
Ed Gillespie Greeting Reporters in Roanoke
This weekend’s Republican Party of Virginia Convention in Roanoke was a smashing success for our party, both in terms of the process and the ultimate outcome.
Understandably, many supporters of Shak Hill might not regard the way things unfolded as a success for our party. In their view, instead of their guy winning, the party nominated an “establishment” insider with key vulnerabilities in the fall. And it is true that Ed Gillespie will face an uphill battle to unseat Mark Warner. But in contrast to Shak Hill, Gillespie will have the resources from day one to undertake that fight, and—thanks in large part to the gracious endorsement Shak gave him—will have a mostly united party behind him.
Importantly, this was a nomination decided by the grassroots. Ordinary Republicans heard the candidates, weighed the arguments, and came down firmly on the side of the candidate they deemed most likely to be able to advance our shared values.
A candidate cannot buy a convention. Resources help, of course, but Shak’s solid performance is a good example of how, in contrast to a state-run open primaries, the “establishment” favorite with all the money and insider connections doesn’t automatically win in a convention. Gillespie had to work for this victory, and he did that by interfacing directly and individually with thousands of rank-and-file Republicans.
Kudos to Gillespie for engaging in that process. Unlike some others who are afraid of conventions, Gillespie undertook the retail-style campaigning with gusto, displaying a great deal of personal humility and respect for the grassroots along the way. Just as importantly, kudos to Shak Hill for providing us with a meaningful choice, and for challenging Ed to make his case. Had this been a primary, it would not have even been a contest, and Gillespie would have been our nominee without us having had any real opportunity to vet him or get to know him, much less to fully understand his strengths and vulnerabilities.
This is why we have conventions. It is not a scheme to ensure that the most conservative firebrand wins, but is instead simply a way for ordinary party members to have a meaningful choice. This process works.
But the real utility of a convention is what we will see over the next six years, when our next Senator will always keep in the back of his mind that he has to come back to a convention to seek re-nomination. Back in the 1980s, when Sen. John Warner cajoled the RPV State Central Committee into giving him a primary (thus, under Virginia’s Incumbent Protection Act, allowing him to choose a primary for each successive re-nomination), Warner no longer felt accountable to the grassroots. One manifestation of that freedom from accountability was his vote against President Reagan’s appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, a move that infuriated the Republican base that was then essentially powerless to do anything about it. Likewise with Warner’s liberal votes on life and Second Amendment issues. Gillespie will give us no such infuriating votes.
Taken together with the fact that this convention was probably as close to flawless in its execution as we have seen in at least the last decade, yesterday truly was a triumph for our party. To be sure, many of the most hard core supporters of Shak Hill will continue to be suspicious of our nominee and of those who voted for him, but we have now washed away much of the acrimony that attended the results of last year’s convention, and have taken a great step toward healing and unity.
Both sides scored a victory yesterday. The so-called “establishment” won the contest, but the conservatives won the process, ensuring that the candidate who likely had the best shot of winning will remain accountable to the grassroots.
THANK YOUs
A ton of people helped make this year’s Convention a success. A few people in particular, though, were absolutely key.
First District Chairman Eric Herr served this Convention as Chairman of the Credentials Committee. In this role, he oversaw the check-in process, and also supervised the counting of the votes and tabulation of the results. He has offered his “Convention Report Card” here. I agree completely with Eric’s observations, but what he couldn’t say himself is that a large part of the success of the event was due directly to his leadership and hard work. David Ray deserves special mention here as well for his devotion to a fair and efficient process.
RPV Executive Director Shaun Kenney also deserves a huge pat on the back for a job well done. Shaun has really brought a tremendous level of competence and professionalism to this role, and at every step of the convention planning process he made all the right decisions and managed all the staff expertly. As I’ve said elsewhere, Shaun was made for this job, and we’re lucky to have him.
As Eric mentions in his Report Card, the execution success is in large part due to the tireless dedication of RPV’s Convention Manager, Jeb Wilkinson, whose tremendous competence and decades of experience were of incalculable value. More than anyone else on the team, Jeb deserves our thanks for making the whole thing work. Chairman Pat Mullins also deserves a lot of credit for having the judgment and foresight to recruit Wilkinson for this role.
