By Mike Wood, YRFV Representative to the RPV State Central Committee
As a member of the State Central Committee, and as someone who initially supported the Statement of Affiliation, I now regret it and call upon Chairman John Whitbeck to withdraw the statement of affiliation from the 1 March Primary.
First, I have learned that the State Board of Elections (SBE) has dramatically changed the text of the statement of affiliation we passed in September. Though the operative nine words are unchanged, the rest is substantially different than that adopted by the State Central Committee.
Second, I have learned that the SBE will deny us access to the Republican voter contact information that will voluntarily be supplied on these statement forms. Thus, we won’t get the data we were promised when this statement concept was sold to us. To have any chance of acquiring this data, I understand it will take a legal fight on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grounds. Who knows if that will work?
But third and most disturbing, this statement now violates the Rules of the Republican National Committee. Rule 16(d)(2) says RPV must have published the statement of affiliation qualification in a newspaper of general circulation 90-days before the Primary. I have learned that our Chairman, John Whitbeck, failed to do so. So, if RPV proceeds with the statement requirement with SBE, it is violating RNC rules and Virginia’s delegation will become a prime target for removal by the RNC’s credentials committee, especially if we have a contested convention.
For these reasons, I have come to believe this statement of affiliation is a horrible mistake.
We all know that some Republicans on Capitol Hill have recently hurt our brand, voting for more deficit spending, funding of executive amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, funding of planned parenthood, etc. As a result, so many conservatives we know tell us they no longer consider themselves Republicans.
We need them back—not turned away by a statement.
Primaries are taxpayer-funded. People instinctively believe they have a right to participate. If we wanted a statement of affiliation and to have only Republicans vote, we shouldn’t have picked a Primary in the first place.
It’s time to rescind the statement of affiliation so we can get back the conservatives we’ve lost and win back the White House.
Mike Wood is a conservative activist from Spotsylvania County. He represents the Young Republican Federation of Virginia on the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee.
34 comments
It’s nice that the author has a State Central Committee seat and has had second thoughts, but what good is that? In all the debate about the statement/pledge, I’ve yet to see someone explain what’s necessary to rescind it and how that might come about. That would be useful information.
i disagree. The fact that the author does have an SCC seat is an abomination and a watering down of unit representation. How many other token seats are there and how do we fix that?
I have yet to see the drama about what were the original statement words and what hideous beast did they transform into for the election.
I’m going to have t-shirts and bumperstickers made of the holy worded statement so that the throngs of non-Republicans will clear a path as I walk and drive through life.
Happy New Year everybody!
Well done!
[…] Op/Ed: Rescind the requirement for statement of affiliation […]
Mike: Why do you feel compelled to lie?
You say: “. . . I have learned that the State Board of Elections (SBE) has dramatically
changed the text of the statement of affiliation we passed in
September.”
Not true. The original statement, found here,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/291063668/GOP-Statement-of-Intent
requires a prospective voter to enter:
— signature (required)
— printed name (required)
— email address, phone number, both optional
The original statement reads: “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”
I am the secretary of a county electoral board in Central Virginia. We have received from the State Board of Elections the statements to be used in the 1 March primary. That statement requires a prospective voter to enter:
— signature (required)
— printed name (required)
— email address, phone number, both optional
The SBE statement reads: “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”
Neither the SBE nor Gov. McAuliffe changed your precious statement.
As for your second comment: “Second, I have learned that the SBE will deny us access to the
Republican voter contact information that will voluntarily be supplied
on these statement forms.. . . ”
Quit whining. You want Officers of Election to administer this statement inside the polling places before a person can receive a Republican ballot. Anything that an Officer of Election does is an official election activity. Any form an Officer of Election requires a prospective voter to complete becomes part of the official election material and is the property of the local Electoral Board. The statements will be treated like any other election material: Safeguarded, secured, and locked away in the Circuit Court Clerk’s vault.
