The flood of misinformation continues, so even though the votes are settled, it’s worth clarifying a few things.[read_more]
First, I want to again congratulate the folks who prevailed on the nomination method decision Saturday. We had a great debate, and everyone conducted themselves very well. Though my side on this issue lost, I know I speak for everyone when I say that we will now turn our energies toward GOP victories this year and next, where there is a lot that unites us as a Party (e.g., it’s awesome to see pro-primary and pro-convention folks getting behind some of the same candidates).
I bear no one any ill-will, nor do I want to re-argue the main question, but I do want to set the record straight on a few things.
1. There was no grand “compromise.” The motion that passed on Saturday was to have a primary to bind Virginia’s delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention. The motion also had some superfluous language by which it “recommend[ed]” adoption of a Convention as the method of nomination for statewide offices in 2017. The State Central Committee has not decided the 2017 nomination method. Positioning the anti-Convention vote as some sort of compromise was politically smart, but completely inaccurate.
2. Military members can attend and vote at conventions. Convention opponents like to argue for primaries by saying active duty military are prohibited from participating in conventions. They site DOD Directive 1344.10 as barring military participation.
Problem is, this isn’t true. It was my mistake for thinking this was more widely known. Active duty military can’t stand for election to partisan offices (including being elected as a convention delegate), but RPV last year changed its rules so that any active duty military member is made a delegate automatically upon filing, so they can skip the election. After that, as confirmed by the DOD, military regulations do not prevent active duty military from attending and voting at a convention.
First District GOP Chairman Eric Herr and I worked directly with DOD on securing an updated interpretation of the relevant regulation. After intervention by Rep. Rob Wittman, DOD agreed to modify their approach:
“[T]he mere act of voting by a military member at such convention or meeting, in lieu of a primary, is equivalent to attendance as a spectator and is permissible…”
The full letter making this interpretation is embedded below.
3. The RPV is not suing anyone over the Incumbent Protection Act. My old friend Lynn Mitchell had a good write up of the meeting (from a somewhat different perspective than mine, LOL), but followed yesterday with an erroneous headline: “Here we go again: RPV Resurrects Lawsuit in Emmett Hanger’s 24th Senate District.” It’s an easy mistake to make, but there is no resurrection of any lawsuit. There is an appeal of an earlier decision by the 24th Senate District Republican Committee, which is the plaintiff in that suit. In that decision, the judge wrote the following:
“Neither the State Central Committee nor the RPV itself has sought to intervene and no party has offered any evidence as to what the Party meant by the disputed provision. . .The State Central Committee and the RPV are not parties to this case and their interpretation of the Plan is unknown.”
Because the earlier decision relied on a mistaken interpretation of the RPV rules (a section of which is modified by another section that went unnoticed by the judge), all that the Party did on Saturday was authorize the filing of a friend of the court brief setting forth the Party’s position on the question. It passed with overwhelming support (vote count wasn’t announced, but it was apparent that it was at least a 2-to-1 vote in favor). Thus, RPV neither resurrected the lawsuit nor joined in it…it’s just letting the appellate court know what its views are.
4. “Disenfranchsement” silliness. Millions of Virginia voters (Democrats and independents included) were shut out from participating in the decision on Saturday, which was made by just 81 Party insiders who had undergone the extreme burden of driving someplace far away, and who were themselves elected at “closed” conventions, which in turn only had several thousand participants. And the meeting Saturday HAD NO ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY present. When will the party learn that winning is about inclusion and addition, not exclusion? Seriously, did no one give any thought to how they were disenfranchising those who were not able to participate?!?
OK, yes, I’m just kidding, and concede the comparison is somewhat unfair. But seriously, we’re overworking the verb “disenfranchise.” Matt “Hallmighty” Hall™ even complained how college students would be disenfranchised by a Convention on a Saturday in March because that’s when college midterms happen and students might not want to miss a day of study to be a delegate. (To be clear, I like Matt, and think we agree a whole lot more than we disagree).
Although Hall pushes a serious argument to the point of absurdity, the concern about maximizing participation in the process is, of course, completely legitimate. The two sides of the question simply have an honest disagreement about which kind of maximized participation is best for the GOP.
