Vince Haley has recently announced that he wants to run for RPV Chairman…after he publicly withdrew from the race for RPV Chairman more than two months ago. The circumstances and reasons behind these moves are not easily ascertained, even from the candidate’s own statements, but the real motives behind all of these actions leave major questions about the judgment of the candidate who wants to run the Republican Party of Virginia.
After a successful election cycle in 2015 that saw the GOP retain control of the Virginia Senate, despite the influx of millions of dollars from Terry McAuliffe and Michael Bloomberg, things looked like they were finally going right for the RPV. Chairman Whitbeck had rallied the troops, brought the two wings of the party together in a relative détente, our $200,000+ debt had been paid off, and we were rolling into 2016 strong. All sides seemed to agree that Chairman Whitbeck had done a good job, and nobody was lined up to challenge him.
Then, on the day of the filing deadline to run for RPV Chairman, Vince Haley dropped off his paperwork mere hours before the deadline. He sent out a statement announcing his candidacy which was carried here. In his statement, Haley seemed concerned with supporting candidates in primaries and for party offices that would support the grassroots against the establishment. In his statement he declared, “we need a party run by and for conservatives.” Later in the statement he proclaimed,
I’ll promote candidates that truly believe in our Virginia Republican Creed – and will fight for it as if the fate of our Republic depends on it. Because it does.
So why was John Whitbeck being challenged from the right? Why did Vince wait so late to file his challenge? Why was a man who had never held a local or Congressional district level position in the party suddenly interested in taking the top spot in the Commonwealth? Speculation seems to point to a rift between Whitbeck and Russ Moulton over the vote last year to have a Presidential primary over a convention to bind our National Delegates for the first round of balloting in Cleveland.
Many people have tried to lay the blame for the primary vote at Whitbeck’s feet without any evidence. Ironically, many of Haley’s supporters are also Trump supporters and Trump would have performed very poorly in a convention. Nevertheless, Moulton publicly declared his opposition to Whitbeck in a letter that was published at various blog sites, but he refused to say who he would support as there was no candidate seemingly willing to pick up the banner and lead the charge…until Haley.
So now the race was on, and the campaign to sign up delegates to attend the RPV State Convention began in earnest. Based on my observations it appeared the Whitbeck campaign was having great success on that front. I can only speculate about the Haley campaign’s performance in building support for his race, but a pretty good indication of their success, or lack thereof, can be found in the statement he released on Feb. 20th at VA Right. Just over a month after he declared his candidacy, Vince Haley announced to the world, “Today, I have decided to withdraw from the race for RPV Chairman.” The wording here is very important. More on that later.
In his letter withdrawing from the Chairman’s race, Vince presented a new purpose for his now ended candidacy:
I entered the race at the 11th hour because I firmly opposed the now-rescinded RPV loyalty pledge. I believe that a Virginia Republican Party that is failing to keep its promises has very little standing to demand such an arbitrary pledge of loyalty, especially from its most ardent supporters.
That’s a new one. It is also especially interesting because Mr. Haley had declared himself to be in support of having conventions instead of primaries, and when we hold conventions we require a much more stringent loyalty oath than simply saying, “I am a Republican,” like the now-rescinded statement of affiliation that Haley opposed. In conventions, we require voters to not only declare they are a Republican, but also to pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. We do this to discourage Democrats from voting in our nomination processes so that Republicans can pick the Republican nominee. There was only one candidate running for President that was helped by rescinding the statement of affiliation…Donald Trump.
So was the Haley campaign all a political stunt to get the statement of affiliation rescinded in order to help out Donald Trump? Were the goals stated in his original announcement just a smoke screen? Was the reasoning given for his withdrawal just a convenient excuse to end a campaign that was floundering? At this point, nobody seemed to care, as the race was over and Whitbeck was now unopposed for Chairman.
Fast forward another month and we suddenly see complaints popping up from Ron Hedlund, candidate for RPV State Central Committee and Vince Haley supporter, that John Whitbeck is recruiting delegates to sign up for the 7th District Convention in order to keep Hedlund from winning a seat on State Central. John doesn’t deny this charge and even explains his actions in a statement published here.