Finally, we should all thank Ed Gillespie and Shak Hill, and their wives and families, for all of the heart and soul they’ve poured out over the last many months in service to our shared principles. We’d be nowhere if good people like these men didn’t make the sacrifice of time and treasure to help protect our rights, and to make America a better place. Thanks in particular to Shak, whose class act at the end of yesterday’s Convention displayed real leadership and poise. We owe you our gratitude and respect, sir, and hope that we have not seen the last of you.
85 comments
Apologies for any glitches in the Matrix, folks. There was a need for some… reprogramming.
Very well written analysis on the strengths of a convention! You make a very strong case.
And already Mark Warner is attacking Gillespie as an “Enron lobbyist”. I agree with you that Republicans chose this guy but I do not see a way forward for him to win. Amnesty?… he is for amnesty no matter how much he denied it leading up to the convention. Obamacare?… He advocated in his book for the individual mandate and he isn’t promising to push for repeal. So how is he going to beat Warner when he can’t credibly attack him on these two important issues?
Those are what seem to be the biggest hurdles. I think those are not that tough –Enron Lobbyist — he brings up Warner’s insider to riches story ; Amnesty — he says Ronald Reagan tried that and it did not work!!! ; Obamacare — example of how the fed took something from the state and corrupted it — he can then explain federalism. Lots of chances to aikido Warner to the mat.
Elections are about educating the electorate. If he panders like the dems — we lose, but if he educates the voters, and works in tandem with party, grassroots, and freaking awesome nova house nominees, we got a real good chance of making everyone forget 2013.
Except Ed Gillespie wants amnesty so he and Mark Warner have the same position. It makes it hard to make a case as to why people should choose him instead.
Ed only wants it because Jeb wants it. Besides, our side will have sold out long before Ed’s inauguration — out-cynic that!
“Elections are about educating the electorate”, just what are you smoking?
Elections for the most part are about who has the most money to spread lies and deceptions about their opponent.
The media demands it be that for the advertising money. And society thrives on corruption.
Case in point “Brat is a liberal college professor”.
Then once elected, the winner goes right on with the lies and deceptions to their constituents.
The only chance Brat has Tuesday is if enough Dems show. But there are 2 problems with that, do the Dems really want Cantor our? Are there enough Dems willing to show up Tues and vote for Cantor in the 7th ?
Answer to both is not a chance.
Hey now, I’m supposed to be the cynic!
Educating can be indoctrinating, persuading, teaching, Jedi mind tricks. Does your message resonate enough to get the snouts to the countery on count day?
So, what’s your better method of selecting governance?
The bottom-up not the top-down. There is no governance if there is no people – we choose them after we have educated ourselves on the issues and message.
Yep, same method — not perfect, still ain’t nothing better.
Educating the electorate? Let me get a cup of coffee.
Warner is bought by the Mafia… I’m sure Ed can escape the Enron debacle.
Perhaps Shak would have done better if he wouldn’t have taken the “drag your Republican counterpart:” through the mud. It would have been much better to try and sell the delegates on his abilities, promises, current topics etc. Instead, Shak and his minions took the low road and did attack sessions. It was difficult to listen to his consession speech saying that he is behind Ed, let’s unite
. The model race was between Rob Bell and Mark Obenshain…both men of character.
Shak did not do that! At every event I attended (several) he spoke highly of Ed, brought up the contrast, and pledged his full support to the nominee. Very persuasively.
Being the ‘rightmost,’ (new party token slot??) of course he gains the benefit of the fringe and all the treats that come with. Even EW couldn’t completely control the bozo patrol.
I believe Shak & Shak’s campaign ran according to his principles as best one can do.
Besides, there was no measurable margin of Shak delegates so righteously indignant enough that they switched sides.
They fought. Ed won. Fair and square.
BTW, how come the model racers, or anyone else statewide jumped in? (Didn’t we have a few for LG last time around?)