Now, I know that purpose of the statement has nothing to do with party loyalty. Go back to this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/291063668/GOP-Statement-of-Intent
Click on the SEE MORE link and read the memo from the RPV SCC. Note the MAIN PURPOSE of the statement is to collect personal data for the RPV to use in recruiting, fund raising, and the like.
It is not the place of Officers of Election to collect partisan data for a political party. That’s your business. If the RPV wants to collect demographic and contact data, then, you need to set up tables, outside the polling places, outside the 40-foot limit, and collect your own statements. As long as you are requiring official Officers of Election to do your work, you’ll play by the SBE rules.
Of course, we all understand you Republicans are bullies and whiners who want to write the rules and force everyone else to abide by them.
Get over it.
It is not actually a lie if he is not aware of it being a lie right?
If you are going to call a man a liar, it probably behooves you to provide both statements (the one approved by the Republican SCC and the one approved by the State Board of Elections) so that readers can decide for themselves if the statement has been changed.
Uh, Mr. W. is on the SCC, voted for the Statement, so it kind of behooves the author of the post to provide the information in the first place — It’s not like he would have written the article above without seeing both texts — but it is intriguing that he didn’t mention it in the article. Hmmmmm???
No more intriguing and less offensive than an answering post that also does not explicitly post the text of the statements even as the poster calls Mr. W a liar.
Wood posted pretty much the same thing that Mr. Fredericks reported days ago. Old Redneck has posted both statements in his comment above. Although I take issue to Republicans being Bullies and Whiners, he is technically accurate.
However, I’d expect Mr. Wood to have more rationale for his grandiose call for non-partisanship, but remember, his position on the SCC is more ceremonial and cosmetic than it is representative.
I am truly amazed as to how the Republican culture seems to be to give away their very raison d’etre.
It’s always funny to see the popping of a bubble in which some people live.
Until you have to clean up the mess.
Ok, let’s break down your argument and see if it makes sense:
Wording: What words were approved? What words are the final?
The fact you didn’t include them means you’re omitting on purpose or don’t know.
The Data: the fact that we wouldn’t get the signature without a FOIA is fine, I trust the elections people and voter rolls and getting the separate volunteer card from a party functionary onsite is fine as well.
RNC Statement published crapola — get real — RNC will seat Virginia just fine, besides, we’ve already been thrown onto a bus by them.
If you voted for this mess, you probably voted for the primary as well — you want to undo one dumbass motion but not the other? Uh-Uh — live by the primary die by the primary!
When are you up for re-election with your district? Or are you one of the Token ‘yout’ vote representing a privileged class of Republican?
I’m always rather taken back that in the domain of politics making a decision or producing a result that turns out to be a mistake requires such hand wringing, hair pulling machinations and kabuki theater to simply correct. For example, when I was in the corporate world I can recall at least two or three occasions over the years where our Form 10-Q quarterly fillings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission were found to be incorrect late in the cycle resulting in us being flagged on our annual 10-K report. This is having the IRS on you butt not a few angry voters or ego coddled politicos. There was no screaming or shouting, no accusations, no CYA, no I did my job it was Joe’s fault, no rationalizations on how or why we make the mistake, no talking point distributions. There was a simple sit down with the appropriate executives to identify the problem area, apply the necessary corrective action and if required put in place new procedures to avoid the mistake in the future. The 10-K was refiled and business, that was never interrupted in the first place resumed, as we were always focused on next quarter’s goals not last year’s mistakes. The American political party process has created a self important bubble around themselves that for some strange reason they believe others find as critical as they seem to and it can frankly sometimes make their tempest(s) in a tea pot events look childish. I find Mr. Wood’s (no relation as far as I know) attitude and approach refreshing, I would encourage more like himself to step outside the bubble and fix what is really a simple miscue.
Nah, this is babytime party politics and serves an important purpose — it allows tantrums to be shared and broadcast in a quasi-meaningful setting. It satisfies political bloodlusts without too much affecting affairs of state. Makes me nostalgic for the times of duels.
AGREE! When will the GOP realize that the party has changed? It’s not a home for progressive republicans and democrats. We’re looking for something REAL, something we can TRUST and COUNT ON! The democrats have moved so far left that the GOP needs to be the Constitutional response to that movement. The war in 2016 will be:
progressives (republicans and democrats) vs. us, the people
K street vs. Main Street
Socialism vs. Capitalism.
The GOP has been a slower movement towards socialism, whether they want to believe it or not. We’re not interested……time for the GOP establishment to wake up and smell the coffee!
You got that right but miss the overall issue of nominee selection.
Don’t constrict me bro, rpv?
Only if you don’t confess to being a Republican.
The pledge is a terrible idea in the first. Delegate David Ramadan who supported the pledge, if he was running for re-election would have not won again because of the pledge.
David had done such a outstanding job reaching out to communities who normally vote Democrat and would be turned off by a pledge.
Pledge pledge pledge pledge pledgedy pledge.
It is a Statement. From what I understand the statement is: “I am a Republican” or words to that effect. Don’t know why it’s such a freaking secret.
Don’t get me started on why David gave up the seat in the first place, but no one would have cared about the pledge and it would not have cost him the election.
The people who would be turned off by signing “I am a Republican” should not be the people selecting the Republican Nominee.
Now, you can try to stop Trump from taking the nomination beforehand, or you can wait and try to steal it with the rest of the establishment at the convention.
Good Luck with that.
Why would I an to stop Trump frm taking the nomination. Secondly, you are wrong about voters who maybe independant, and others who are turned off by the ledge and the Republican establishment as a whole. As far as David he won his first election by around fifty votes.
Are you saying that Republican’s can win with only the support of Rep. If so you must be smoking some kind of weed
It’s a Republican Primary, with ONLY Republican candidates — Including Trump. Why would someone voting in a Republican Primary not acknowledge that they are a Republican? Why should I, as a Republican, care that someone who is NOT a Republican, could be offended by having to state that they are a Republican?
The Republican Establishment as a whole turns ME off, that is why I want only myself and my fellow Republicans to choose OUR nominee?
David dropped out of the Delegate race and cost the Party the seat. I would not blame him if the Republican would have won. If Barbara drops out from the race this spring, i will blame her if her successor loses the race.
Republicans pick the nominee — for a reason. Once we present our nominee, it is up to us to persuade the electorate to vote for our guy.
Good job Mike!
Bravo Mike! Well done! Keep Trucking The Truth! Happy New Year!
Feh, he just repeated your scoop of the Moulton Hypothesis. (That I submit shall be proven False!)
The Donald will want the nuggets gathered from this rich data mine!
Amen!
Well done, Mike. I think that if dropping the pledge is accompanied by an SSC statement validating the concerns of the electorate about the GOP Congress breaking promises and faith with ordinary Americans, along with a hearty welcome to our party, it would turn this mistake completely around.
Powerful!
If you drop the Statement, I will want the Primary kicked to the ashcan as well!
Well, Roc, I understand your position with regard to preferring Republican nominees be selected by Republicans. Lord knows if we’d had closed primaries previously, we may have been saved from John Warner, who endorsed Mark last year before we’d even selected our nominee.
But these are unusual times — times which without deft political handling could spell not only the end of the GOP, but also a severe blow to our Republic. To quote Reagan, it’s a time for choosing, and the RPV had better choose to put itself in position to validate and welcome a sizable part of the electorate which rightly feels betrayed and marginalized.
Cheers!
Dang your Reagan logic!
So your question is: Is it worth pissing any voter off about it??
Well as one who goes out of his way on this forum to promote sweetness, harmony and love, I must agree.
But what is the way to make this primary sandwich palatable to the Rank and File??
I’ll get back to you on this in 2016 (hic).