This situation caused quite a stir on the blogs and on social media, and at one point there was mention of the possibility of Vince Haley “re-activating” his campaign. Sure enough, about three weeks later came yet another announcement from the Haley campaign saying he was back in, this time with a brand new rationale for wanting to run:
How are we supposed to trust that the RPV organization will play a fair role in party races anywhere in the Commonwealth when the RPV Chairman and his Executive Director have inserted themselves in local party elections in an attempt to defeat their disfavored candidates?
This is not the fair calling of balls and strikes by a neutral umpire.
This is picking a side. It’s an abuse of trust.
Now wait just a minute. What happened to the Chairman candidate who said “we need a party run by and for conservatives?” What happened to the Chairman candidate who would “promote candidates that truly believe in our Virginia Republican Creed – and will fight for it as if the fate of our Republic depends on it. Because it does.” It sounds like Vince likes the idea of a Party Chairman picking sides when he is the one doing the picking, but not when it works against him or his supporters.
No matter how you slice it, this latest move looks like nothing more than simple retaliation, and is the third explanation for why he is running. So Vince wants back in the race, only there is a big, gaping hole in his plan. He WITHDREW from the race, remember? He didn’t suspend his campaign. He didn’t place his campaign on hold. He WITHDREW. There are no “take-backs” in campaigns. This is not student body president we’re talking about here. Vince Haley made a decision to withdraw, and decisions have real consequences. Yet, Mr. Haley doesn’t seem to want to take responsibility for his decision (not a good quality in a potential leader).
Upon hearing of his withdrawal from the race RPV Executive Director John Findlay contacted Mr. Haley via email and informed him that Haley’s Declaration of Candidacy was removed, and Haley responded with a one word reply…”Thanks.” That response shows not only recognition, but acceptance, of the fact that Vince Haley was no longer a properly filed candidate for RPV Chairman. He didn’t object. He didn’t say, “hold on there a minute. I might want to re-activate my campaign.” He was acknowledging that he was out of the race…for good.
The Nominations Committee for the RPV State Convention seems to agree. In a unanimous decision they ruled that Haley’s withdrawal from the race was final, and that he is not a qualified candidate for Chairman. Vince knows this, but he seems to be ignoring the facts and instead arguing that the process is rigged against him and accusing Whitbeck and Findlay of “Soviet-style tactics.” When the State convention convenes I am sure that there will be fireworks, and protests, and parliamentary maneuvers designed to try and turn the convention into a circus…but that’s really the point isn’t it? The only reason to pull a stunt like this is to try and tarnish Whitbeck’s reputation, and by extension, the reputation of the entire party.
Vince Haley has tried three times to explain why he wants to be RPV Chairman, and all three times his explanation not only changes, but does not match up with the facts in evidence. His vacillation on this very basic question that all candidates for any office should easily be able to answer raises serious concerns about his motivations. His seeming willingness to allow himself and his campaign to be used as a political chess piece calls his leadership skills into question. Finally, his indecision on whether or not to even run for the office demonstrates a total lack of commitment to the long, thankless hours this position demands.
As a disclaimer, I will say that I have known John Whitbeck for about 15 years now, back when we were both involved in the Loudoun County Young Republicans. I have always known him to be a man of honor and integrity. Over the last few years John has proven his effectiveness as a leader, both as 10th District Chairman and as RPV Chairman. I supported him for RPV Chairman during Mr. Haley’s first run and I still support him today.
55 comments
[…] Haley, former candidate for the Virginia Senate in the 12th district, and candidate for Chairman of RPV has been appointed a White House […]
John Whitbeck’s got the toughest job in the state. He has to bring together the conservative/TeaParty/activist side of the party with the Moderate/Establishment/Money side of the party who inherently distrust and dislike each other. RPV can’t do without activists or money so Whitbeck has to travel the state, be everything to everyone, try to resolve conflicts in every county – oh and he doesn’t get paid a dime. #MostThanklessJobInVirginia
This is VERY IMPORTANT – Mr. Stanton’s article is in NO WAY an OFFICIAL proclamation of the Nominations Committee!
