4:37 PM Sandy’s proposal makes it to the Party Plan Committee, and we’ll see a version of an amendment to be voted on at the December meeting.
And that’s it…that’s all of our business. Thanks for reading.
4:32 PM Kyle McDaniel’s transparency task force resolution passes unanimously, establishing a Communications Best Practices task force. Now on to Sandy’s resolution on opening up the election of at-large delegates.
4:23 PM It seems Mark Berg has worn out his welcome at State Central, and many folks look to this as an opportunity to finally end the endless series of controversies. The 10th District Committee’s banishment of Berg was upheld by a vote of 51-21.
4:19 PM Mark Berg is being accused of a violation of Article I, such that he is barred from participation in Party actions for a period of 4 years. This arises from his failure to disavow a write-in campaign urging people to vote for Berg. He was found to have violated Article I by the 10th District Committee, and we’re being asked to overturn that appeal.
4:01 PM First appeal asking for the 10th District Committee’s disposition of the Frederick County Committee to be overturned was defeated soundly.
3:34 PM Hearing presentations regarding the continuing, festering controversy around the Frederick County matter.
3:27 PM Berg’s second appeal on General Counsel rulings also sails through, after Marston agrees to reissue the opinion at issue with slightly adjusted wording.
3:25 PM We’ve moved on to the Frederick County/Mark Berg/10th District appeals. The first one passed without opposition. It was an appeal of a General Counsel ruling which Chris Marston, the RPV General Counsel, conceded was mistaken.
Next up is Mark Berg making a presentation in support of his appeal regarding interpretation of Article I qualifications.
Having dragged on this long, Berg’s appeal is being heard by a somewhat smaller meeting; some members or their proxies have left.
3:25 PM We’ve moved on to the Frederick County/Mark Berg/10th District appeals. The first one passed without opposition. It was an appeal of a General Counsel ruling which Chris Marston, the RPV General Counsel, conceded was mistaken.
Next up is Mark Berg making a presentation in support of his appeal regarding interpretation of Article I qualifications.
Having dragged on this long, Berg’s appeal is being heard by a somewhat smaller meeting; some members or their proxies have left.
3:20 PM We’ve moved on to the Frederick County/Mark Berg/10th District appeals. The first one passed without opposition. It was an appeal of a General Counsel ruling which Chris Marston, the RPV General Counsel, conceded was mistaken.
Next up is Mark Berg making a presentation in support of his appeal regarding interpretation of Article I qualifications.
Having dragged on this long, Berg’s appeal is being heard by a somewhat smaller meeting; some members or their proxies have left.
3:15 PM Pat McSweeney, on behalf of John Whitbeck, is offering a resolution honoring the lifetime of service by former Lt. Governor John Hager on the occasion of his 80th birthday.
3:10 PM My take: our friend Paul Prados raises some good and genuine concerns, and Dennis Free correctly pointed out that overturning the mass meeting is a serious thing not to be taken lightly.
I don’t think this has been taken lightly. I stand with Morton Blackwell: when we’ve got evidence that the mass meeting itself was corrupted by no attempt to filter out non-Republicans, and that non-Republicans were recruited to participate, we have a responsibility to ensure such efforts aren’t rewarded. If we do otherwise, we’re just inviting more of it in the future.
Alas, the motion to overturn the 7th District’s disposition of the question was passed on a roll call vote (45 votes in favor). This means the original mass meeting was upheld.
This underscores the broader point: conservatives have to work that much harder to get their people out at mass meetings.
2:57 PM McSweeney responds to Prados that he’s only seeing the list of anticipated participants, not actual participants. On the list of actual participants, there were at least 51 non-Republicans, more than the margin of his opponent Jean Gannon’s victory.
Sandy Bourne makes a motion to shut off debate, which was voted down by large majority on a voice vote.
Morton Blackwell rises to speak. He says that having over 50 Democrats and other opponents of Republicans participating in a mass meeting is a huge problem that cannot be allowed to stand.
2:50 PM 11th District Chairman Paul Prados says he’s disturbed by the lack of clarity in the presentations. He says that while he understands McSweeney’s point about not being able to get the list of people to challenge, based on his examination of the facts, the challengeable votes would not have changed the outcome, so he will not support overturning the mass meeting.
