I hope that most people reading this are very familiar with the abuses of process, fraud and violations of party rules which marred the Republican National Convention in Tampa. From the start of the committee meetings to the final gavel there was a pattern of behavior from the party leadership which made very clear that control of the party had been taken away from the body of members and the delegates representing them at the convention and seized by a small cadre acting on behalf of the Romney campaign and powerful special interests. They sacrificed the best interests of the party and the rights of party members to take control of the convention and restructure the party rules to reduce the influence of the grassroots and of state parties in the future.
The national media gave this story of what went on behind the scenes at the convention very little coverage, but you may have followed some of the developments here on this site. If you didn’t follow the story or wanted to know what was behind some of the protests you may have heard about, the best way to catch up on what went on is to read our archive or view the outstanding video reports from Ben Swann on WXIX in Cincinnati.
The result of these events is that a convention which should have been designed to build unity behind the presidential nominee instead helped to unify grassroots Republicans against the small group of opportunists who seem to have taken over the party. The events at the convention finally made many average Republicans realize that what was going on was not an attempt to stop Ron Paul supporters from being disruptive, but a much larger powergrab directed against all of the traditional constituencies of the party except for a small group of insiders. Republicans are starting to realize that after Tampa it is no longer our party, but one controlled by powerbrokers who plan to use the party and use us for their own ends.
In response it is essential that the base of the party reassert itself and that we demand a return to bottom-up organization where authority derives from the members through their county and state parties and is not imposed from above by the dictates of a small elite. The first step in doing that is to assert clearly that we do not accept what happened in Tampa, that we condemn the methods used and we reject the rule changes which resulted.
This petition directed at state party leadership and the Republican National Committee is based on the resolution proposed earlier this fall by a working group of RLC delegates and precinct chairs, but does not represent an official statement of the RLC or any of our chapters unless they choose to pass it as such – which many have done. This petition is your chance to personally show your support for reversing these rule changes and restoring popular control of the Republican Party.
This is a great chance for Republicans nationwide to make their objections to these rule changes and the abuses at the convention very clear in this petition which will be sent to all state parties and the Republican National Committee before it meets in January.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
On Tuesday the Rules Committee at the Republican National Convention will meet to work out final details of proposed rules changes which were produced over the weekend and widely greeted with outrage by the grassroots of the party.
We have provided extensive coverage of this situation (see our News and Opinion sections) and between our efforts and those of other groups and activists the media has taken a strong interest in the situation.
As a result a compromise proposal has been offered by party insiders in the Rules Committee, which only partially addresses some of the concerns raised in the Minority Report.
This small compromise is not a sufficient response. It leaves the RNC with the ability to change rules at will between elections and still imposes onerous top-down restrictions on state parties which reduce grassroots participation. It is like a thief offering you a slice of the loaf of bread he stole from you and expecting gratitude.
At this point there seems to be no good reason for the delegates to back down and accept a compromise. If they want their media showcase convention then the party elite cannot afford the negative press which would come from prolonging this confrontation.
If we can persuade delegates and committee members to stand firm the opposition will back down.
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas board member Jeff Larson gives his first-hand report of events in the Credentials Committee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa during their main meeting Friday of last week. Accompanying video includes a short interview with Jeff from a local TV station.
Short version, the good guys lost all three today: Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
Karin (Credentials Committee member from Maine) was prevented by RNC rules from voting on her own case. The Credentials Committee voted to allow her to speak, though.
The format was, first, counsel for each side got 30 minutes (or 25 minutes plus 5 minutes for rebuttal). Next, Credentials Committee members could question counsel or their witnesses. Finally, counsel and witnesses were excused, and Credentials Committee members could make whatever motions they wanted. Each of the over 100 Credentials Committee members could speak twice to each motion.
The Chair moved to allow the Vice-Chairs to speak. All the Vice-Chairs were also members of the Committee on Contests, which had pre-heard each of the three cases and had ruled against us each time. Mike (Credentials Committee member from Virginia) objected on the grounds that this would allow the Vice-Chairs to prejudice the Credentials Committee in favor of accepting the Committee on Contests reports (which were all against us). A vote was taken, and the Credentials Committee overwhelmingly voted to allow them to speak.
There was a motion to limit debate to 2 hours. Although it wasn’t clear what the motion applied to, it passed overwhelmingly.