They did NOT say Vince Haley’s candidacy for RPV chairmanship was not allowed!
As a matter of fact it IS FALSE! As is my statement, “The Nominations Committee unanimously agreed the moon is made of green cheese”.
Mr. Stanton, you are NO MORE a voice for the Nominations Committee than I am!!
And SHAME on you for claiming to speak for them!!
Bottom line: THE DELEGATES HAVE THE FINAL SAY what happens next weekend at the State Conventuon!
We The People DECIDE!! We, the delegates!! Not RPV leadership, or their supporters.
Please keep tryiing to suppress us; every attempt points out the desirability of a csndidate who looks out for the grassroots, and is committed to TRANSPARENCY.
Surely you know the difference between reporting and speaking for someone…
This is the third time you have posted about the ruling of the Nominations Committee. As with both previous times, I point you to the article on Bearing Drift titled, “Haley Ruled Out By RPV Nominations Committee,” and here is the link (again):
http://bearingdrift.com/2016/04/14/haley-ruled-out-by-rpv-nominations-committee/
I am not claiming to speak for the committee. I am simply reporting something that has already appeared on another blog.
I would tell you to take up your issue about the Nominations Committee’s decision with the folks at Bearing Drift if I really thought you didn’t believe it, but since your first comment about this addressed the issue of taking nominations from the floor, I expect you are already well aware of the ruling.
I am of the firm belief that we need to have the Chairman be neutral in the local processes. It is unfair for the Chair to inject themselves into the local process. I think that this is an uncalled for hit piece against any dissent along those lines.
I have no problem with someone who feels that the Chairman should stay neutral in the local processes. I know many people who share that opinion.
I do have a problem with Mr. Haley saying he would get involved in these local races when he first announced for Chairman, and then claim the reason he wants to get back in the race is because he thinks the Chairman should stay neutral. This flip-flop in his stated belief is only because the current Chairman is getting involved against one of Mr. Haley’s friends.
Spare me the rhetoric. This one left out a bit of details.
Follow up to my earlier post where I said I’d contact the Nominations Committee. Unfortunately the RPV does not facilitate that. You can click on a ‘List of Convention Committee Membership’ and download a spreadsheet with 4 pages for the various Committees – Nominations, Resolutions, Rule, and Credentials. And that’s IT: no emails, phone #s – no way to contact them. Sigh – wouldn’t it be nice if there was a link to email all the committee members at once? But, noooo.. there’s not.
ANOTHER example of RPV’s lack of TRANSPARENCY! To hell with us peons; our betters e.g. RPV leadership will take care of all the Convention issues and we grassroots shouldn’t bother about it, eh.
So, Mr. Staton, how did you contact the Nominations Committee? And BTW how are you privy to their decisions?
Guess it pays to have connections.
I tried to tag some of the members on Facebook but don’t know if that will work. Steve Alberston – will you please convey my message and questions to the Nominations Committee? Thank you.
“So, Mr. Staton, how did you contact the Nominations Committee? And BTW how are you privy to their decisions?”
Here is the same link that I posted in response to your original comment.
http://bearingdrift.com/2016/04/14/haley-ruled-out-by-rpv-nominations-committee/
Let the delegates to the State Convention next weekend decide who we want to run our State Party!
It’s really that simple.
Vince Haley submitted his declaration of intent to run, along with his pre-file fee for the chairman seat in time. He met all criteria and is proper candidate according to both the Official Call for the State Convention, as well as the State Party Plan.
There is NOTHING in either the Call or the State Party Plan for his removal of candidacy this way.
Oh, another thing – I’m very curious re your statement, “The nominations committee for the RPV State Convention seems to agree. In a unanimous decision they ruled that Haley’s withdrawal from the race was final, and that he is not a qualified candidate for Chairman.”