I think the Gillespie Gamble will pay off in November, and I’m buying all the action I can.
Mr. Spiker, over 4,000 were signed up to attend. Millions across the Commonwealth had an opportunity to participate by signing up if they so chose to. Your wording implies to me that the 2,800 delegates, motivated and involved enough to attend Saturday’s RPV Convention are an illegitimate voice. I reject the notion that primaries are more pure and representative. It need not be an either/or decision process that we have. Both/and is best.
Meg, I don’t know what your “both” solution looks like. But let me explain where I’m coming from.
I believe that we need to grow the Republican Party by bringing more people in. More people than ever are tired of Obama, and want a change from liberal Democratic policies. More people than ever are embracing limited government (and not just lip-service to limited government) as the right course of action. How do those people, who are not your typical grassroots activist, get involved?
Conventions, by design, are exclusionary. They are a big NOT WELCOME sign posted at the gateway to conservatism. I don’t believe that the convention vote is “illegitimate” by any stretch of the imagination. I would have just preferred a system that gets as many people working towards victory in November as possible.
We are a political party. By definition we don’t welcome everyone to choose our candidates. Why would we?
Technically, there’s nothing to prevent Democrats to participate in a convention, either. They are equally “welcome” to do so.
The reason we would do so is that the benefits of a primary are astronomically superior than the non-existent threat of Democrats choosing a nominee for us.
At least we have Barbara toting the line in the presidential primaries for us.
Not equally, under your primary bias, they are equal. But according to party rules, they would have to be elected at a mass meeting — additional hoops the GOP puts in to specifically exclude busy moms, Saturday workers, out of unit soldiers and diplomats, the infirm, spiritual celebrants, vampires, zombies, and democrats not elsewhere covered (zombies tags most of them tho’)
Are you including busy moms, Saturday workers, and military members in the same group as zombies because you don’t think any of them exist, or because you don’t care if any of them are involved in the Republican Party?
The parenthetical zombies applied to most democrats being zombies, but I grant you there may be others, even Republicans (as you’ve been to conventions — see stuff in paren refers to preceding word)
I can even think of a particular self-proclaimed Libertarian that skews Zombie,
I confess I still don’t get it, but I tip my cap to your humorous take.
While a Republican is always a voter, a voter is not always Republican. IOW, there is more to being a Republican than voting in a Republican election.
I think if we draw the distinction between Voters who vote Republican and Voters active in Republican Party politics (Officials, members, donors, supporters, volunteers, etc.) our discussion will become clearer.
Our objective is to move folks from the first group into the second group. It is the second group that makes up the party and should select the nominee.
Your belief that the act of voting in a primary to select the nominee is the best route toward becoming a Republican.
My belief is that the nominee should be selected by the second group.
However, if the first group of voters wish to participate in selecting the nominee, they are most welcome to attend the party function and select the nominee, or elect a representative to select the nominee, or seek to become one of those representatives to select the nominee, or perhaps even become the nominee.
“Your belief that the act of voting in a primary to select the nominee is the best route toward becoming a Republican.”
Not quite, but close enough.
My belief is that making the process inaccessible to the average voter discourages people from becoming more engaged with the party, while a more inclusive process grows the party.
There are tons of voters who read, are informed, form intelligent and rational opinions, and vote Republican every year– and who have never been to a GOP committee meeting and never will. Those people would be shocked to know that you think it isn’t right that they have a say in selecting a Republican nominee.
Bob Hope ID’d Dems as Zombies in ‘The Ghost Breakers’
Delegates are vetted. Voting histories can be requested. If a potential delegate has too many Democrat primaries in his past, he can be excluded.
Delegates are selected at the local committee level. Subcommittees are set up to review applicants before selection is made. If known Democrat operatives show up in the applications, they can be excluded.
Utah uses conventions to narrow the field to 2 candidates, after which it’s a primary. Not a bad system, a hybrid.
None of this would be at issue if we had party registration here. This isn’t the stone age, we can have party registration.
