I suggesest you join the platform committee and see if you can get it changed at the state convention next Spring.
[I WAS at the platform debate last time. No mention of the caucuses was made. Any suggestion otherwise is either a bald face lie, or it’s just embarrassing ignorance. There is no other option. To your credit, Peter, I don’t think you’re a liar, but man – have you got some homework to do.
The platform plank is specific to actual elections – it is silent on caucuses, which are, in fact, very different animals in the way they are conducted. The conduct is what makes fraud more or less likely, and is the key point in this debate. I have yet to have anyone explain to me even a barely plausible scenaruo by which a) Democrats could en masse “steal” a caucus vote AND b) even if they could, how eliminating SDR would prevent such fraud. Until you explain that scenario to me, your concerns are nothing more than baseless, credibility destroying paranoia. –OJ]
Your snivellings notwithstanding, I suggest your inclusion of Mrs. Tarkanian as being on your side in this matter is about as genuine as most comments criminal defense lawyers like yourself make to juries on a quotidian basis.
[Wait – is Ms. Tarkanian part of the nefarious tyrants who were shoving SDR down our throats, or is she secretly in league with the TRUNC crowd? C’mon, Pete – if you’re going to be a paranoid loon, at least try to be a consistent one. And if you’re going to tell lawyer jokes, at least make them funny.
Definite extra credit for “quotidian”, though – I seriously had to look it up! –OJ]
If you like same day registration and voting so much, may I suggest you and Cory Drumright join the Democrats because you will continue to find very little support for same in Elephantville.
[Peter, understand this – you don’t represent a majority of “Elephantville.” Not even close. Not by a long shot. Most of the rest of us who do are in favor of winning elections, and most of us who hear the full set of facts understand that SDR would help us do that. If I’m wrong on that, it hardly matters, since it makes it LESS likely that Republicans will win elections, meaning Dem policies will be the ones implemented into law. If that happens in 2012, you’d better believe I’m going to remind you that you were in no small part responsible for the loss. –OJ]
Fascinating! I wasn’t there, but I’ve been at SO many others over the years. The GOP (and I’m sure the Ds too) go through these cycles. About every decade +.
From we need to elect the “right kind” of people … to we need to actually elect people and then try to get them to do the right thing.
When it comes to legislative bodies … it IS indeed important to elect your own party members, so your party chairs the committees. Some of this is pretty simple stuff (one would think).
Elisa and particularly Jim, thank you for your thoughtful responses. Jim, I disagree with some of what you say, but the difference between you and the other commenters is that you don’t assume or assign nefarious motives to the earlier actions of the E-board. Because so many others did, it turned into a divisive circus which I believe did great harm to the credibility of the NRCC in the eyes of both elected officials and other power-brokers throughout the state who, if they don’t like us, at least need to have a healthy respect for us.
Without that, the NRCC is nothing more than a self-licking ice cream cone. Without credibility, the NRCC will have zero (or worse!) impact on the public policy debate, which is the ONLY way politics actually matters in our day to day lives.
For the rest of you, thank you for helping make my point. I’ll respond to a few of your points directly in your comments above. And even though I will pull no punches, I sincerely hope you stop back often to the blog to keep the debate alive on these and many other important issues.
Here’s a challenge to everyone who disagrees with my take on Saturday’s meeting. Please explain the following:
1) What happened at the meeting that will make it MORE likely than before that MORE Republicans will win federal, state, and local elections? Please explain why and how.
2) Do you seriously think the average Republican voter in Nevada would have observed that meeting and felt like he would want to be a member of the NRCC? If so, please explain why and how.
3) Several elected officials were in attendance at the meeting. Does anyone seriously think a single one of those folks came away from that meeting thinking, “Gosh – I need to pay more attention to what that group thinks!” If so, please explain why and how.
Orrin – YOU ARE MY HERO! Keep up the good work. Enjoyed reading your blog very much.
Here’s a challenge to everyone who disagrees with my take on Saturday’s meeting. Please explain the following:
1) What happened at the meeting that will make it MORE likely than before that MORE Republicans will win federal, state, and local elections? Please explain why and how.
I’m not sure more Republicans are what we are looking for. While it obviously would be in our best interest to elect more, I believe it is so much more important to elect better Republicans. Those who share the mainstream, conservative values of the party. This is already starting to happen across the nation.
[I totally agree that we need better Republicans, but we CANNOT underestimate the importance of quantity. As an example, consider how different this last session would have looked if Senator Lee – keeping every one of his votes as he cast it – had an “R” behind his name, which would have given the GOP control of the agenda in the Senate.