Please provide substantiation for that claim. I will be contacting the Nominations Committee myself, and I know of at least a couple members who will be surprised to hear that.
And anyway, we delegates at the Convention STILL have final say! Because in the Call, we have the power to nominate from the floor with a 2/3 vote!
You, and the RPV leadership, can play all the semantic games you want – trying to derail Vince Haley’s campaign this way. What it really comes down to – is YOU are trying to deny the delegates their right to vote!
We delegates are NOT going to put up with that!
“There is NOTHING in either the Call or the State Party Plan for his removal of candidacy this way.”
Haley removed himself. Candidates can do that, and they don’t get to change their minds at the last minute.
“I’m very curious re your statement, “The nominations committee for the RPV State Convention seems to agree. In a unanimous decision they ruled that Haley’s withdrawal from the race was final, and that he is not a qualified candidate for Chairman.”
Please provide substantiation for that claim.”
http://bearingdrift.com/2016/04/14/haley-ruled-out-by-rpv-nominations-committee/
“And anyway, we delegates at the Convention STILL have final say! Because in the Call, we have the power to nominate from the floor with a 2/3 vote!”
Haley withdrew from the race because he didn’t believe he would get 50% of the delegates to vote for him for Chairman. Now he is counting on 67% of the delegates to allow him to put his name back on the ballot after he quit?
“What it really comes down to – is YOU are trying to deny the delegates their right to vote!”
No. What it comes down to is following the rules. Vince filed to run, then Vince quit. It’s as simple as that. If he really wanted to be Chairman, he shouldn’t have withdrawn from the race.
Where does it say candidates can remove themselves? There isn’t anything I’ve seen about refundable fees either. In public elections, you’ve got to submit a form by a deadline to get off the ballot after qualifying otherwise you may be withdrawn but your name is still going to be there.
Either way it would still seem to be up to the nominating committee, but I’ve yet to see anyone point out a formal process for withdrawing ones candidacy for any party office unless it was explicitly written into the call.
A candidate can always remove themselves. That’s not in question. Your analogy of a public election is a good one. A candidate notifies the Board of Elections stating their intention to withdraw from the race, and then their name is removed. Once that happens, and once the ballots are printed, they can’t change their mind and ask to get back on the ballot.
That is what has happened here. Haley withdrew from the race. He was removed as a candidate, and now at the last minute (after the proverbial ballots have been printed), he wants to get back in.
“Either way it would still seem to be up to the nominating committee”
And they have voted unanimously that Haley is not a qualified candidate.
That’s not exactly what happened because there is no formal process like for public elections. What Haley did, in my opinion, is like a candidate saying he’s dropping out of the race and never going through the formal process of having his name removed from the ballot or not completely all the paperwork necessary to do so. We can’t say whether he really dropped out or not because as far as I know there’s no written rules on how exactly the process is to be played out.
Suppose Haley said he was suspending his campaign and told that to RPV? What if RPV did the same thing they are doing now? There’s no process so the only ones who get to make that call is the nominations committee based on no ironclad textual guidance. And Like Aaron says below, accepting that is really up to the convention floor.
I think the difference is the fact that he acknowledged his withdraw, after the fact if only with one word.
As you know and pointed out, RPV is a private organization. They can make and, more importantly, interpret their own rules however the rule making body decides as long as they conform to state code. Because it’s not a public campaign, if the committee decided he quit, I think it’s their call.
He QUIT the campaign. He ENDED it. His campaign is NO LONGER EXISTING. Why is that so hard to comprehend. He could have suspended it. He did NOT suspend it…he ended it.
I think you’re lucky to live in fantasy land if you think that 2/3 of the floor will acknowledge a non-campaign. But if you understand the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, you’ll see why, at the end of the pony show, it doesn’t matter.
Your first three sentences remind me of the Monty Python dead parrot skit.
Never saw the dead parrot skit, but I try to be emphatic about something as obvious as this.
search for “dead parrot” on youtube.
OK…Mr. Haley’s candidacy is dead…not resting, but…it’s dead!
That was funny BTW.