By constantly deferring to the “next in line” or the wealthy candidates, we are also posting a giant “do not welcome” sign. The average person can’t relate to those guys. If we want to win we need to stop the party machinery from anointing candidates and let the people decide.
I don’t have a problem with Utah’s system. I DO have a problem with party registration.
Three things: One, in a primary the voters make the decision, not party leaders anointing anybody. Nobody’s ever been “anointed”. So automatically, yes, it is a more welcoming process. Two, “next in line” and “wealth” are myths. Sometimes those people win, sometimes they lose. Three, I highly doubt someone who was otherwise interested in the Republican Party would change their mind because of the “next-in-line” problems that hardcore activists have.
Finally, it’s either “DO NOT ENTER”, or “NOT WELCOME”. I don’t think anybody says “Do not welcome”.
Offering no examples or proof? I have been around a while and as many as 10% of voters in our primary are Dems. Which is 10% too many.
“Next in line” was even noted by WaPo and Politico in their articles proclaiming how the establishment won. I have seen it myself, I have seen it many times, we all have. It’s horrific and it violates the first rule, which is that the people are sovereign in this Republic. The more we anoint candidates instead of letting the democratic process play out, the more unwelcoming the party will seem.
WaPo and Politico are reporting on perceptions. The voters always have a say. If you don’t like their say, you can call it whatever you want.
And you telling me that 10% of primary voters are Democrats does not constitute proof.
I agree with you. I don’t like conventions for selecting a candidate at all, IF Virginia would change (reform) its election laws and voter registration was by political party then conventions to choose candidates would become obsolete. I also think that there should be ONE and only ONE primary day for all primary elections throughout the commonwealth. Cheaper and less confusing.
Problem with that is cost to taxpayers and more institutionalizing two-party system.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with that… But there will come a day when a judge or judges, or politically motivated attorney/official will say that an election is not just between a dem and a GOP, but could be between dems and dems; or GOPs and GOPs, or perhaps dem, dem, GOP; or maybe even dem, GOP, lib, tea, larouche — why do we have to be such party haters, isn’t there enough election love for all???
Mr. S doesn’t like the GOP to select the nominee, he prefers to spend taxpayer money to have any voter select the nominee of the GOP — kinda like the Tea party choosing the nominees via overwhelming force at mass meetings, firehouse primaries and conventions, but without the bother of organizing or congregating.
What are you talking about? In a primary, Republicans vote and choose the nominee. This isn’t rocket science.
Assuming this isn’t a waste of time — no, not in degree, quantity, nor intent.
In VA, the primary isn’t restricted to Republicans.
I know, and I agree. However, my point is that despite this, the primary electorate is overwhelmingly made up of Republicans. There’s only one situation I can think of where that wasn’t the case–1996–and that’s because John Warner explicitly made it part of his campaign to turn out Democrats. In every other situation, candidates in a GOP primary will try and appeal to GOP voters because that’s who shows up.
They get involved by the grass roots doing their job. Informing about dates, staying on top of the constituents, all year. If we haven’t taken (1) thing from Barry – we should take his campaign engineering and infrastructure. Its a machine. And is becoming a year round process in order to keep the message in people’s faces… How else could he won twice – err presuming the election process was neutral.
“Pure” and “representative” are entirely different things. Was the delegate population in Roanoke “pure”? I’m sure it was. Was it “representative” of the overall Republican Party in Virginia? Absolutely not.
‘Pure’ is a loaded pejorative and should not be used unless as a modifier, like pure idiocy or pure grade A.
The convention was representative of the GOP in VA by definition. We were elected to represent our units, we made decisions, passed resolutions, nominated candidates.
I think Joe’s point was that it was representative of the type of people who would drive to Roanoke to attend such a thing, and not representative of the 250,000 Republicans who might have voted in a primary.
Thus, in an upcoming general election where many millions will vote, we have only heard the voice of a miniscule portion of the electorate.
I swear, I’m talking to a doorknob — the people who went to Roanoke were elected to go to Roanoke to select our GOP party nominee. While we certainly want as many people to vote Republican as possible, the act of voting Republican does not make you a Republican — it makes you a voter who voted Republican.