2:47 PM Motion to postpone fails. Debate on Powhatan resumes.
2:41 PM First District Chairman Eric Herr has moved to table the Powhatan appeal until after the election, bringing it up at our December meeting.
2:29 PM This is a dynamic we have seen in a number or localities over the years. When the Republican Party is really the only game in town, and when they operate the nominating processes for local officials, then the Party committee becomes a target for influence from outside the Party. Fauquier is a great example of this, where members of the committee in the past have broadcast to the public that anyone (including “Democrats, Progressives, Independents, Libertarians”) could participate in the election of the committee and its chairman.
2:23 PM Pat McSweeney giving his side of the argument now. Talks about how there were vocal supporters of Democrat candidates, admitted Democrats, staff members and contributors for Democrats totaling over 4 dozen who were allowed to participate in the mass meeting, with no reasonable opportunity for people who didn’t like that idea to challenge it.
2:16 PM Obviously the break was longer than 5 minutes. We’ve resumed business, and now both sides are presenting arguments about the Powhatan mass meeting appeal. If I understand correctly, one of the fundamental issues here is the alleged failure of the credentials committee in that meeting to examine the qualifications of the participants. Incumbent Powhatan Chairman Pat McSweeney has documented that several dozen of the participants were not qualified. Mike Thomas argues that the time for making those challenges was at the mass meeting itself, and in the absence of such challenges, the window closes.
I’m not wholly familiar with the facts yet, but I have to take issue with Mike’s argument. If the mass meeting has a ton of unqualified people participating, it is susceptible to invalidation. One cannot say that a mass meeting’s failure to enforce the Party’s qualifications (these are not optional) is OK when it can be demonstrated that a large proportion of those voting at the mass meeting aren’t qualified to have done so.
1:39 PM We’re in recess for 5 minutes before proceeding to the Powhatan mass meeting appeal.
1:35 PM Voting breaking down along traditional lines, with only a handful of moves from the everyday breakdown. The vote is 41-40 for a primary. Thanks, Ron.
1:34 PM 5th District Chairman Lynn Tucker, and Del. Jackson Miller (R-Prince William), both honor their word, voting convention.
1:27 PM Unclear from the speeches how this is going to turn out. We’ll be proceeding to the vote shortly.
1:20 PM Only about 10 minutes of debate left.
1:16 PM Clara Belle Wheeler, a representative from the 5th District who also sits on the State Board of Elections, disregards the compromise from last year, and speaks strongly in favor of primaries. Makes a more compelling case for alternatives like firehouse primaries.
1:15 PM Doc Troxel makes a really compelling argument regarding maintaining our integrity, and the voters’ trust in us, by sticking to the deal. Earlier, Bob Watson, my colleague from the First District, made the very relevant argument that military voters actually can now participate in conventions more easily than they do in a primary.
1:08 PM More back and forth, with typical pro-convention/pro-primary arguments.
1:03 PM Our new Secretary Jill Cook argues primaries allow for military participation. Andrew Nicholson makes the point that primaries fleece local taxpayers. He’s followed by Ben Dessart, who says that, “If you’re for a convention, you’re silencing the future generation.”
12:57 PM Ron Hedlund reiterates that he likes conventions, just not the people who would run this run. Says he’s going to take the Fellowship road less traveled, drawing on Gov. Pence’s reference to the Robert Frost poem. Ron is followed by Chip Muir, speaking in favor of the compromise. Positive notes about party unity, and stopping constant fighting over process.
12:54 PM Debate is being conducted at a high level…very little in the way of rhetorical cheap shots. Very respectful. Sandy Liddy Bourne, a State Central rep from the 8th District, made the point that a Senate race next year would make a convention that much more difficult. I think that presumes a little too much.
12:32 PM I made my motion: “Mr. Chairman, I move to adhere to the understanding this body reached in June 2015, and we choose a Convention, and adopt the call as circulated, for the 2017 nomination for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General.” Second District Chairman Dennis Free makes a substitute motion to adopt a primary. Now into the debate.
12:03 PM The proposal, reflected in the draft Official Call for the convention, envisions a convention at the John Paul Jones Arena on the campus of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. When Findlay concludes his presentation, your humble correspondent will make the motion to adopt the draft call to hold a 2017 nominating convention.