But let’s please get past the “disenfranchisement” nonsense, and the idea that an internal Party process is somehow illegitimate if it doesn’t include every Republican. The same Conventions that elect delegates to the National Convention are the same Conventions that elect members of the State Central Committee. They are representative bodies formed by processes open to all Republicans in every corner of the state. That representative character would have been enhanced (not diminished) if that same process had also been used to bind our delegates.
45 comments
How about explaining the mythical sub-committee that will figure out how to limit participation to the number of people the venue selected can hold? As the party grows, hopefully, we will at some time reach a point where even a gubernatorial convention will exceed ~14,000. If everything pro-convention folks want comes to fruition, we should easily exceed the capacity of any venue available.
So what’s the plan? How would this sub-committee go about limiting participation by Republicans? Especially if the anti-slating amendment were to pass in the future.
because as Republicans, it seems we want to limit our numbers rather than expand them. While not a math major, i can see that shrinking our numbers when the Dems add to their votes means we have fewer votes. & fewer votes translates to losing.
Steve – can you explain why you used the Virginia seal as part of your presentation to the RPV? It is illegal to use the seal without the permission of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and carries a fine and jail sentence as punishment. For a guy who is quick to challenge others, shouldn’t you follow the laws of the Commonwealth? And as a lawyer, don’t you need to report this violation to the bar so they can investigate?
How do you know there are a lot of republicans? Do you have a magic Ouija board that tells you who is a republican and who isn’t?
The truth of the matter is that the only persons who have identified themselves as republican in Virginia are the ones who attend republican mass meetings, conventions, and retreats. Oh and of course the incumbents who automatically get to pick their method of nomination free of the hassles from “a lot of republicans” like the ones mentioned above.
All those other potential voters who “want a direct vote in who the nominee is” are non-affiliated until the moment they step into the polling place and select their ballot. If they were real republicans then the RPV wouldn’t need stupid cr@p like loyalty oaths.
Steve, I think you’re going to get a lot of pushback on item #4, and for good reason. You aren’t even coming close to characterizing the pro-primary argument here.
There are a lot of Republicans who want a direct vote in who the nominee is, who cannot travel to a convention to cast such a vote. You know the reasons as well as I do (business, family, elderly, poverty, deployment). Being in college is as legitimate of a reason as any of those. You may quibble with the “disenfranchisement” label, and perhaps its a bit hyperbolic, but there’s no denying that conventions are exclusionary by design.
Going to a local mass meeting and voting for a “representative” who you hope casts a vote for someone is such a weak alternative that I’m honestly surprised you thought anyone would be assuaged by the prospect. Almost all other states allow their Republicans to have a vote for a nominee; why shouldn’t Virginia?
Ok, so here goes.
1. I support conventions over primary’s. The main reason…. It keeps out the Democrats. If anyone can recall Jean Marie Davis had 400 Democrat Delegates filed in the 2013 convention. They were disqualified. Also as a fiscal conservative, I believe the party should pay it’s own bills and not strap the taxpayers. Apparently not all Republicans are fiscal conservatives.
2. The party can’t afford a convention. PLEASE! To my knowledge the 2013 convention was so successful that it paid the debt for the 2009 convention. Just copy and paste. Furthermore, if we are soooo strapped for funds, Reagan George has provided John Whitbeck with a financial plan for the future of RPV. It will stabilize the check book. Reagan did all of this work for THE PARTY free. One would think Mr. Whitbeck eternally grateful, we shall see.
3. Now if we are to start conducting the party as the conservative party then perhaps our party would hold the elected accountable to our creed. It’s not a guideline or a nice thought. IT’S OUR CREED.
Many of our elected Republicans take donations (aka buy off) from more than just it’s members, like lobbyist and consultant firms. So why shouldn’t those “R” give a little back to the party? For instance, the very members of congress had quite the take for giving us OBAMATRADE. Please see:
http://rickwells.us/boehner-got-5-million-ryan-2-million-m…/
Any accountability here???
4. We need to be the party of inclusion. O REALLY! Well please explain why Bruce Meyers is still working and pressuring Congressman Scott Rigell to get on the band wagon of getting rid of anyone he doesn’t like. Bruce Meyer went to the RPVB breakfast on Saturday morning, while others went to a far off land at their own expense to conduct business for the RPV. Bruce Meyer picked the ole scab of 2014 mass meetings. He accused everyone that didn’t agree with him of cheating, lying and pillaging. He even made multiple insults about Curtis Colgate. Isn’t Bruce just precious. Less he forgets, he was removed from the rules committee in the RPVB mass meeting for just that, cheating. Thanks for ALL the inclusion. I am also told attacks like this are made state wide. Nice real nice.