Counsel then presented for Maine. The Challengers (the bad guys) claimed the convention was an utter mess, with people wandering in off the street and voting, people being issued other people’s credentials, etc. The Respondents (the good guys) claimed that aside from a few hiccups, the convention was well run and that all the delegates won by huge margins.
One of the questions was, “If credentials was such a mess, how did you know you had a quorum?” Respondent’s counsel answered that there were 1800 votes cast in the delegate’s races out of 2700 registered in attendance, which pretty well ought to be a quorum.
After over an hour of questions, Mike from Virginia asked just what the 2-hour limit applied to. The Chair said he thought it meant presentations+questions+motions and debate, but he’d let questions continue anyway. Someone then called for the orders of the day, which automatically cut off questioning. In my opinion, the questions hadn’t quite become circular, but had gotten to the point where little new ground was being covered.
There was a motion made to accept the report of the Committee on Contests, which would have tossed half the Paul delegates and replaced them with Romney delegates appointed by the Committee on Contests.
Mike from Virginia made a motion to amend the report to strike all the Romney delegates and replace them with the duly elected Ron Paul delegates. Karin from Maine seconded the motion, but there was an objection because she was one of the challenged delegates. (Kelly?) from Iowa provided a second, solving the problem.
The Committee on Contests had interpreted RNC rule 23 to mean, “We can do whatever we want to fix a problem with a delegation”, which is how it justified striking half the elected Paul delegates and replacing them with Romney delegates. Respondent’s counsel argued they were ignoring RNC rule 17, which allowed a delegation to elect to replace any vacant seats. This would have allowed the 5 uncontested delegates from Maine to pick the replacements. A Credentials Committee member from New Hampshire made a lengthy argument in favor of the Committee on Contest’s interpretation of rule 23. I didn’t think it had much substance.
Stavros Mendros, Credentials Committee member from Maine, made an excellent speech introducing much factual information about the Maine convention and the background. In my opinion, it had the information that Respondent’s counsel should have provided in their presentation. Stavros got an ovation from the other Ron Paul committee members and from the spectator’s gallery.
This report is not an exhaustive list of everyone who spoke to every motion, but hits some of the highlights. A committee member from Louisiana spoke against the amendment (in favor of the Committee on Contests), and the other committee member from Virginia (the lady) spoke in favor of the amendment.
A committee member from Washington gave a speech that was very hostile to Ron Paul. It was the first genuinely anti-Paul speech I’d heard that day, as opposed to one that was merely against Mike’s amendment.
Karin from Maine gave a very emotional speech, claiming that the Challengers had deliberately tried to sabotage the Maine convention, and when that didn’t work, they then filed the challenge. She used the phrase that I’m sure was on a lot of people’s minds, claiming the challenge was just an example of Sour Grapes.
Karin got applause for her speech, which was followed by a voice vote. To my ears, Mike’s amendment went down by about a 2:1 margin.
Mike then made a second motion, to amend the Committee on Contests report to strike all the disputed delegates, and to allow the 5 undisputed delegates (which included the Governor) to elect replacements.
A committee member from Minnesota made a good speech, reminding the committee that although the Republican Party was supposed to be the party of the grass roots, allowing an RNC committee to hand-pick the delegation instead of allowing Maine to select their own delegation was concentrating all the power at the top, to the detriment of the party.
Stavros Mendros from Maine then made another great speech, this one in favor of Mike’s second amendment. He mentioned that the results of the previous vote defeating his first amendment had been tweeted back to Maine, with the result that the Governor had affirmed he would not be attending the convention. Stavros begged the committee to not embarrass his state any more, and to allow them to elect their own delegates. Again, he got applause, only the 3rd time of the day for anyone.
A voice vote was taken, heavily against Mike’s 2nd motion. Mike from Virginia called for a standing vote. 12 committee members, all from states like Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the Virgin Islands, all stood (I hope I didn’t miss anyone, Maine was not allowed to vote). In opposition, the entire rest of the room stood. Cries of “Shame on you!” and “Shame!” erupted from the gallery. The Chair ordered the Sergeant at Arms to remove anyone disrupting the meeting, and he escorted a couple of people out. Afterward, a few people cried “Shame” once, then immediately left the room.
Business returned to the main motion. Since both amendments had failed, the motion was to adopt the Committee on Contests report, striking half the elected Maine delegation and replacing them with Romney people. The motion carried without much opposition. (I’m pretty sure there were 12 no’s.) Thus, the Maine Ron Paul delegates under dispute were not seated. We still get half the original strength as part of the Committee on Contests “compromise”.