12:01 PM The projection on attendance is 12,000-15,000. This, of course, envisions a Trump victory obviating the need for nomination of a Senate candidate to replace Tim Kaine.
11:58 AM We’re now moving on to the main event, which is prefaced by a presentation being delivered by executive director John Findlay giving an overview of the convention proposal that is on the agenda.
11:49 AM The body is discussing the terms of debate on the convention vs. primary issue. Debate will be limited to 1.5 hours total, with each speaker limited to 2 minutes, alternating between speakers on each side of the question.
We’re also discussing terms for the debates on appeals.
11:45 AM Back from executive session. 11th District Chairman Paul Prados asked that portion of the chairman’s report delivered during executive session be made non-confidential. His motion was defeated.
The executive director is delivering the remainder of the chairman’s report, and announces an initiative to reform the contest and appeals process. In the last three years, appeals and contests have BY FAR taken more time for the party apparatus to deal with than any other single type of work. The initiative is being handled by a committee of 10 State Central members appointed by the chairman to evaluate ideas for reform.
11:29 AM Still in executive session.
10:56 AM Running through other business, and now going into executive session to discuss finances. We have another guest speaker coming, 7th District Rep. Dave Brat, who will address us after executive session.
10:55 AM Next speaker is Republican National Committeewoman Cynthia Dunbar. Cynthia talks about how, in her orientation as a new RNC member, she discovered the consent decree under which RNC is prohibited from fighting voter fraud. Dunbar promises to do whatever possible to get RNC out from under those restrictions, which she described as having been agreed to surreptitiously by the General Counsel and without the approval of the national committee itself.
10:51 AM Pence makes a well-received joke about being brief, because he’s seen the very long agenda in front of the Committee. Pence closes with a very moving exhortation for us all to work to maintain and extend the exceptionalism of America.
10:44 AM Pence promises lower marginal tax rates across the board. Gets huge applause. Talks about a Trump moratorium on new regulations and red tape, and rolling back unconstitutional executive orders issued by Barack Obama. Promises the Trump administration will end the war on coal.  Says the most important issue of the election is the “course and destiny of the Supreme Court over the next 40 years.”
10:44 AM Pence promises lower marginal tax rates across the board. Gets huge applause. Talks about a Trump moratorium on new regulations and red tape, and rolling back unconstitutional executive orders issued by Barack Obama. Promises the Trump administration will end the war on coal.  Says the most important issue of the election is the “course and destiny of the Supreme Court over the next 40 years.”
10:40 AM Pence arrives to raucous cheers and applause. Tells the assembled party leaders that the road to the White House runs straight through Virginia, and that when they win, he and his running mate will have Morton Blackwell’s rules in the West Wing.
Pence is on his way to a rally later today in Loudoun County.
10:35 AM In a surprise move, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, our vice presidential nominee, has apparently entered the building!
10:30 AM Henrico Sheriff Mike Wade, nominee for Congress in the 4th District, is a guest speaker. After redistricting, the 4th is a difficult district for Republicans, but Wade is explaining that it is a winnable race against state Sen. Don McEachin (D-Richmond).
10:22 AM Lots of people gathered in the guest section who are here to see to the debate of various appeals. Most of these folks are interested in the outcome of a series of appeals arising out of controversies in Frederick County and the 10th Congressional District, and one arising out of the Powhatan County mass meeting in the 7th Congressional District.
10:11 AM The gavel has come down. First Vice Chairman Mike Thomas is presiding, as RPV Chairman John Whitbeck is attending a sick child. Our prayers are with him.
10:27 AM Mike Thomas announces he will recuse himself from the role of chairman during the hearing of the Powhatan appeal, as he was a participant in the underlying dispute, and he wished to not give any impression of unfairness. Western Regional Vice Chairman Wendell Walker will take the gavel during that debate. Mike didn’t have to do that, so he is to be applauded for showing great leadership on this issue.
10:22 AM Lots of people gathered in the guest section who are here to see to the debate of various appeals. Most of these folks are interested in the outcome of a series of appeals arising out of controversies in Frederick County and the 10th Congressional District, and one arising out of the Powhatan County mass meeting in the 7th Congressional District.
10:11 AM The gavel has come down. First Vice Chairman Mike Thomas is presiding, as RPV Chairman John Whitbeck is attending a sick child. Our prayers are with him.
61 comments
From an outsider’s perpective, I read Mr. Hedlund’s article at http://www.varight.com/news/time-to-call-a-spade-a-spade-by-ron-l-hedlund/ carefully. If I understand it correctly, he believes in conventions, but due to the recent culmination of long-standing personal misgivings, he abruptly voted for a populist process with which he also has misgivings.
Given Hedlund’s stated desire to oppose secrecy, he waited pretty long to do anything about it. Given the unexpected visit by the Trump’s running mate shortly before Hedlund’s reversal, one has to question the optics of his behavior.
Wow. Ron Hedlund campaigned on a platform to honor the deal and vote for a convention in 2017. Then he goes back on his word. Doesn’t anyone’s word matter in this Party anymore?
Apparently not. The good news is, Ron Hedlund is done in the Republican Party of Virginia. John Whitbeck was right about Hedlund!
Does this mean Mark Berg is back in the party, again?
No, he lost.
Welp, no surprises in any of these results. I guess if you are going to be able to influence any kind of RPV meeting, you are going to have to charter a bunch of buses and load them up with as many homeless people you can find. Do it like the Clinton’s, give each one 50 bucks to support your agenda.
HUh? Only members of SCC can vote in these meetings.
Maybe, but Dems can apparently attend and vote in the mass meetings that help elect the SCC. Isn’t that the gist of McSweeney’s argument that got over ruled?
Money well spent in the 7th Mr. Albertson!
Touche’, Mr. Thomas.
The man has a point.
You primary guys just gave Wagner what he worked so hard for… You gave Frank Wagner his Primary and elected Ralph Northam. Remember I said this November 2017.
http://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/sen-frank-wagner-from-virginia-beach-announces-run-for-gop/article_646d8cb8-8ee7-50ce-81da-5d35b8ff8e3f.html
You’re giving Wagner way too much credit here man…Ed will beat him.
And so ends conventions in Virginia and we have Ron Hedlund to thank for that.
Yes!! I knew our team could do it! Go Adams for Atty Gen!
Adams and his team should be ashamed for what they did. Engaging in back room underhanded tactics to influence the vote are awful. Shame! Not worthy of the office.
Huh? Are you nuts? A member of the Adams team held a proxy to this meeting and he voted for a convention!
Do you work for Bell or Smith?
Ok sure, Jeanine. If you believe that the McGuire Woods mega candidate Adams wanted a convention, then Ron Hedlund has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Give me a break. Let’s stop fooling ourselves here. That’s why Adams went negative on Rob:
http://www.vafirstfoundation.org/
Wait a minute– Adams works for McGuire Woods? Oh jeeez…
IP addresses don’t lie Sailor.
If you knew ANYTHING about how politics works in Virginia you would know why a convention benefits Adams. duh.
No, I don’t think that’s true, I KNOW it’s true. Please stop. You aren’t helping your candidate.
So Sailor, from your moms basement, can you indicate whether Bell received a contribution from McGuire Woods? Not that there is anything sinister about that..
You are clearly full of horseshit. Adams camp was not involved on either side.
Yes, I suspect our sailor is a Chuck Smith fan or employee.
Yes, he is full of horseshit. He has nothing to do with the Adams campaign. And I seriously doubt he’s with Bell because Bell is too principled for this kind of crap. He certainly isn’t helping his candidate, Mr. Smith.
Be careful what you wish for……..I don’t think you understand what this means for your candidate.
What do you mean? This is what we’ve worked for the whole time.
Not even close. A primary does not help Adams! It helps candidates with the biggest name recognition and that’s not Adams.
Since I know people who really are on the Adams campaign, I know you are full of BS. Knock it off. Use one screen name. Last warning.
Stop changing screen names. Stick with one name so you aren’t talking to yourself.
I have no clue who this poster is, but more importantly, neither does John Adams. I have been volunteering with the campaign since day one, which any one can easily look into since I have the integrity to post under my actual name, rather than parade out lies under an anonymous alias.
We have the benefit here in Virginia of having two very strong candidates for our nomination for AG next cycle. I have certainly been critical of Rob Bell’s qualifications to be the Commonwealth’s lead attorney, because I believe John–although he has never been a politician–has always been an extraordinary litigator and public servant. But there is simply no reason to spread misinformation about any of the candidates–there’s too much good stuff to debate on the merits. Please leave the spreading of misinformation to the Clintons.
John has consistently spoken about his preference for a convention as he’s traveled the state, which I, unlike this “Prc_dreamer,” have seen firsthand. And as others have noted already, a campaign staff member yesterday carried a proxy and voted *for a convention*. This comment, and the similar one below, is baseless and nonsensical.
Prc_dreamer has no affiliation with the Adams campaign, and he is intentionally misrepresenting John’s positions. I hope this poster is not affiliated with any of the other campaigns. Based on his tactics, I seriously doubt he is.
I would like to hear more of Miss Wheeler’s arguments. It’s refreshing to hear somebody at least suggest this isn’t a binary choice but rather one that could be sorted out through party plan reform.
Not the first to raise this, but I do think we now have the impetus to start serious exploration of alternative methods.
Ron Hedlund has bee
Yep. Hey, Ron. Who’s going to be the grassroots candidate now?
Thanks Ron. You promised to vote for a convention. At your first opportunity you voted for a primary. It won’t be forgotten. The establishment played you like a fiddle. Congrats!
I agree Jeanine Martin , Ron is bought and paid for , he sold the conservatives so out. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE RON HEDLUND IS BANISHED FROM CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.
Works for me and all the conservatives I know. Ron is done in politics. Done.
Is this what you really want to say to him ??
Jill has stated publicly she is fine with either. Don’t put words in her mouth please.
Good point, Jill may have had nothing to do with Ron selling out conservatives. He did it all on his own.
The Conservative Fellowship and it’s PAC associations does not EQUAL the sum total of Virginia conservatism both you and Steve Albertson and a small (and growing smaller by the day) group of self proclaimed elite party activists need to get your head wrapped around that FACT. The voters are quickly coming up to speed on the behind the curtain agenda activities.
Ron Hedlund was presented an ultimatum and his conscience did not allow him to abide by the marching orders, If you find fault with that I will let others judge who is in need of life counseling. The knowledgeable are completely aware of exactly what when on here and maligning a decent Virginia conservative via this blog is not going to change the facts.
How is it an ultimatum to vote in alignment with how you ran for office? Crazy times.
Understand the demands made understand the facts. I suggest you give Mr Hedlind a call or drop him a note and perhaps he will be willing to expound to you his concerns regarding conventions and what shifted his thinking on the issue.
Crazy times, believe you are wrong there, actually I’m somewhat encouraged as people are starting to smarten up regarding who people claim to be and who they actually are Mr. McGrane.
And who do you claim to be Mr. Wood? Who are you actually?
In my view, the only reason to vote for primary over convention in a state that has no party registration, is so you can use Democrats to defeat your Republican opponents in a primary. Is that not true Mr. Wood?
Aren’t the Democrats having a primary the same day?
Probably not. Their candidate for Governor will be Northam. Democrats usually prefer small state conventions.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that the Democrats will have a primary.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_31c08919-6161-53a1-a29c-bc7d21176a6a.html
Not sure who that helps, or hurts on our side.
You tell me.
No, far from it but it is the typical meme sold by certain elements of the Republican party depicting themselves as the supporters of “grassroots” conservatives. Factual, data based examples of Democrats really impacting an actual primary or race event in Virginia are rare to largely nonexistent if you look at this with an open mind. Plenty of horror story anecdotes but very few to no data based facts to draw any firm conclusions upon.
Here is one of the factual variety kindly provided to me on-line by a former state district chairman after a rather fruitless search on my part to locate some actual data rather then political motivated impressions on the question. This individual employed the Virginia Election Commission voter rolls, 4 years ago, as Chairman of a small local committee. He asked the VEC for a list of only those people who had voted in three or more Republican Primaries in the past ten years. VEC came back with a list of 550 people. He sent what he called a “red meat” fundraiser letter to each of these individuals and then followed up with a phone call. Fifty (50) on this list he viewed as Democrat activists. All factually based and easily verifiable information with not an antidote one involved. I looked at this one data point (would have loved to had more examples but my NO second hand tales, could have been but don’t know or it’s so rule effectively eliminated out the other respondents). So I worked with what I had and drew the following conclusions from the example.
Over a decade time span assuming around (15-20 total primaries over the period with 20 being on the high side) we have a total of 10% possible Democratic participation before factoring in the assumption that this percentage group did not vote in each and every primary. If we use the former chairman’s three (3) or more criteria as a rule of thumb the vote count impact might be more along the lines of 3% if you follow my logic and assumptions. I’m not belittling a 3% possible impact though it’s likely impossible to ascertain whether this resulted from deliberate attempts to push forward the weaker opponent from the Democratic perspective or just policy related issues but I still frankly don’t see how in this district with a heavy Republican base (65-70% by the chairman’s estimation) that small percentage would swing much of anything (it’s within the margin of error of most political polling) but I grant it’s not totally impossible.
Here is the issue netted out from my perspective. Would you rather take the 3% fudge factor and NOT exclude the independent vote every time with the primary process rather then the gated credentials checking convention process? I have always maintained over my many voting election cycles as a Republican that it is typically the turnout that puts candidates in office not the selection of the “perfect†candidate itself what ever that may entail. The one exception over the years to that was Ronald Reagan and he was truly unique in persona and time. My issue is about winning, many who have apoplexy over this issue are more concerned about control (often control by their particular party wing). You are more then free to draw your own assessments of the situation but not on the scant facts that appear readily available on the issue itself. Until we place better controls and management process in place to restrict some of the political behavior we have seen at recent convention events the state primary is the only reasonable answer and the dire predictions of Democratic contamination seem very open to factual debate.
Ron has explained his reasons on FB but few are buying it. The establishment and their cronies played him like a fiddle and got him to do their bidding.
Funny you choose to push that interpretation as 100% of his issues as he clearly laid them out had to do with his fellow Conservative Fellowship colleagues and their use and misuse of the convention process to their own specific political ends. I take it though that you believe you know the man’s reasons and change of position better then he does himself and as he has explicitly expressed them. Ouija board, crystal ball or is it Hillary’s evil conspiracy fallback?
He ran with a promise of supporting conventions, always. At the first opportunity he reneged. It’s really very simple.
Oh come on. This is a new century. Candidates only tell you what you want to hear.
Look, here is a word: CANDIDATE.
Check it over thoroughly. Now, did you see the word PROMISE in there? Anywhere?
In fact, from a candidate’s point of view only two letters are in both words.
I and E.
Which is political shorthand for:
“I EMBELLISH”.
Now, haven’t you found that to be true in most runs for political office?
You thought Trump’s promise to build a border wall was total nuttiness. Why should such thoughts be any different in state party politics?
Unsurprising that Bourne would make an issue of the Senate race as a reason not to have a convention, it fits a prefabricated narrative.
Nonsense in any case, the same folks will show up to the convention for the most part, whether it’s 3 statewide races or 4.
Correction: I made two points:First,my concern about the military vote in the nominating process, the procedure is wholly inadequate to include active duty to participate in a convention. In fact, only 1 participated at the last convention. Secondly, I raised the issue of the potential of a U.S. Senate nomination-which is the other big elephant in the room. It would be the first time in our history that we would have 4 statewide nominations and a mixture of state and federal. I then emphasized that the military should be able to participate in a nominating contest for a federal office for a candidate who potentially will be voting to send them to war and appropriate DOD funding. If you attended the meeting Kenyon, you would be better informed. I am more than happy to work on the procedure to include the military when we go to convention to nominate delegates in the presidential contest 4 years from now.
Well, as I pointed out repeatedly, absentee ballots just about NEVER make it to folks deployed overseas in time anyhow. As it stands, as Steve A. said, it’s easier for these folks to participate in a convention than in a primary, so that trope doesn’t hold.
As to my attendance yesterday, if I’d been elected, I would’ve been there. Given that I wasn’t, I chose to attend my stepson’s graduation from Basic at Ft. Sill. Was flying back as the meeting took place. Given, that support for the military is your shtick, figure you’d appreciate that.
Thanks for the live blog. Following as it unfolds.