5. Only a couple of candidates will pay the filing fee. Are you kidding me? Seriously, if you buy that I’ve got a diamond mine I’ll sell you for a dime. Any real candidate that truly wants to be president will jump at the opportunity to pay the filing fee. They will spend far less on that and I might add the FREE transportation for the pre-filed delegates then they will on what it will cost them in a primary.
Just Sayn
1) You are willing to keep out tens of thousands of actual Republicans from the process in order to ensure that a couple hundred Democrats don’t show up? Is it really worth that much? Fiscal conservatism means ensuring government does not spend more a than it takes in, and focuses money in core government functions. Elections are core government functions. Primaries are not incompatible with fiscal conservatism.
2) There are a lot of claims about costs of conventions and how the money is raised, but I have yet to see anything on paper that makes the case using past figures about past conventions and their impact on RPV’s overall finances. If that’s out there, it should probably get wider publication. I haven’t seen Reagan’s plan – why not share it?
3) You mean like the dues that NRCC and other groups charge members of Congress that people complain about?
4) Both sides okay this game. It will never end.
5) No, they won’t. They will make a cost/benefit analysis. By the time the convention rolled around, two-thirds of them will have dropped out. They won’t have any money and they won’t pay the fees. There are candidates who won’t play in some of the early states, and they want to be president. There’s a calculus involved in primary strategy and it didn’t have to include Virginia if we did something stupid.
Brian thanks for sharing your belly button. Glad you have one like everyone else. The facts are, you’re just wrong.
1. No Republican would ever be excluded.
2. There is no claim it’s the fact. Look at the 2009 record then 2013. If you don’t have access to that ask the chairman to assist you.
3. No I mean the $$ that is taken for a vote. Not party affiliation.
4. Please share the “other side” example.
5. Yes they will. Any candidate that doesn’t pay doesn’t want to be president.
Um, okay.
1. Yes, tens of thousands would be. The claim that conventions don’t exclude because you get to vote for people to represent you is a joke. Primaries give you the chance to vote for your candidate of choice without middle men who don’t have to vote how you want them to.
2. What 2009 record? What 2013? What records are you talking about? All of this information should be available publicly where no one has to ask anybody for it.
3. You’re missing my point. First, the party shouldn’t be holding anybody responsible. That’s not the party’s job. That’s the voters job. The party should be supporting our elected officials and nominees. Second, you said that “So why shouldn’t those “R” give a little back to the party?” and that reminds me of the dues that members of Congress have to pay to groups like the NRCC, and I think I’ve heard more than one person on the far right complain that those were unfair.
4. Just look at how the SCC votes in 2013 happened. This is politics, there are personalities involved. It’s never going to end.
5. You’re just wrong on this one, Waverly. There’s more to it than just paying. Nobody is going to pay and then do nothing. That payment is just a small part of the investment they’d have to make in order to play in the Commonwealth, and we’re not a small state. Nobody is going to make the decision to get involved here if we make it even harder and more expensive and our process is so late that it really doesn’t matter. I spoke to two campaigns who had serious qualms about Virginia if there was a convention.
1. No they are not excluded. Voters actually get to be hands on with the candidate. That never happens in a primary. You don’t have to vote the way “A Middle Man ” tells you in a convention. But in a primary the turn out over the cost is pathetic.
2. Now are you saying because you can find the records the don’t exist? Or are you saying somebody’s cookn the books.
3. As a party we most certainly should be holding who we support accountable. It’s a joke not to. That is exactly why so many conservatives don’t vote. The people have lost faith in the Republican Party. Every chair RPV has come out with press releases against the Democrats but wont hold their own accountable, hypocrites much. The people wont come back to the party for this.
4. So basically no other example exist.
5. Brian you’re just wrong.
Smooches
1. Of course they’re excluded. If they can’t get there, they’re not included. That’s the point. Not everybody has the time, money and physical ability to get to a convention. Everybody can get to a primary.
2. I’m saying that I have seen no evidence of the claim that you have made. If you’ve got it, please let us know, because I’d like to see it.
3. Again, it’s voters responsibility to hold folks accountable. They do that by voting against them. The party’s job isn’t to hold elected officials accountable. It’s not good at doing that, and usually when it does that it turns more people off. We don’t want RPV picking our candidates any more than we want Democrats picking our candidates. We want to pick our candidates, and RPV and the local units should simply provide the way to do so, not put their thumb on the scales for candidates party bosses like. Isn’t that what you guys are always promoting? The grassroots choosing candidates? Why the change all of a sudden?
4. No, the examples are everywhere. I won’t insult your intelligence by listing them for you.
5. Okay. How many campaigns did you talk to that said no matter what Virginia did they were going to play?
Brian sometimes it’s just agonizing to reason with those that choose to keep their head in the sand. As far as your eyes rolling usually a good smack in the back of the head will work that out. Give it a try or I’d be glad to help you 😉
Charming, to the last.
I am going to make myself the example for #1. I can not attend the convention.
The county I live in is so far off the right wing that there is no possible way anyone I know who would be a delegate would vote as I would.
However, when we have a primary, I can vote as I please.
It’s impossible to argue, in my case, that any method other than a primary totally excludes me. It just does.
O and another fine example of “inclusion” would be Lynn R. Mitchell running her mouth about little ole me. Apparently Mrs. Lynn is not fund of the TP in the Republican Party. I guess we’re not the right shade of conservatism.
O and another fine example of “inclusion” would be Lynn R. Mitchell running her mouth about little ole me. Apparently Mrs. Lynn is not fond of the TP in the Republican Party. I guess we’re not the right shade of conservatism.
1) I’m glad there was no grand compromise, because I sincerely hope that the next State Central votes for statewide primaries for our statewide offices in 2017 as well.
2) My concern with military members isn’t the DOD directive, it’s that those who are deployed or otherwise serving overseas can’t vote an absentee ballot in a convention, but they can in a primary. Given the thousands of Virginia Republicans who are serving abroad right now, they are still disenfranchised, regardless of what DOD says about participation by stateside personnel. I can’t speak for everybody who brought up the DOD issue, but that has always been my concern.
3) Lynn’s article is valid, insofar as RPV has voted to take a position in this lawsuit, and their position puts them opposed to Senator Hanger. The time for an amicus brief was when the case was pending at the district level. RPV didn’t take advantage of that, so I think it’s a day late and a dollar short to be sticking our noses in to the case now, especially seeing as how Senator Hanger won overwhelmingly.
Instead of attacking the Incumbent Protection Act, it would be nice to see RPV working with our incumbents. That’s kind of why RPV exists, after all. To turn candidates into incumbents.
4) The disenfranchisement argument is valid, given how holier-than-thou some on the convention side have been about the slating issues that occurred in Virginia Beach and elsewhere.
It is disingenuous to claim that a convention process would be as democratic or as representative as a primary, Steve, and you know this. Convention delegates aren’t bound to represent the views of the voters who elected them – they can vote however they wish. Just like those who wield proxies at meetings of SCC can vote however they wish, regardless of the opinions of the rightful vote holders who signed the proxies. The only way a Republican can be 100% sure that someone is casting a ballot on behalf of the candidate they want for President is to cast that ballot themselves in a state run primary. Any other process doesn’t allow that certainty.
I also think it’s pathetic for you to mock a college student with a legitimate point of view, too.
I didn’t see any pathetic mocking. But then again, I’m not one for faux outrage to push an agenda.
Are you kidding? Faux outrage is all you have.
Thank you for your comments.
You’re welcome.
All I can say, Steve, is “You Lost.” Score board. Look at it. Now stop the bellyaching, the excuses, and deal with it.
Can the man give a report. Geezzzzz. Some people have no idea what happened.
Hell no….get your ass in line….or get run over.
Why don’t you get a real name and get over yourself. Now my a&$ is not up for discussion. Your couldn’t handle it if you tried but you’d fall right in line for a shot.
/eyeroll
Just gross…
Wanabe…….
Steve, on the military participation issue, I had questions about how it would’ve been done with the proposed timeline. After the vote, I decided to leave well enough alone, but you’ve brought it up here and I realized we could be facing the same problem in 2017. Genuinely curious, not being spiteful.
In the amendment to the party plan, service members must declare they won’t be able to attend their unit’s mass meeting (or other process) to select delegates and alternates to the state convention. Then, RPV has 7 days to affirm receipt and send them a candidate preference ballot, with a deadline to return their ballot at least 21 days before the certification deadline.
First question, does this mean a service member must wait for their unit to issue a call before declaring they won’t be able to attend the called meeting? If so, the convention timeline could eliminate service members if a unit’s call isn’t announced prior to the candidate preference deadline. If not, how can one declare themselves unable to attend a meeting which hasn’t been announced or scheduled?
Second question, since service members would declare their candidate preferences and military delegates would be bound to those preferences (in all but name), would that violate RNC rules about starting a process to bind delegates to the national convention prior to March 1st (especially with the option for campaigns to select their own military delegates)? I understand candidate preference ballots wouldn’t bind national convention delegates directly on their own, but if you had enough it’d be possible to determine the results of the state convention before it was held (especially since military delegates count against each unit’s total delegate slots available).
Like I said, not being spiteful, genuinely curious and want to avoid problems next time around.
Steve, I’m confused. If RPV is not talking about taking up the lawsuit again in the 24th Senate District, what was the discussion about hiring Pat McSweeney to represent?
Just on a friend of court brief…RPV would not be a party to the lawsuit.
Many seem to be ignoring the fact that ANY REGISTERED VOTER who is in accord with Republican Principles MAY VOTE at a Mass Meeting to elect a Delegate to REPRESENT them at a convention. Our rules do allow so many Delegates to be elected that almost anyone who files can be ELECTED as a Delegate (representative) to the Convention. It was never intended and unrealistic to expect every registered voter to attend a convention just as every registered voter does not have a vote in the General Assembly.
no, Steve, no one thinks that an internal RPV matter is rendered illegitimate because it is not open to every Republican. But people do believe we should open our doors wider to include more people.
1. Steve we do agree alot more than we disagree. Its all about tactics my friend. In the words of the best fictional Congressman from South Carolina:
“With a whale, you gotta get it one bite at a time”
2. I cannot thank you enough for the “Hallmighty” nickname. Seriously, love it.
3. Cost/Timing was a massive issue. It would cost me $500 to attend a convention coming from Roanoke to Richmond (hotel, gas, food, filing fees, jack daniels 😉 ) But seriously conventions are expensive and cost prohibitive.
Last convention that I attended (from Lanexa) was in Roanoke. I rode a bus. No hotel, no gas. Simple and cheap.
urban Lanexa? or from the suburbs?
Folks from the Eastern Shore got a bus as well. That’s not even the suburbs! It’s the land of the lost.
Haha. $500? I went to the 2013 convention for free. I didn’t pay the filing fee, rode Corey Stewart’s bus for free, and if I had packed a lunch then the only money I would have spent was on that Mountain Dew I bought for $3, which is too much for a Mountain Dew. Anyway, your claim of $500 goes right along with this post, as it is disinformation, or just bull.
Red, your comments work for me if the convention were in Richmond. I drove down to previous conventions there, parked on the street and didn’t spend much. Roanoke is different. It is too far to drive down in the morning so a hotel would be required.
Funny, you seem to have no trouble coming up with the funds to attend various sporting events and trips. If you are really short, hit up your buddy Lynn for some cash. Maybe call up some friends to see if (gasp) they are willing to split the cost of a cheap motel with you.
Why should he have to choose between entertainment and paying for the privilege of being bored to death?
We have a system that can provide Matt with the opportunity to help choose a nominee at no additional cost to him beyond the taxes he’s already paid. Why should he be forced to spend additional money?
Brian FTW
When are you going to stop hiding behind Brian’s skirt? At some point you have to make yourself detach from the teat.
I realize this is hard for you but some of us have to make actual choices about where we spend our money, even pitting multiple competing options that are equally enjoyable against each other. I guess in your neighborhood this doesn’t have to happen.
Telling that you so casually have no problem with the taxpayers footing the bill year after year. What can’t go on forever will eventually stop.
I realize that this is hard for you, but nobody should be forced to spend their money to be involved in politics. There is almost nothing enjoyable about going to a political convention. Telling Matt that he should give up doing something enjoyable like going to a ball game just so he can have a say in who ends up on the ballot is crazy, given there is an alternative that won’t cost him anything extra out of pocket.
I don’t have a problem with taxpayers paying for primaries. This is fundamental democracy, and a core government function. Primaries will happen anyway, and they are budgeted for annually, even if they don’t happen. The money is already there. It’s not extra money, and there is no reason why we should be penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to core government functions.
The cost of primaries is the absolute worst argument to make against them.