The Credentials Committee stood at ease, so I went out into the hall to break the bad news to some of our people. I was talking to a delegate from Arkansas, when a curious thing happened. An RNC staffer approached, and told him he had to go with her. She told me I had to come, too. I asked why, and was told that I couldn’t be here, that my guest credential had been issued in error. She said that Credentials Committee members couldn’t have guests (contradicting what they’d been told in their orientation briefing), and that only RNC members could have guests.
I made a fuss about retrieving my property from the meeting room before getting the bum’s rush, and another staffer escorted me in so I could get my hat. (It’s my special hat.) Inside, I met a Ron Paul-friendly Credentials Committee member who was hanging out in the guest area during the break. I explained the situation to him, and he got nearly as upset as I was, and followed me up to the security checkpoint where I was told to wait while the first staffer straightened things out.
To understand how absurd this all was, there were nearly two dozen guests of Credentials Committee members in the guest area of the meeting room. Yet only I and the Arkansas delegate were being asked to leave. Neither of us had been the least bit disruptive, although he looked “out of place” (hair dyed red and casual clothes). I was in a suit and tie.
The first staffer and my friend on the Credentials Committee went down the hall toward the meeting room while I was left to stew at security. A few minutes later, she came back, told me it was all a big misunderstanding, apologized, told me she hoped I hadn’t thought I was singled out because that was not the case. I was willing to let it all go at that.
EXCEPT that a few hours later, I got the other half of the story. The Credentials Committee member lost track of her for a few seconds, and when he found her again, she was talking to a couple of RNC types, asking them what to do about me. He heard one of them say, “Is he a Paul guy?” At which point the Committee member inserted himself into the conversation, and was told he was intruding on a private conversation. He begged to differ, expressed his outrage at the whole thing, and so I was allowed back in. The red-haired Arkansas delegate was allowed in, too.
Moral of the story…apparently, you can get thrown out of an RNC committee meeting just for talking to someone who looks like an obvious Ron Paul supporter. And you can get right back in if you have friends on that particular committee…but possibly not if you don’t have those friends. I’m not interested in running the experiment.
Next up was Oklahoma. The Challengers (the good guys) claimed the establishment slow-rolled the convention until taking roll-call votes was an issue, blew voice votes where delegate seats were at stake, and refused the roll-call votes that would have exposed the lie. The Respondents (the bad guys) claimed they bent over backwards to give the Paul people several breaks that weren’t in Robert’s Rules, put on a fair convention, and are the victim of sour grapes as the Paul folks lost several delegate votes 75-25 or so.
My take on it is that regardless of the merits of the Challenger’s case, the presentation of that case was very weak. My understanding is that Challenger’s counsel was not a trained attorney, and it seemed to show. In all the other challenges, everyone used the full 25+5 or 30 minutes allotted to them. After 15 minutes, Challenger’s counsel rested. The Chair asked him if he had anything else, any witnesses, anything. He passed. The other side used every minute of the time allotted to them, called one of the convention officials as a witness, and creamed them.
The case by Oklahoma Challenger’s counsel boiled down to, “They didn’t follow the rules! They didn’t follow the rules! They didn’t follow the rules!” In my opinion, a glaring omission was any explanation of why not following the rules thwarted the will of the Oklahoma convention. This is especially so in light of the Respondent’s counsel’s claim that the votes went against the Paul people by 75-25.
A Credentials Committee member from California moved to adopt the report of the Committee on Contests, which would seat the Romney delegates elected at the convention, and not seat the Paul delegates elected at the rump convention. Eric Opiela from Texas seconded the motion.
The voice vote was a massacre. I only heard one voice, possibly a second, vote nay. Even the Ron Paul Credentials Committee members who had fought so hard for Maine didn’t vote nay on adopting the Committee on Contests report…they’d have just looked foolish if they had because the case for Oklahoma was so weak. By that, I don’t mean that bad things didn’t happen at the Oklahoma convention, just that if all you’d heard was what was presented at the Credentials Committee meeting, you’d never believe anything was wrong.
The Credentials Committee stood at ease for a few minutes after considering the Oklahoma case. This is when I learned from the Credentials Committee member who had saved me from getting kicked out of the meeting about the conversation between the staffer and the RNC member, and how the Credentials Committee member had intervened on my behalf.