If I go to a Catholic mass, that doesn’t make me a Carholic, and if I managed to then drive my way to the Vatican next go-round, I bet you dollars to donuts they wouldn’t let me sit with the cardinals.
Does this help or are we still with fingers in ears repeating ‘primary, primary, primary’?
Rocinante, I object you calling me a doorknob. I expect you’ll get a stern talking-to from Alexis, who wants to raise the level of discourse on this blog.
I’m just trying to help explain what Joe’s point is: that the people who voted in the convention can’t possibly be representative of the entire Republican Party of Virginia.
It seems to me that you’re arguing that the RPV is, in fact, comprised only of those people (or those who would otherwise attend, but didn’t), and that the remaining hundreds of thousands of voters who VOTE Republican, aren’t actually Republicans.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If not, that’s an interesting way to view things, but I think ultimately its folly. I am interested in Republican politics for one purpose: to win and govern. I don’t support the idea of having a political organization for its own sake, just to sit around and discuss how right we are.
I’m sorry I have to keep repeating myself. You are not a doorknob, you are a libertarian primary-loving consultant.
I’m sorry I keep finding myself in the position of explaining to Republicans how the Republican form of government works, and how the Republican follows suit.
“the people who voted in the convention can’t possibly be representative of the entire Republican Party of Virginia”
Stephen is not a doorknob, Stephen is not a doorknob, Stephen is not a doorknob. But yes, they _are representative_ of the entire Republican Party of Virginia. That’s the way it works!!
You have been around this stuff long enough, you should know this. Check out the party plan, you can know the RPV is comprised, Chairman, State Central members, District Chairmen, etc.
The voters who vote Republican are voters who vote Republican. Some are Republicans, some are actually not Republicans. Look at how they identify themselves. We would like more to identify and join our party. Hopefully we can make that case compelling enough.
You are wrong, not a doorknob, but wrong.
“I am interested in Republican politics for one purpose: to win and govern.”
But why Republican if it’s just to win and govern? I think we precisely need to sit around and discuss how _right_ we are in order to travel in the same direction. In other words, our shared values, culture, and history give us the same philosophy and make us the same party.
So, when our Republican, begins to stray from our shared values (say, to the left) on issues (say, amnesty) then the party gets to exercise our option to choose a nominee more in line with our values.
It’s cheaper to do this in a convention though.
“You are not a doorknob, you are a libertarian primary-loving consultant.”
Bingo!
I’m sorry I have to keep repeating myself. You are not a doorknob, you are a libertarian primary-loving consultant.
I’m sorry I keep finding myself in the position of explaining to Republicans how the Republican form of government works, and how the Republican party follows suit.
“the people who voted in the convention can’t possibly be representative of the entire Republican Party of Virginia”
Stephen is not a doorknob, Stephen is not a doorknob, Stephen is not a doorknob. But yes, they _are representative_ of the entire Republican Party of Virginia. That’s the way it works!!
You have been around this stuff long enough, you should know this. Check out the party plan, you can know the RPV is comprised, Chairman, State Central members, District Chairmen, etc.
The voters who vote Republican are voters who vote Republican. Some are Republicans, some are actually not Republicans. Look at how they identify themselves. We would like more to identify and join our party. Hopefully we can make that case compelling enough.
You are wrong, not a doorknob, but wrong.
“I am interested in Republican politics for one purpose: to win and govern.”
But why Republican if it’s just to win and govern? I think we precisely need to sit around and discuss how _right_ we are in order to travel in the same direction. In other words, our shared values, culture, and history give us the same philosophy and make us the same party.
So, when our Republican, begins to stray from our shared values (say, to the left) on issues (say, amnesty) then the party gets to exercise our option to choose a nominee more in line with our values.
It’s cheaper to do this in a convention though.
I keep wondering about the constitutionality of the incumbent protection act. It seems that party members would be able set their own rules without the intrusion of the State. Has it ever been challenged?