But this didn’t really answer the question – do you think anything that happened at the meeting will get more Republicans elected? Right now I read your answer as “No, but maybe that doesn’t matter,” and I think that approach will ultimately fail the cause of liberty. –OJ]
Example: While I came down on the opposite side of the SDR issue as Senator Heller and Governor Sandoval, There is NO ONE I would rather see re-elected than the Senator. He has the propensity to be one of the best Senators we’ve (Nevadans) have ever sent to Washington and I, for one, will do all I can to see he is sent back for 6 more years. Just because we disagreed on one issue has nothing to do with his overall performance.
[But there were many at that meeting who think Sandoval is a no good dirty RINO, and ditto Dean Heller. (Our new Vice-Chair, James Smack, ran against Heller in 2008, unconvincingly arguing that Dean wasn’t conservative enough. You don’t worry me, Jim, but guys like Smack do. –OJ]
What happened at that meeting was the will of the electorate was heard. Was it pretty? Hell no. Was it smooth and professional? Not even close in some areas, yes in others. However, the end result was the NRCC keeping it’s integrity concerning the issues intact. If new candidates don’t like a party with integrity, then this Republican doesn’t want them anyway.
[Jim, I have to take issue with this last paragraph, and this is part of the loss of perspective that I think is worrisome. The NRCC is not “the electorate.” It wasn’t even close. I don’t even believe it represents most registered Republicans, not so much in terms of their relative conservatism, but in their tactics. –OJ]
2) Do you seriously think the average Republican voter in Nevada would have observed that meeting and felt like he would want to be a member of the NRCC? If so, please explain why and how.
I guess it depends on the individual. If the person in question was like me (this was my first meeting as a full member) he would have seen what I saw: Democracy in action. A democratic procedure that was ugly at times, contentious at others, and built on a couple of century’s of practice.
Can you imagine the first meeting of the Continental Congress? Can you remember the last meeting of the United States Congress? Those meetings hold the same ugly, contentious happenings. But our very Republic was built on these proceedings. Built on the principle of discussion, debate and eventual compromise. As I said in my earlier post; it is not a perfect system. But it is OUR system, and it works. I left that meeting knowing after the pettiness and “roostering” was done, we discussed and debated two of the most important issues currently concerning our party. The end result of which was the voice of the Republican Electorate in Nevada was heard, and it was listened to. I can guarantee I will be back for the next one.
[I certainly don’t mind contention, but what I saw was a small minority of people throwing around a lot of baseless accusations, acting in bad faith (as I believe the “secret” E-mails show) and ultimately playing the destructive politics of distraction. And you’re right, it was in a way “Democracy in action,” but I think it more resembled the original definition of that word the Founding Fathers always talked about with such fear than the representative kind. And while I firmly believe that contentious, slow, deliberative debate is important in an actual LAWMAKING body, it’s not necessarily appropriate for an organizational governing body. As I think I noted above, no CEO could run a business effectively if he had to get a vote of his employees every time he wanted to hire a new person or change the way the products were arranged on the shelves. –OJ]
3) Several elected officials were in attendance at the meeting. Does anyone seriously think a single one of those folks came away from that meeting thinking, “Gosh – I need to pay more attention to what that group thinks!” If so, please explain why and how.
If they didn’t, they darn sure should have. These officials go through the very same gyrations at their respected levels of government. They are part of the Republican Party, made up of, and embracing the individual.
[Yes, but they also represent Democrats, independents, and ALL flavors of Republicans. Only a handful of their voting constituents were in that room – a tiny fraction of what they need to win reelection. If we want them to be responsive to us, quite frankly they need to think we add some value to their efforts as well. –OJ]
I am 58 years old and have proudly been a Republican for 40 of those years. Why? Because we embrace the individual! The other mainstream Party wants us all to blindly follow them in all they do. Even if it means off a cliff. Do we always agree with the conspiracy theorists? With those who disrupt for their 15 minutes of fame? With those who bring issues important only to themselves before us? Of course not. But we respect their right to do so. Within that respect, we must, and do, defend that right. We listen, discuss and debate. Even if we don’t agree. That is the very greatness of our Party. Our very reason for being.
In your original post, you explained and lamented on all the bad things that happened at the meeting. I ask you now to look at the end result. Not at the proceedings themselves, but the result. Instead of a negative, lets look at the positive and move forward.
[Sorry – I just don’t see anything positive in the results, since I don’t think that anything that happened will help get Republicans elected. The meeting may have ended on time, and perhaps everyone’s voices were heard (I disagree with that, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument). But that isn’t our job as a Central Committee, frankly. We failed in our primary mission. — OJ
I understand that you are an attorney and as such a trained debater. As a retired CEO and rancher I am not even in the same class as you as far as a debate is concerned. Yet here we are, having a civil discussion and debate as individuals. That is what this great Party is all about. That is the positive. That is what you should have taken away from the meeting.
[I think you’re doing just fine as a debater – certainly better than some others on this thread in attempting to convince me that what happened on Saturday wasn’t a disaster, and I welcome your perspective and comments. I might even be convinced, if you alone were making the case. But the additional evidence that’s out there suggests too strongly that there is a cadre of people who have no interest in a strong, winning party with the ability to convince broad swaths of the electorate that Conservatism in general and Republicans in particular are in their interests.
But as I said, your comments are smart and thoughtful and always welcome. I hope you’ll visit back often. — OJ
[Now, unlike Jim, here’s a comment full of thoughtlessness, anger, bitterness, and ignorance. As one reads it, consider whether a registered Republican or even a Reagan Democrat would want to join the cause and help get involved with a group knowing someone who writes like this is helping to set policy. Consider whether any candidate for public office would want such a person to be associated with his campaign. — OJ]
I find it interesting, Mr. Johnson, that you now decry the fact that debate about SDR wasn’t allowed but fail to mention that the “debate” was taken off the agenda by the E-Board not by a motion from the membership. [Uh, I’m pretty sure I did mention that. You have to trust me – actually reading what I write will boost your ability to accurately respond to it by a factor of like, 50. — OJ]
Why? Could it be because our fearless leaders got a “sense of the body” and realized that they were in deep trouble on the issue. If not, why did they remove it? [As I noted before, they removed it in an attempt to appease a vocal minority, which I believe was a mistake. Instead of people saying, “Hey – Maybe Amy is trying to listen to us here, maybe we should reciprocate,” it simply emboldened people to attack her further (unfairly) as some kind of mustache-twirling Machiavellian monster. — OJ] Incidentally, if, as you write, “there was no evidence that the “against” number was that high,” why didn’t you bring a motion to reinstate/have the debate on SDR? Certainly, if one were to believe your spin, you could have garnered more than enough votes to do so, right? The answer is that you likely couldn’t find a “second” for a SDR debate. [Yours wasn’t the only group having secondary discussions. About the point that the whole “we want to personally insult each other!” motion was being debated, we just wanted the thing to end as soon as possible. — OJ]
Next, your statement that the platform statement wasn’t directed “to caucuses . . .but specific to actual elections” is (purposely?) incorrect. I am looking at the Platform as I type this and it simply states that our party “is opposed to same day registration and voting.” It makes NO MENTION about elections vs. caucuses. Nice try counselor! Following your flawed logic, perhaps you believed Bill Clinton when he said: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski?” [Sigh. Truly you are insane. Let me introduce you to a little concept called “originalism.” Actual conservatives understand that you must understand and construe language in a document AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN (I was there, BTW). Because SDR for caucuses was not even being contemplated at the time the platform was adopted, it is clear to any honest observer that this plank only addresses what WAS contemplated – actual elections. — OJ]
With respect to Mrs. Tarkanian, you and your ilk did not support her election last June. You and the other”moderates” in the Party were clearly aligned with Mr. McNaught. Do you deny it? [Uhh… my “ilk?” Lord… Recall what I said in my post about y’all evoking some bad post-apocalyptic show trial? Sheesh. But to answer the question, yes, I deny it – I voted for Amy in June, and I have about 6 years worth of blog posts that pretty much puts to bed any honest contention that I’m a “moderate.” — OJ] Mrs. T. was elected by an embarassing majority at the June meeting, about 3/1. Saturday, with no opponents, she got less votes than she did with an opponent last June. Why? There’s only one reason! She was perceived by some of her previous supporters to have capitulated to the very people she subdued in the June Special Election who then cleverly got her surrounded by a staff of former Romney campaign operatives. [This is just incomprehensible. Did the Bilderbergers arrange for all of this to happen so the CFR could implement the New World Order? Coocoo… — OJ]Next, O.J., did you stick around for the vote Saturday afternoon? How did your side of the aisle make out in the contested races? 0 for 3 sounds about right doesn’t it? Three Rural (very conservative) officers elected to the E-Board and Sherry “Establishment” Dilley retired. How did that tickle the your fancy? [I certainly did vote. “My side of the isle” sadly did not do well. And since “my side of the aisle” is the side who wants to, you know, ACTUALLY WIN ELECTIONS, something you apparently have no interest in, it doesn’t tickle my fancy very well at all. Hence my original post.– OJ]
You see, Mr. Johnson, it’s not just about electing Republicans, it’s about electing Republicans that embrace our ideals and our platform and will follow through, after elected, to implement same. This country is on the verge of bankruptcy because of Democrats and “moderate” Republicans like you who have a “bond” when it comes to growing the state and central governments.
[I’m a “moderate”? What? You’re a pyromaniac in a room full of strawmen, my insane friend. But let’s pretend.
I agree that we need to elect better Republicans. What happened at Saturday’s meeting which will actually accomplish that goal? I’m still waiting for a single person to give me an answer on this. — OJ]
Two words. “VOTER FRAUD”
What were you thinking?
Was it, “It worked well for ACORN getting Obama nominated, why not give it a try here?”
Sorry, The Nevada GOP has no use for ACORN or their tactics, or for that matter, those who wish to use their tactics!
Kudos to Peter Kroll for spelling it out!
I motion that we amend the Bylaws to prohibit media entry into NRCC meetings. They have no business there since they only wish to ridicule the NvGOP. We can issue them press releases when complete or select a few members to interview with them and deliver our message.
Another important point to be considered is this “embarassing ourselves in front of the media” fantasy. If that were a REAL concern of Mr. Johnson or Mr. Hastings, then it would not be discussed online. Search engine spiders eat up blog entries. Google Alerts are set by the media and each and every post ends up in their inbox within 30 minutes to an hour. So, by having this debate, you are feeding the exact problem you claim to be so concerned about.
I have also only heard complaints; no solutions. So, if this noisy “lives at the microphone” faction really is a problem, how do you propose they be handled? They are duly-elected by their central committee to be there (and validated by the Credentials Committee). Roberts Rules allows them to be there offering their motions. Other than complaining about people exercising their rights and obligations, how do you actually propose to SOLVE the problem?
See, we have more than enough people complaining about problems, but what we really need are solutions. There may be some creative solution to the disruption I have not heard yet. Perhaps in the future if a member is so outrageous that a motion be offered to send their membership to committee for review I.A.W. the Bylaws? However, I think you’ll find that even many members that would be against the actions of the few loud folks, would ironically, and rightly, defend their right to express their input.
And here we have the vision of the difficulty of true American citizenship: Even the person advocating a position which I would spend 1,000 years fighting against has the right to speak about their position.
Now, I will say that the debate about Lincoln Day funds allegedly stole or something like that was annoying. However, they had a right. In the future, I wish folks with such complicated issues would provide a Talking Paper handout on just what is going on. You can’t show up and lay out such complicated issues and expect the membership to understand what you are asking them to vote on. Even then though, that was their right until they run up against Robert’s Rules. Our society has many ignorant and overly-emotional people, but STILL, as citizens, they have a right to express their opinions.
Jim Wheeler was right above….Republicans believe in, and support, the Liberty of the individual. If I attended a NRCC meeting where there was no disagreement, I’d wonder what rights were taken from us, and why I wasted the travel expense. YES, Republicans should come together, but we must follow our platform, values, and integrity must be #1. Then, and only then, can we come together.
Well, like I said, gentlemen (Peter, Shawn, and Tony), thank you for helping to prove my point. Sadly, I still have yet to hear anyone explain how the antics that took place at that meeting will help elect Republicans of any kind. Tony, for “what I was thinking,” please refer to my two posts on the subject of SDR.
Mr. Johnson, This will probably be my last comments on the subject as I can see we more than likely won’t be able to change each others minds. However, I must say I have really enjoyed the conversation and debate. While reading between the lines shows we agree on many things, the main one, the principles of freedom and Democracy.
Here’s a challenge to everyone who disagrees with my take on Saturday’s meeting. Please explain the following:
1) What happened at the meeting that will make it MORE likely than before that MORE Republicans will win federal, state, and local elections? Please explain why and how.
I’m not sure more Republicans are what we are looking for. While it obviously would be in our best interest to elect more, I believe it is so much more important to elect better Republicans. Those who share the mainstream, conservative values of the party. This is already starting to happen across the nation.
[I totally agree that we need better Republicans, but we CANNOT underestimate the importance of quantity. As an example, consider how different this last session would have looked if Senator Lee – keeping every one of his votes as he cast it – had an “R” behind his name, which would have given the GOP control of the agenda in the Senate.
But this didn’t really answer the question – do you think anything that happened at the meeting will get more Republicans elected? Right now I read your answer as “No, but maybe that doesn’t matter,” and I think that approach will ultimately fail the cause of liberty. –OJ]
I was trying to be nice and skirt the issue a little bit. But here is the unvarnished truth: MORE Republicans is not the answer IF they do not share the correct values. We did more in the last session with a minority in both state houses than we have done in years, thanks to a Governor that does for the most part share our values. We accomplished things like Teacher Tenure and yes, the defeat of SDR and On-Line voting. We were able to gain a little in redistricting that 10 years ago, even though we held the majority, we gave up due to Republicans that did not hold our values. A capitulation that has cost us dearly for the last 5 sessions.
So, did anything happen to get MORE Republicans elected? I believe it did if looked at in the correct light. After all the gyrations over the rules, The Committee laid down some guidelines that followed the will of the electorate (see my comments below concerning the electorate) in the Republican Party. They made sure upcoming Candidates know what that will is and what they will need to do to win a primary. Given the current atmosphere of the general public, solid conservatives should win the day in 2012.
Example: While I came down on the opposite side of the SDR issue as Senator Heller and Governor Sandoval, There is NO ONE I would rather see re-elected than the Senator. He has the propensity to be one of the best Senators we’ve (Nevadans) have ever sent to Washington and I, for one, will do all I can to see he is sent back for 6 more years. Just because we disagreed on one issue has nothing to do with his overall performance.
[But there were many at that meeting who think Sandoval is a no good dirty RINO, and ditto Dean Heller. (Our new Vice-Chair, James Smack, ran against Heller in 2008, unconvincingly arguing that Dean wasn’t conservative enough. You don’t worry me, Jim, but guys like Smack do. –OJ]
By the same token, both Sandoval and Heller won their elections by convincing margins. Yes, some people think they are RINO’s. But the will of the electorate won the day. Mr. Smack has every right to enter an election for whatever reason he chooses. Once again, I go back to us being the party of individuals and individual choice. If you think they are not conservative enough, don’t vote for them. In the end, the majority wins.
What happened at that meeting was the will of the electorate was heard. Was it pretty? Hell no. Was it smooth and professional? Not even close in some areas, yes in others. However, the end result was the NRCC keeping it’s integrity concerning the issues intact. If new candidates don’t like a party with integrity, then this Republican doesn’t want them anyway.
[Jim, I have to take issue with this last paragraph, and this is part of the loss of perspective that I think is worrisome. The NRCC is not “the electorate.” It wasn’t even close. I don’t even believe it represents most registered Republicans, not so much in terms of their relative conservatism, but in their tactics. –OJ]
Orin, we definitely disagree here. Each and every member in that hall was elected by their county committees to be there. They were elected to represent the average voter in their party. While a very small minority used some questionable tactics (there’s that pesky “individual” thing again) they were elected, making them responsible for, and representative of, the people who put them there. If that doesn’t represent the electorate of the Republican Party, we need to figure out a better way of doing so. Until we do, there is no question, what-so-ever, that they represent the electorate.
2) Do you seriously think the average Republican voter in Nevada would have observed that meeting and felt like he would want to be a member of the NRCC? If so, please explain why and how.
I guess it depends on the individual. If the person in question was like me (this was my first meeting as a full member) he would have seen what I saw: Democracy in action. A democratic procedure that was ugly at times, contentious at others, and built on a couple of century’s of practice.
Can you imagine the first meeting of the Continental Congress? Can you remember the last meeting of the United States Congress? Those meetings hold the same ugly, contentious happenings. But our very Republic was built on these proceedings. Built on the principle of discussion, debate and eventual compromise. As I said in my earlier post; it is not a perfect system. But it is OUR system, and it works. I left that meeting knowing after the pettiness and “roostering” was done, we discussed and debated two of the most important issues currently concerning our party. The end result of which was the voice of the Republican Electorate in Nevada was heard, and it was listened to. I can guarantee I will be back for the next one.
[I certainly don’t mind contention, but what I saw was a small minority of people throwing around a lot of baseless accusations, acting in bad faith (as I believe the “secret” E-mails show) and ultimately playing the destructive politics of distraction. And you’re right, it was in a way “Democracy in action,” but I think it more resembled the original definition of that word the Founding Fathers always talked about with such fear than the representative kind. And while I firmly believe that contentious, slow, deliberative debate is important in an actual LAWMAKING body, it’s not necessarily appropriate for an organizational governing body. As I think I noted above, no CEO could run a business effectively if he had to get a vote of his employees every time he wanted to hire a new person or change the way the products were arranged on the shelves. –OJ]
OK, I think you’re really reaching here. You know, apples and oranges. As an Ex-CEO I can tell you I was NOT elected by my employee’s. I was appointed by the Board of Directors. (Owning a large share of the stock didn’t hurt either). Our governing bodies cannot and should not ever, be run the same way!
By what you are saying here, the EB should appoint the Chairman and whatever he/she says, goes, without input of any kind from the members. If true, what would you change to give an organizational body that kind of power? If not, what is a better system than the one we use now?
As far as the “secret” emails, I look at that as a way to lobby for your position. I myself engaged in emails and phone calls before the meeting in order to gage the will of the members and to try to get my own views out there. That doesn’t mean anyone had to read my emails, or listen to my views.
3) Several elected officials were in attendance at the meeting. Does anyone seriously think a single one of those folks came away from that meeting thinking, “Gosh – I need to pay more attention to what that group thinks!” If so, please explain why and how.
If they didn’t, they darn sure should have. These officials go through the very same gyrations at their respected levels of government. They are part of the Republican Party, made up of, and embracing the individual.
[Yes, but they also represent Democrats, independents, and ALL flavors of Republicans. Only a handful of their voting constituents were in that room – a tiny fraction of what they need to win reelection. If we want them to be responsive to us, quite frankly they need to think we add some value to their efforts as well. –OJ]
All we can be concerned with is the Republicans we put forward into the general elections. If I were an elected official, I would have looked beyond the absurd and seen the will of the party as presented in the votes we took on the floor. That Sir, IS of great value.
I am 58 years old and have proudly been a Republican for 40 of those years. Why? Because we embrace the individual! The other mainstream Party wants us all to blindly follow them in all they do. Even if it means off a cliff. Do we always agree with the conspiracy theorists? With those who disrupt for their 15 minutes of fame? With those who bring issues important only to themselves before us? Of course not. But we respect their right to do so. Within that respect, we must, and do, defend that right. We listen, discuss and debate. Even if we don’t agree. That is the very greatness of our Party. Our very reason for being.
In your original post, you explained and lamented on all the bad things that happened at the meeting. I ask you now to look at the end result. Not at the proceedings themselves, but the result. Instead of a negative, lets look at the positive and move forward.
[Sorry – I just don’t see anything positive in the results, since I don’t think that anything that happened will help get Republicans elected. The meeting may have ended on time, and perhaps everyone’s voices were heard (I disagree with that, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument). But that isn’t our job as a Central Committee, frankly. We failed in our primary mission. – OJ
If having the party’s voice heard (in the end results) is not part of our mission, I don’t know what is. While getting Republicans elected is also a part. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I understand that you are an attorney and as such a trained debater. As a retired CEO and rancher I am not even in the same class as you as far as a debate is concerned. Yet here we are, having a civil discussion and debate as individuals. That is what this great Party is all about. That is the positive. That is what you should have taken away from the meeting.
[I think you’re doing just fine as a debater – certainly better than some others on this thread in attempting to convince me that what happened on Saturday wasn’t a disaster, and I welcome your perspective and comments. I might even be convinced, if you alone were making the case. But the additional evidence that’s out there suggests too strongly that there is a cadre of people who have no interest in a strong, winning party with the ability to convince broad swaths of the electorate that Conservatism in general and Republicans in particular are in their interests.
But as I said, your comments are smart and thoughtful and always welcome. I hope you’ll visit back often. – OJ
Thank you for your nice comments and God Bless.
SDR = No debate + Heavy restrictions on E-Board regarding same in the future.
Smack over Dilley
DeGraffenreid over Howell
Bertrand over Swadeep
Orrin! You lost on every vote. Get over it and quit whining.
Jim, thanks again. You don’t often hear this from bloggers (much less lawyers!), but I sincerely hope that you’re right and I’m wrong. I don’t think I am, but hope springs eternal. (Although you’re only going to feed that ego if you keep up with the “Mr. Johnson” silliness…)
Besides, we’ve got guys like Peter who clearly have a lot of time and energy, and once he’s celebrated “winning” he surely will be out there registering Republicans and getting out the vote!
Peter, nobody has “won” anything until we get Democrats out of office in November. Lots of work left to do, and I really do hope you and the folks you mention are up to the task.