The last case considered was Oregon. The Challenger’s counsel (the good guys) claimed that the establishment deliberately slow rolled the conventions once they saw votes going against them, in hopes that a special Oregon rule for selecting delegates by an executive committee when the conventions fail to elect them would be invoked. Respondent’s counsel (the bad guys) claimed that there was only one convention in 5 locations, that all 5 locations had to adjourn at once, and that they couldn’t have foreseen that the day’s business would have taken so long.
The arguments were very technical at times. There was extensive questioning over whether there was one convention at 5 sites, or 5 different conventions, and the two sides disagreed on that issue. One “site” adjourned promptly at 5pm, and the other 4 “sites” continued on. The establishment considered everything the other “sites” did after 5pm to be null and void. I was amused when Respondent’s counsel (who was claiming that there was 1 convention at 5 locations, not 5 conventions) slipped a couple of times and referred to “conventions” instead of a “convention”. Challenger’s counsel pointed out that Oregon has 2 rules about holding conventions, one for conventions held in odd numbered years, and one for holding them in even numbered years, and that the Respondent’s kept referring to the wrong rule to justify their actions.
Only the at-large Alternates were in play in the Oregon challenge, but due to numerous factors, that actually made a difference with regard to Presidential nominations and voting. Someone on the Credentials Committee moved to adopt the report of the Committee on Contests, which would seat the at-large Alternates chosen by the Oregon star chamber and toss the at-large Alternates elected at the 4 Oregon conventions that did not adjourn at 5 pm. Mandy Tschoepkes (sp?) from Texas seconded that motion.
The female Virgina Credentials Committee member moved to amend the Committee on Contests report to seat the elected (Ron Paul) Alternates instead of the appointed (Romney) ones. One of the committee members from Iowa seconded the motion.
Stavros Mendros gave a speech asking why the contested Alternates from Oregon weren’t split between elected Paul supporters and appointed Romney supporters, just like the Maine delegation was. This got him applause for the 3rd time of the day. There was also an emotional speech by Mike from Virginia urging the Committee to “not reward bad behavior” (on the part of the Oregon establishment that denied the elected delegates). This was followed by a motion to call the question (stop debate and vote on the amendment to seat the Ron Paul Alternates), which passed.
The voice vote to seat the Ron Paul alternates failed by a large margin. I suspect the only “ayes” were the same 12 people who stood for Maine on the earlier vote.
Kelly from Iowa moved to amend the Committee on Contests report to throw out all the contested at-large Alternates, and to allow the uncontested Oregon Delegates to vote for replacements, as provided for by the Oregon State GOP rules. The Chair ruled her motion out of order. Mike from Virginia appealed the decision of the Chair (giving the Credentials Committee an opportunity to overrule the Chair). He needed a 2/3 majority, and the voice vote sounded like he got less than 1/3.
Stavros Mendros from Maine proposed an ammendement to the Committee on Contests report to have the Credentials Committee select half elected Ron Paul Alternates and half Romney replacements, just like the Committee on Contests did for the Maine delegation. Robert (“Max”) from the Virgin Islands seconded the motion. The voice vote failed, again by a large margin.
Someone moved the previous question (again, “let’s quit making new amendments and decided this once and for all”). This passed unanimously, as the Ron Paul Credentials Committee members were just about out of ammunition. There was a final voice vote to adopt the Committee on Contests report, tossing the elected Ron Paul at-large Alternates in favor of the star chamber-selected Romney at-large Alternates. It passed, with the usual 12 or so members dissenting.
Summary: We lost Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
The Credentials Committee took one final vote. The motion was to have only one vote as a permanent committee when they reconvene after the start of the Convention. That vote will be to approve all the decisions made so far (Maine, Oklahoma, and Oregon). I expect it to pass handily.
My most recent information is that the permanent Credentials Committee will meet sometime tomorrow (Tuesday, 8/28/2012).
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
RNC Changing the Rules to Minimize Grassroots Efforts?
Crete, NE – Republicans taking part in the Republican National Convention in Tampa may have more on their plate than expected. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac descends upon the area, but the bigger storm may be inside the convention center.
What should have been a convention lightly spiced with minor contention from the liberty wing of the Party, followed by a celebration as the Party unified under the Romney-Ryan ticket, seems to have become a battle of “establishment” vs. the “grassroots.”
“A cornerstone belief of the Republican Party,” says Laura Ebke, RLC-Nebraska Chair, “is the notion that we have checks and balances, and that we operate under republican pinciples.”