It has not been challenged. Any person with the right facts and the money for counsel would have a good case against it.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/062334.P.pdf
Pages 14-16 of the attached opinion address the constitutionality of the incumbent protection act. The decision was regarding the open primary statute, but it is clear from the court’s ruling that the incumbent protection act would be struck down under the First Amendment pursuant to a strict scrutiny analysis.
We won’t regret Gillespie votes? I asked Ed Gillespie in person what he thought about the Senate Gang of 8 immigration bill. He replied that “it was a good first step.” Gillespie danced when I asked him directly if he would have voted for this bill (which Mark Warner voted for), but it was obvious that he would have done so. He likened his position to that of Marco Rubio, one of the authors of the bill.
How did mark warner vote again? What did he say when confronted?
It doesn’t matter how someone would have voted if they can’t get elected.
The devil we know is Warner, the devil we don’t is Gillespie.
If you think the Republic is safe, gamble on another term for Mark, if not, hop aboard the only bus going in our direction,
So I go door-to-door and urge people to vote for the devil they don’t know? Well, at least it’s catchy…
I never get much traction with “he’s not quite as bad as the incumbent.” But we go to war with the army we have, not the army we want.
Or the grass roots get their ass in gear and build the message from the bottom-up. Gillespies message is quite nebulous and he is going to have to lock down that 40% which voted against him and represents a piece of core republican values. If he doesn’t. Capture that vote with some meat behind his message on those issues – he may lose.
Yep, we’re going to have to drag our ticket across the finish line, we see what happens when we don’t.
Ed drags himself across by listening to that 39.6%
Did you campaign for Shak? If so… I ran into the same dilemma campaigning for Bob Marshall against Barbara Constock.
The argument, I think, is that Warner or Gillespie… Ehhh pretty much the Same on many core issues.
Pretty much the same, is not all the same. Look at MW votes and figure out how EG would have voted. I think Virginia Voters will look at both Mark Warners (the commericals, and the votes) and decide ‘Why not Ed?’ They gotta be feeling some buyers remorse for the last 3 bozos they barely elected.
Only 2800 people voted, Steve. How can you possibly say “the system worked”?
Not enough advertising on when the delegate process happens… Up here. 52 eligible – 20ish showed in Roanoke. I’m sure that’s a pattern and is a grassroots campaign problem – don’t you think? I’m sure shak would have done better had people been able to vote locally. The fact remains – he knew the rules and should have known what it took to win in that atmosphere. The. organization of Ed’s paid workers was incredible and outclassed Shak’s.
The problem the grassroots has with building the base and ESPECIALLY with drawing people into the political process is that we have chosen the absolute worst process.
“Hey, I’m sick of what’s going on in Washington and I want to get involved. How can I support you for office?”
“Great! Here, sign this delegate form and in six week we’ll let you know if you’ve been approved!”
“Okay, I guess? So once I’m approved I can vote for you?”
“Yep! All you have to do then is drive to Roanoke on a Saturday.”
“I work on Saturdays. Why do I have to vote in Roanoke?.”
“Because we want to control the process to exclude people who we feel aren’t sufficiently involved enough to do something as simple as voting.”
“But wouldn’t that exclude me as well?”
“And how!”
Good grief. Everyone of those people will have a chance to vote in November for the person who will change things in Washington, Ed Gillespie.
And that justifies putting roadblocks up to their participation in the Republican Party? Aren’t we trying to bring new people in? Or is just some of us?
Each district has plenty of opportunity for new members to participate in the Party. But when our local politicians play games and choose their like minded friends to choice positions, don’t be surprised if your new members take a hike. Those former new members won’t be around to vote in a convention and even worse, will go out of their way to kill your primary or general candidates.
Structurally, our party dissolves every two years to prevent precisely that. Like your unit chair, you can keep him/her — don’t like your unit chair, you can replace them (or leave them in if you don’t have the candidate, support, resources to replace them) and whine about it.
We got enough Armchair Republicans and Conservative when Convenients, get in the back of the line. Your argument that the universal suffrage and direct election of nominees as the sole characteristic of Republican is moot.