Whitbeck using campaign funds and RPV time to attack a conservative candidate (Ron Hedlund) was not only petty, it was unbecoming for an someone who is supposed to be an impartial internal arbiter for the Party.
Haley can’t declare that as Chairman he will promote and support candidates for local and intra-party contests, and then complain about Whitbeck doing the exact same thing. That makes him a complete hypocrite. Also, nobody used RPV time or funds. It was all personal time and his own funds
Whitbeck was not promoting and supporting a candidate in a local contest… he was using his position to attack someone that he had a personal grudge against. That was petty and unbecoming to the office he holds.
Whitbeck is opposing a candidate who declared publicly that he was not going to vote for Ed Gillespie in the 2014 Senate race. If you are going to be a member of the RPV State Central Committee, you don’t get the luxury of picking and choosing what Republican candidate you want to support.
Ron Hedlund was a private citizen not a SCC member when he made whatever statement he made.
Additionally, from the timeline that lead to Whitbeck’s offering some delegates financial help paying for convention fees but not offering the same help to ALL Republicans who might have wanted to be able to vote for SCC candidates at the conventions, Whitbeck did not initially have an issue with Hedlund’s candidacy… in fact he offered his blessing.
It was only later that Hedlund’s statement came into play. Which makes it at least seem as if that was the excuse not the cause.
“Ron Hedlund was a private citizen not a SCC member when he made whatever statement he made.”
If Ron had made those statements as an SCC member he would have been removed from his position. Past actions are an indicator of future behavior. If people feel that someone is not going to support Republican candidates in the future, then they have every right to oppose their candidacy for a leadership position in the Republican Party.
I have heard far worse from party officials (who were not then removed) aimed at conservatives.
I suspect this is something we will have to agree to disagree on but that is OK because we still agree on a lot… GO CRUZ!
Agreed.
If he was a member of the Republican Party, he automatically lost his membership for non-support. So, shouldn’t he have to be voted back in?
The party doesn’t work that way. If he was an actual unit committee member at the time and had previously signed a statement and was subsequently challenged then yes.
A lot of conventions did not require fees, including the state (optional). My cd did, but there was an offer on the form for those in need. It was only $25 so not big.
What statement was that?
I certainly wouldn’t expect Chairman John to subsidize delegates favoring Mr. H!
In some folks opinions, the non-support of Gillespie would have automatically booted him from the party.
I didn’t notice Bolling getting booted for his non-support of Cuccinelli.
Or Cantor getting booted for not supporting Geary. But it’s there in the rules. Maybe someday they’ll enforce them.
The selective enforcement is what is problematic.
On that we can agree. That happens to be one of my biggest peeves.
Don’t mistake collective acquiescence as selective enforcement — it’s up to the membership to self-police and challenge the oath breakers.
They is we
He got a good deal on a dispensation
And some people just need ‘opposing.’
He was using power not position and it was political not personal. So who won? Was justice meted, or did the local beat the interloper, or does the struggle continue?
What happen, no discussion on Cruz getting crushed in NY?
Trump winning New York was expected and baked into the projections that still have him falling short of 1237.
Who’s projections have him falling short?
Was that news to anyone? Cruz crushed Trump in his home state of Texas and Trump easily won his home state of New York. yawn.
He wasn’t on the ballot in his home province of Alberta.
Cruz didn’t get crushed in NY. They haven’t even tried bribing delegates yet.
Put up some proof that Cruz has bribed anyone or stop lying.
I think the PC term is “taking full advantage of a solid lobbying effort” lol 🙂
yeah that’s pretty funny. trump can offer a weekend in Florida. Cruise can offer a hunting trip in Texas. The clintons can offer at night in the Lincoln bedroom. But in New York it’s all okay because they had a closed primary. In that case bribery is ok. a solid Lobbying effort.
That’s not the case in Virginia.
Maybe you and I should be delegates in New York 🙂 Seriously though, I see your point.
No thanks, I’ve already lived in a state where you had to drive a hundred miles just to find another Republican. Virginia isn’t quite that bad yet. but soon.