“I’ve been involved in Republican politics for as long as I can remember,” said Ebke. “I have vivid memories as a child of going to county conventions, and believing that local level political involvement was valuable to the Party. And now, I have to wonder whether today’s Republican Party cares about the grassroots anymore.”
At issue are two proposed rules, Rule 12 and 15, which would effectively minimize the input of the party’s rank and file, and put even more power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests. This governing structure is no unlike that of the Democratic Party, which is much more top down than bottom up, noted Ebke.
“As I read these rules, I can’t help but believe that it effectively stomps out grassroots efforts, and will be especially harmful to the party in small counties around the state. I hope that Nebraska’s delegation will vote NO on the rules changes,” said Ebke.
The Republican Liberty Caucus, as well as a number of Tea Party related groups—including FreedomWorks—are working today to lobby RNC delegates around the country, before the vote on the Rules is taken on Tuesday.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
The GOP Should Remain a Bottom-up Organization, Not a Tool of Special Interests
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and our chapters across the nation have united to express our concern and dismay over attempts to modify the rules of the Republican Party to reduce the power of the grassroots and centralize control of the party in the hands of party insiders and the presidential campaign. On Monday the National Board passed the following resolution in opposition to proposed rule changes:
“The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus strongly opposes recently proposed changes to the party rules which would give the Republican National Committee unprecedented centralized authority over the presidential nomination process, overriding the autonomy of the states and their long established electoral traditions. We also object strenuously to new rules which would empower the Republican National Committee to change the rules under which it operates between conventions without approval of the body of delegates representing the party membership. These proposed rule changes are tyrannical, contrary to the principles of republican governance and hostile to the interests of the grassroots of the party. Together they constitute an attempt to shift the power in the party from the state parties and their members to an elite establishment which answers primarily to special interests and powerful politicians, a corruption of our party which we believe all true Republicans will find unacceptable.”
Many Republican Liberty Caucus members are in Tampa as part of their state delegations. Many are young activists who are attending the convention for the first time. They are getting a harsh lesson in power politics as party leaders clamp down on dissent and use draconian measures to reduce the ability of rank and file party members to influence the electoral process and party policy.
National Delegate Rob Tyree of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Nevada observed that “The rules amendments proposed by lobbyist and political consultant Ben Ginsberg would completely change the structure of the Republican Party into a leadership-first, top-down organization. Under these proposed rules, grassroots activists would be relegated to being nothing more than a pool of free labor, rather than acting as the heart and soul of the party as they do now. I would suggest that anyone interested in being part of a party with that type of leadership structure should consider paying a visit to Charlotte, NC next week.”
“As I read these rules,” said Laura Ebke of the RLC of Nebraska, “I can’t help but believe that it effectively stomps out grassroots efforts, and will be especially harmful to the party in small counties around the state. I hope that Nebraska’s delegation will vote NO on the rules changes.” Jeff Larson of the Texas delegation echoed “The proposed rules represent a long term threat to the ability of the grassroots to represent themselves within the party.”
“This attempt to seize control of the party and exclude dissenting voices is contrary to Republican traditions and a sign of weakness n the leadership,” said Republican Liberty Caucus National Chairman Dave Nalle. “Letting those who disagree with party policy or who don’t like the presumptive nominee air their views would help build unity. Silencing and excluding them by changing the rules drives wedges between factions and weakens the party going into this vital election.”
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
“The Republican Liberty Caucus strongly opposes recently proposed changes to the party rules which would give the Republican National Committee unprecedented centralized authority over the presidential nomination process, overriding the autonomy of the states and their long established electoral traditions.
“We also object strenuously to new rules which would empower the Republican National Committee to change the rules under which it operates between conventions without approval of the body of delegates representing the party membership. These proposed rule changes are tyrannical, contrary to the principles of republican governance and hostile to the interests of the grassroots of the party.
“Together they constitute an attempt to shift the power in the party from the state parties and their members to an elite establishment which answers primarily to special interests and powerful politicians, a corruption of our party which we believe all true Republicans will find unacceptable.
“Maine RLC salutes Governor Paul LePage for his act of principled courage by refusing to attend the Republican National Convention in protest to its arbitrary action of denying duly-elected Maine delegates their seats as part of this power play by entrenched political interests.”
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
On Tuesday of this week, as Republican National Convention delegates, you and I will be voting on rules changes that could fundamentally change our Republican Party — and not for the better.