We have enough Republicans already? Well, we have 2800, that’s for sure!
After all of the elections we have lost recently, I was beginning to fear it wasn’t so! But Rocinante says, “we’re good with what we got”. Now, I guess, we just need to figure out a way to make the Democrats have even less voters than us!
Or conversely, against the GOP, attempt to suppress the membership, subvert the party leadership, criticize the legitimacy of our process in public forums.
Well played Comrade!
Shak and his people knew the rules. The local committee’s knew the rules. Its up to the local republican committees to sell it and bring people into the base – Not necessarily the candidates. Its my understanding that districts dont necessarily have the same rules for recruiting delegates which – if you look at, Shenandoah County’s delegate process – Its ridiculous and has nothing to do w/ the candidate. I would ascribe responsibility to the local committees. The Republican Chair, Andy Robbins, didnt even show up for Frederick County on Saturday. What does that communicate? pfffft
It should communicate that we are a party and not specific party bosses. Frederick got to vote and a decent stand-in running the process. “Didn’t even show up” is insinuendoference. If this is a capital offense for the Frederick unit committee, bounce his ass to the curb… I know a replacement, starts with a J.
Just from a purely appearance perspective – how can you reasonably explain away a PARTY CHAIR’s no-show at his senate convention? Wouldn’t suprise me if he was not even a registered delegate who could vote.
Funeral works, so does family obligations, illness, work, other commitments, etc. Don’t think Chairman of delegation needs to vote. As I laugh and jeer from the outside of Winchester proper, seems to me that since he ran unopposed, the idiocy is by acclimation. Not challenging means acceptance… until next time. So if the County of Fred ain’t perfect, do what you can to make it so, maybe _you’ll_ get tagged for Chair next.
The Frederick County Chair did not run unopposed. I assure you of that.
He may have been opposed for a time, but I didn’t think the attendees at the mass meeting were offered a choice.
Love those grand gestures of opposition. If no one opposed at meeting, and nobody stepped up, well, you get the representation you deserve.
I had heard that the folks attending the mass meeting elected the only Chairman running. Folks choosing not to run is also a choice.
You know, Steve. You make a good point in this entry.
Getting ‘there fustest with the mostest’ is how to win. Shak didn’t. Friday night folks thought it was a dead heat. Gillespie people were not grins and giggles. Saturday morning Shak dominated the entrance and the floor.
The purpose of contests like this are to demonstrate that the candidate can compete in all areas and arenas. The two candidates were equally matched in experience, delegates felt Ed could get the resources to compete in November while Shak notsomuch.
We need an article on Shak & Eds postmortem — or shall we keep some party secrets???
Because the system did work! 2,800 dedicated republicans cared enough to go to Richmond and cast their vote. Those are the people who work hard for our party and know who the best candidates are. The Convention ran very smoothly and had a great outcome, the best candidate won.
Even if you were right (and we both know that not every convention-goer is a committed activist or will work hard for Gillespie in November), the fact that there’s only 2800 is the more glaring figure here.
Let’s try this, what is the difference between a republican form of government and a democratic form of government? How does a representative democracy work?
Once you get these, we can go on to the mechanics of the inner workings.
Hmm, okay. Our representative democracy works by having the candidate who gets the most votes win in November.
So how we do we set ourselves up for winning in November? 2,800 vs 250,000. This isn’t even a contest, Rocinante. We are needlessly shooting ourselves in the foot and making ourselves look ridiculous in the process, all to counter a made-up threat of crossover voting. It’s preposterous.
I’m being serious, you’ve got to grasp these fundamental concepts if you want to participate in grown-up debates.
Your crossover straw man has been demolished.
Flawed understanding, flawed logic, repeated whining. If you’re not a concern troll, are you a paid agitator? Or some kind of occupy GOP??
Wait, you disagree with me? That would actually explain a lot if you think the point is to get the fewest votes, rather than the most votes.
You are as dim as you are unpleasant. Don’t mess with BOFH cat.