Over the years, I’ve served on the Louisiana and Virginia GOP Rules Committees. I currently serve on both the Republican National Committee’s Standing Committee on Rules and on the National Convention’s Committee on Rules and Order of Business.
I was Barry Goldwater’s youngest elected delegate in 1964, I was honored to serve on President Ronald Reagan’s White House Staff from 1981-1984, and I have attended every Republican National Convention Rules Committee meeting since 1972. My wife and I have contributed major donations to the Romney-Ryan campaign.
These rule changes are the most awful I’ve ever seen come before any National Convention.
I’m writing you today to urge you to join the growing effort to stop the worst-ever changes in this Rules Committee’s Report and to vote in favor of amendments to Rules 12 and 15. The Minority Reports will restore important rights and protections which state parties and grassroots Republicans would lose under the Rules Committee Report as written.
These amendments to Rules 12 and 15 are contained in Minority Reports supported by at least 25% of the members of this convention’s Committee on Rules and Order of Business.
It’s rare for Minority Reports to come before our national convention, but the issues involved here are vital to the future of our party.
I must tell you there is tremendous arm-twisting now to peel signers off of the Minority Reports.
Finally, whether on Minority Reports or on voting down the Rules, it will require at least six states’ delegations to insist upon a roll call vote.
I will not pretend that the deck is not stacked against us.
But many state leaders, liberty-minded activists, and grass-roots conservatives are up-in-arms as word of this power grab spreads.
Our convention will make this important decision Tuesday as some of our first work. Many folks skip these procedural sessions thinking nothing of importance occurs.
This year, that is far from the truth.
If the Rules Committee Report were to pass without adoption of the Minority Reports, it would amount to a power grab by Washington, D.C. party insiders and consultants designed to silence the voice of state party activists and Republican grassroots by:
*** Handing national party officials the power to change national party rules adopted by state and grassroots leaders at the Republican National Convention. For generations, the prohibition of manipulated changes in the national Rules of the Republican Party between national conventions has served as one of the crown jewels of our party. It’s a power grab which opens the door to many future power grabs.
*** Stripping state parties in all states with binding primaries of the power of choosing who will represent their states as national delegates and alternate delegates.
This outrageous change would empower presidential campaigns to disapprove and remove delegates and alternate delegates selected by rules adopted by state Republican parties. Rather than grassroots activists who won delegate and alternate delegate slots by following state party rules, a large majority of positions would be handed to top donors of the winning campaign.
*** Gutting the great and successful reform adopted in the current election cycle to stop the dangerous trend to front-load the selection of national convention delegates. Our party would move again toward a national primary which would deny grassroots Republicans the opportunity to vet presidential candidates in a nomination contest of reasonable length. This reform must not be abandoned.
Like most of us delegates to this convention, I’ve spent years gladly battling in the trenches for our Republican Party.
And as the President of the Leadership Institute — which specializes in training thousands of conservative activists, students, and leaders to fight for our country’s future –I can’t tell you how disheartened I am to see these rules changes even considered.
These rule changes would give good folks like you less of a say over our Republican Party in favor of insiders and consultants in Washington, D.C.
At a time when Tea Party activists have re-invigorated our Republican Party — leading to massive gains in the U.S. House, the Senate, and many state legislatures in the 2010 elections — why would we want to discourage activism?
Thanks to their efforts, you and I have a new generation of exciting conservative leaders in Washington, D.C., who — in many instances –were elected despite the opposition of establishment-backed opponents.
Certainly this is not to say GOP leaders are always wrong.
But history shows that our Republican Party grows when we welcome newly active participants and treat them fairly.
Our Republican Party is strongest when we listen to the wishes of grassroots conservatives.
Instead of strengthening our party, these insider power grabs will weaken it.
For these reasons, I urge you to join the growing effort to adopt the Minority Reports when the Rules Committee Report comes up for consideration by the convention.
Morton Blackwell
P.S. Some of the most important work of the convention will take place on Tuesday where you and I will be voting on rules that could fundamentally change our Republican Party for the worse.
New rules will be voted on that have been designed to silence state Republican parties and Republican grassroots in favor of party insiders and Washington, D.C.-based consultants.
The vote will take place at Tuesday’s convention session, and I’m counting on you join the growing effort to defeat these new rules.
Please vote to adopt the Minority Reports on Rules and urge your delegation to call for a roll call vote on all Rules-related votes.
This fight is too important for us not to make a stand.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
You may have thought that the story out of Tampa this week was going to be a celebration of the Romney-Ryan nomination, maybe spiced up with a bit of contention from the liberty wing of the party, but ultimately a celebration of party unity moving forward to defeat Obama in November. That’s what we all expected and that should have been the story.
But for grassroots Republicans the story out of Tampa is becoming something very, very different. The presidential nomination, which was supposed to be the focus, is taking a backseat to a growing controversy over an attempt by a small group of elite party insiders and the Romney campaign to fundamentally change the rules and structure of the party to disenfranchise grassroots Republicans activists and turn the GOP from a party of the people into a party of top-down governance from a select class of professional political organizers.
One of the cornerstones of the Grand Old Party is a belief in republicanism and the idea that power is distributed and limited by checks and balances. Those values are embodied in our Constitution and they were the basis of the Republican Party when it was founded and for most of its history. Historically this has meant that most of the power in the Republican Party has rested with the party members in the states, working as delegates through their local and state caucuses and conventions to generate policy for the party in a unique collaborative process where the voice of the people could be heard strongly.
In a nutshell there are three proposed changes.
That the delegates will be bound to vote in proportion to the popular vote regardless of how things go in our county and state conventions.
That the presumed nominee or his agents will be able to remove or replace delegates from state conventions at will.
That the members of the RNC may at any time between conventions change any of the party rules by a 3/4 vote.
It appears that most members of the Texas delegation are now opposing these changes.Now there are those in Tampa who seek to overturn this traditional structure of the party, set restrictions on the free choice of party members and introduce a new and alien process which would minimize the input of the party’s rank and file and put power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests who can buy the loyalty of the mob. They have borrowed the organizing structure of the Democrats and authored rules which would cause our delegates to be bound by the votes of primary voters who may not be Republicans or share our values. They have also proposed that the presumed presidential nominee could remove our elected delegates at whim. Finally they want to remove control over the rule making process from the state parties to a small elite within the national committee of the party who can change the rules under which the party operates at any time. Without fixed rules arrived at by the consent of the rank and file of the party we become pawns rather than participants in the political process.
These proposals which have come out of the Rules Committee in Tampa are contrary to the basic character of the party and they are opposed by many delegates who were not part of the handpicked group of insiders which dominated the committee. Delegates from many states are speaking out in opposition and members of the committee who believe in a bottom-up party structure have issued a minority report to challenge what amounts to a powergrab by elite insiders and the Romney campaign.
I hope that all delegates in Tampa will join me in opposing this coup within the party. If you are a delgate, please join with others in supporting the minority report and opposing these changes which will be voted on from the floor on Monday. If you are watching from home, please realize that the media is not covering this issue and reach out to any delegates you know and encourage them to stand up for the rights of the state parties and the many dedicated Republicans who took part in the grassroots process which makes our party unique and protects the interests of all of its members.
I have attached copies of the proposed rules 12 and 15 which make these changes. Please read them for yourself and see if they represent the kind of party governance you want to be under. If you agree with me that they disenfranchise our party members and empower people who do not have the best interests of the party at heart, please join me in taking action to raise opposition before this issue is raised for a vote on the convention floor in Tampa on Monday.
Dave Nalle
Travis County Texas Precinct 105 Chairman
Proposed Rules 12 and 15
“12: The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”
“15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.”
“15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.”
“15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.”
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
I hope that most people reading this are very familiar with the abuses of process, fraud and violations of party rules which marred the Republican National Convention in Tampa. From the start of the committee meetings to the final gavel there was a pattern of behavior from the party leadership which made very clear that control of the party had been taken away from the body of members and the delegates representing them at the convention and seized by a small cadre acting on behalf of the Romney campaign and powerful special interests. They sacrificed the best interests of the party and the rights of party members to take control of the convention and restructure the party rules to reduce the influence of the grassroots and of state parties in the future.
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas board member Jeff Larson gives his first-hand report of events in the Credentials Committee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa during their main meeting Friday of last week. Accompanying video includes a short interview with Jeff from a local TV station.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and our chapters across the nation have united to express our concern and dismay over attempts to modify the rules of the Republican Party to reduce the power of the grassroots and centralize control of the party in the hands of party insiders and the presidential campaign. On Monday the National Board passed the following resolution in opposition to proposed rule changes:
