Op-Ed by Joshua Huffman, writer of The Virginia Conservative and former employee of the Republican Party of Virginia
By now I’m sure that most, if not all, of the readers of The Bull Elephant have heard about the controversy surrounding the expulsion of Delegate Mark Berg (R-29) from the Republican Party as well as the explanation from RPV Chairman John Whitbeck, Delegate Berg’s rebuttal, and 10th district ChairmanJo Thoburn’s recent remarks. However, after wading through these articles, there are two important points that need to be addressed.
First, is the grounds for Delegate Berg’s removal (or deemed resignation). Yes, according to the RPV Plan, “a member of an Official Committee is deemed to have resigned his Committee position if he (a) makes a reportable contribution to and/or (b) allows his name to be publicly used by and/or (c) makes a written or other public statement in support of a candidate in opposition to a Republican nominee in a Virginia General or Special Election.” And yes, quite a few people I know planned to write-in Delegate Berg’s name for the 2015 election in the 29th district. However, although I am on Delegate Berg’s email list and speak with him personally on occasion through email and phone, never once did I hear him endorse this write-in campaign created by his grassroots supporters.
Although the Winchester Star reported that Berg is “not supporting or endorsing anything to support a write-in campaign”, that statement was not enough for GOP leaders as prior to the election both RPV Chairman Whitbeck and 10th District Chair both demanded that Berg denounce this write-in campaign publicly. This demand is ridiculous and absolutely absurd. If Delegate Berg’s supporters wished to organize a write-in campaign for him, assuming he did not actively support or endorse it, of which no one has presently any evidence thus far, then, as far as I can tell, he did not violate the RPV party plan. Heck, in the 2015 Harrisonburg elections for sheriff someone wrote in former Republican delegate Glenn Weatherholtz while a handful wrote in former Republican sheriff candidate Kurt Boshart. To the best of my knowledge, neither was running an active campaign against the Republican nominee. In the 2013 election for governor some of my more establishment Republican friends planned to write-in Bill Bolling as a way to express their displeasure with Ken Cuccinelli. For the sake of consistency, following the same logic applied to Berg, shouldn’t all of these men be expelled from the party too for “allowing” their supporters to use their name? How stupid and petty can the Republican Party leaders get?
Second, once a person has been deemed to resign, according to the RPV Plan, that person can petition for re-instatement into the Republican Party. At least that is what Article VII, Section C claims. “Such member may be re-instated by a majority vote of the other members of the Committee.” However, from reports that I read the 10th district did not allow Berg the opportunity for such an appeal and instead installed a replacement for him on the State Central Committee. This kind of strong-arm tactics reminds me of my own removal from the Republican Party in February of 2014. Although I requested an appeal from my committee, my local chairman informed me that I would not be allowed to attend the next meeting of my city unit and would be physically barred, if necessary. That idea is a violation of Article VII, Section G that declares, “All Official Committee meetings shall be held in a building appropriate for public use and shall be open to the public.” I protested to both my district chair and the RPV but neither would lift a finger to reverse this injustice. Although Berg was allowed in the door of his committee, by not allowing him to address the charges against him and moving forward by electing a new SCC member in his stead, he was deemed guilty until proven innocent and they wouldn’t even give him the chance to refute these absurd charges against him.
Let’s examine the situation another way. Since winning federal office in 2015, Barbara Comstock (R-10) has arguably been the least conservative Republican representing Virginia in Washington D.C. What if, after voting to raise the debt ceiling, joining the Democrats to fund the Department of Homeland Security, or a host of other troubling votes, the RPV Chair and the 10th District Chair approached Representative Comstock and said to her, “Look. We are a party of limiting government and fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you are not in accord with the principles of the Republican Party of Virginia Creed. Therefore you have been deemed to have resigned your membership in the Republican Party.” Wouldn’t that be something? However, I have never heard of the Republican Party taking such a bold stand for principle. Unfortunately, as the Berg affair illustrates, the sad truth is that the most important aspect of being a Republican these days isn’t being steadfastly conservative or libertarian, but meekly submitting to whatever the party leadership demands of you and supporting the party and her candidates even if they hold positions in stark contrast to their supposed values.
For many years I was proud to call myself a Republican and strongly encouraged my likeminded brothers and sisters to join the party so that we could work together to make the government smaller and more accountable. We used to say that we were “Republican for a reason”, but I have to wonder what is the purpose of the Republican Party of Virginia anymore? It is to be a strong advocate for constitutional government? Or it is to simply elect and re-elect as many Republicans as possible…even if they do the opposite of what we want? Is the desire for power the main factor that drives the Republican Party these days? What does it matter which party controls the General Assembly if the Republican leaders are virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats?
What are conservatives and libertarians supposed to do when their elected officials sell them out time and time again? Meekly submit and remain quiet? That seems to be the harsh lesson that the RPV is trying to teach. I’ve been told that more of my conservative and liberty-minded brothers and sisters in the Winchester area will soon fall in this Republican bloodletting. The civil war continues as the establishment is once again working to stamp out and silence the grassroots.
I strongly disagree with the actions taken by Republican leaders such as John Whitbeck and Jo Thoburn. Yes, I’ve heard that Delegate Berg wasn’t always the easiest person to deal with and that he was a pain to the establishment in Richmond, but I never had to worry that he would sell-out his constituents or abandon his principles because the Republican leadership demanded that he do so. Is the only purpose of the RPV Plan to keep us subservient? This unjust removal of Delegate Berg is yet another troubling example of the Republican Party headed in the wrong direction, placing unquestioned party loyalty ahead of everything else.
181 comments
[…] troubled when the Virginia Republican Party recently took what I thought was an extraordinary step, kicking Delegate Mark Berg (now I-Winchester) out of the party. I still believe that action was unjust. However, on the evening of December 12, 2015 I […]
Everyone seems to forget how, in 2011, then-US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, then-LG Bill Bolling, then-AG Ken Cuccinelli, and Speaker Bill Howell were all kicked out of their local committees for supporting Independent Bill Janis over Republican Matt Geary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/virginias-top-republicans-removed-from-party/2011/10/14/gIQA98WgkL_blog.html
And rightfully so.
Today, Bill Janis’s tears taste like candy.
Mmmmm, smarties.
After reading all of these postings, one could conclude the Republican Party of Virginia is filled to the brim with non-Republicans. Nothing but Rinos, Slatists, Dems. Social, Fiscal, Progressive conservatives. Liars, Buyers, and Cheats.
The only ones that seem to be missing are the average voters. They have enough daily drama and can’t afford Hug Fests at the Homestead. Besides, they are only Republican maybe one day a year. So it’s pretty evident. The voters aren’t the right non-Republicans for this party.
Then you are not reading critically.
The Republican Party is now and will always be in a struggle between the factions. The only thing we can seem to unite on is defending the party against subversive elements that do not respect the party nor the electorate.
RINOs, on both sides of the spectrum, have no place in the party,
It was the RINOs that refuse to accept the results of the Collins election and embarrassingly unsuccessfully tried to invalidate the results of the voters’ prior election.
For the entire time I have been in Virginia, RPV has existed to make sure liberals like Tom Davis, Bill Bolling, Joe May, etc are protected from conservatives. When a solid conservatives gets nominates, the RINOs help the Dems because they would rather has a Dem like Terry McAuliffe than a conservative like Ken Cuccinelli. If he ever comes back, I am sure Scott York will be forgiven for getting a Dem elected, but Mark Berg will never be.
The only convincing argument I have ever seen for a Dem is the corrupt and despicable leadership of the GOP.
Jeez, then you’re not being that effective in the Republican Party. Perhaps a sabbatical while others do the heavy lifting.
If you ain’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Every time outsiders get in to the party structure to change things, the corruptocrats pull something like this and kick them out. The party “leadership” is committed to making the GOP go the way of the Whigs. If there wasn’t a presidential election coming up, I would see good riddance, but there is too much at stake to build a new party now.
Party leaders didn’t lead, so they lost their positions of leadership.
Those resigners can make amends and try to persuade THAT electorate to once again trust them with responsible positions of leadership. I wouldn’t support them, but the units and districts will do what’s best for the units and districts.
Scott York was already “forgiven” in 2011 when he received the republican nomination, after he publicly (on video) supported the democrats running against the republicans on the BOS in 2007. He had previously run as an independent.
York isn’t coming back from this last election (he is toast), where he basically cost our nominee the election, but we can stop those so called republicans that openly supported him this past November from attending our mass meetings and conventions.
If everyone sweeps their own unit, the whole district will be clean.
So if I wrote in my friend John Whitbeck’s name, he could be unseated and kicked out of the party? Wow, that could be an interesting interpretation.
Nope, but if you were against the legitimate nominee you could resign from your leadership role in the party.
I wouldn’t want to tarnish the name of Republican by calling Collins “Legitimate”. The anti-party actions by Collins have not been addressed by our good leadership which further muddies the issue. We either grow and adapt with the times to accept conservatives or we put up soft candidates who can only vote the way they are told by Mr. Big. Score one for Mr. Big.
To Rocinante and others of his ilk, how you win, and what principles you hold, are of no consequence. All that matters is that you wear a team jersey with an “R” on it at the end of the day.
Look! I’ve got an ilk! Perhaps I get minions next?
Perhaps this will be decided at the next meeting of the independent Frederick supervisors, former SCC and former FCRC members?
When you evidence Conservative principles in the real world, or in your own district, or with a successful agenda, you might have relevance with the movement, the party, or politics.
In the meantime, keep learning and trying, your efforts will pay off.
Rhetoric again. Your disaffection for the electorate dooms you to irrelevance.
The term legitimate means something, and refusing to accept it means something more.
The anti-party actions started with Berg and were finished by Collins.
The correct response and punishment for Mr. Collins was a defeat at the polls. You couldn’t deliver so he won, then your side doubled down on stupid and lost again.
Your subsequent political antics cost a good man and his wife dearly.
You have emboldened your adversaries and strengthened your enemy.
Mr. Big only wins when you fight incompetently, lose repeatedly, and yet pretend some kind of moral victory.
That is a fine argument for a democrat. It is also referred to in the dictionary as sabotaging an opponent. So if we can find an army of say Mexicans to come in, claim they are citizens and throw the election our way, we are being clever and winning at any cost by any means is acceptable. That is what the democrats are planning. Most games have rules. If they are not fairly in forced it is not a fair game. You are a surrogate for the corruption we have in this district. Thanks for identifying yourself.
Did Chris Collins win the Primary and the General? Yes.
Will Chris Collins be our new Delegate in Richmond? Yes.
Will anything change this? No.
Will pretending that his victory is not legitimate make any difference or have any affect in the real world? No.
Natural born Mexicans or whatever’s don’t mean squat in this argument.
Pretending that Collins is not the real delegate or the pretend GOP standard bearer only makes one look silly.
You want to make a difference, help get some Conservative Republicans elected, and don’t cost the party incumbent elected Conservative Republicans.
And save the posturing and crusading for the TP discussion set.
You don’t know what a conservative is. You have your democratic republican. Enjoy. He won’t last.
The people of Collins’ district chose their nominee and their delegate. They made this choice after considering Mark’s service, acumen, and political skill. Being a “conservative” isn’t enough if you do it so poorly by action, deed, and inaction. Collins is not my Delegate, he is a creation of the Mark Berg team, and the natural best potential rival has been taken out by That same team. If he in fact, does not last, it won’t be due to the effective work of your faction.
He was “created” by the moneyed interests that lost power when Berg defeated a liberal republican Beverly Sherwood. She was rated 55% on conservative issues. I.e. she voted with dems 45% of the time. The Republicans behind this purge pursued Collins to accept the mission, move out of his fine house and into Berg’s district, give a flimsy excuse that it was for a child to attend a certain school (Child doesn’t attend that school), and get the backing of the County Board. Berg won the County vote, won the Warren county vote, and lost the Winchester vote only because of democrats from the Teachers Union and Hospital union coming to the rescue of the County Board of Supervisors hand picked choice. And you want to build a future on that? You want a united party and pull tricks like that? You and those who think like you will be the death of this party.
Looks like you think Game of Thrones meets House of Cards in Frederick County. How about you try it without channeling motivations and divining vagueries?
2013: Berg 1,573 – Sherwood 1,492
2015: Collins 2,255 – Berg 2,089
Collins the carpetbagger, Collins the kidschool liar, Collins the democrat-lover, Collins the union tool, etc. All of which would have been the rationale for Collins to get fewer votes.
Even with all of this info, more people turned out to vote for Collins than for Berg.
With this info, one could make the case that the citizens of the district knew and understood the kind of Delegate that Berg was, and traded up. Furthermore, one could also make the case that because more people voted, Collins in his election more represented the district than Berg against Sherwood. Almost as if the district was more vehement in rejecting Berg than they were in rejecting Sherwood.
The only trick played was Berg choosing the Primary and he got burned by it.
‘Trust the American voters, they will always do the right thing.’ – Reagan
You continue to play stupid as to the rules. You continue to boast of the democratic victory, you continue to lie about Berg. What is the purpose of this conversation? It will only result in division of the party and the hardening of the opposition to you and the other DIRCs.
Spark, I’m not playing stupid about the rules, I’m explaining them and how they work. There was no democratic victory. Chris Collins is the Republican Legitimate 29th Delegate. It is incumbent (get it?) upon the loser to rally around the winner as a key step towards unity — it is the ‘we wuz robbed’ mentality that causes division. The hardening of what opposition to what? A few out-district misanthropes who can’t get their act together enough to do anything than mouth frothings? What are they going to do? Lose more contests? Show the world by embarrassingly losing write-ins?
I’ll bite, What is a DIRC? Dramatically Influential Republican Conservative???
Democrats in Republican Clothes a term fitting for those democrats that move into our area and immediately switch parties to improve their job prospects. As for you lets just put it down that you condone political corruption. As your hero Machiavelli said, “the end justifies the means.”
Republicans get Jobs somewhere? Who in the district gets any patronage? What patronage Jobs did Mark give out? To whom?
I do not condone political corruption. An open primary is open to everyone — it’s what Mark chose. For a reason. Because he thought it would favor his supporters and his election. He thought wrong.
Machiavelli is not my hero. Don Quixote is my hero, ask Frank.
Your ‘theory’ that 250-some democrats came out of the woodwork to throw the election to Collins is absurd. Where were the 290 Tea Party activists to counter? Are you suggesting that because x amount of voters were historically democrat primary voters, this invalidates the election? Or that Collins’ appeal to any voter to comply with Mark’s Open Primary contest method somehow ‘spoils’ the results?
I bring forward facts and reason, I get attacked and accused of all manner of things — unjustly.
What in my arguments is incorrect? Where am I misinterpreting facts? Everything I am saying is accurate, perhaps I’m not wearing my rose-colored TP glasses, and you can’t say that some of the yahoos here aren’t deserving of the snarcasm I spew forth in response.
While looking up Machiavelli, found this:
Does the end justifies the means ? Machiavelli gives a complex answer to this fundamental politic problem.
In the Prince, Machiavelli is clearly warned against any attempt to turn what is, because Machiavelli’s philosophy comes from the nature of men. Hence, The prince must take into account the actual realities. He must be aware and be done with, the specificity of social space and political context of its action. In this space, dominates the appearance, the prince can not ignore it, and must know himself in play, otherwise it will be trapped in this false duality (be-appearance).
Your IQ is now in question since you cannot follow a simple train of thought. Patronage jobs are given out by the Board of Supervisors when they decide whom to hire and what projects to pursue. Your stupid remark about Berg giving out patronage shows you cannot follow a train of thought. Collins or his surrogates calling out the democrats is a gross violation of the VRP – corruption which you do indeed hail as a great move. Was Bolling punished for turning over his email list to the Democrat party? Of course not – he was trying to defeat a conservative. The Republican party is full of democrats (DIRCs) and democrat sympathizers. Since you are without principles what does that make you? A useful idiot?
Another personal attack? So the Board of Supervisors have jobs to pass around? News to me. Berg was able to offer at least 1 patronage job. What gross violation of the VRP? It was an OPEN primary chosen by Berg — he picked it so his people that won’t sign the pledge could vote and Collins countered by pointing out that other non-Republicans that won’t sign the pledge could vote. This is what you get with an OPEN primary. this is why CONSERVATIVES don’t support an OPEN primary. Do you really think Bolling turned over his list, and do you think that voters are such sheep that they would blindly comply? How can you have such a low opinion of voters yet still be in politics? Since the Republican party is full of Democrats and democrat sympathizers (whatever that means) that makes it OK to not support the nominee because are the keeper of the truth and light? And another attack on my principles and calling me an idiot because I don’t share your delusion that the Republican party is full of Republicans who dress in Democrat clothes or who are democrat sympathizers. Do you see why/where no one else wants to vote for you guys and support your GOP Jihad?
Of course a personal attack. What else will get you to pull your head out of your arse. I am done trying to educate you – you are unteachable and ignorant of what is going on. Had you paid attention to Virginia politics you would have recognized the references. Climb back under your rock.
???
Spark, I’m just not seeing it. Every time I’ve made a point or asked a question I get attacked, rhetoric, and obscurity.
The conclusion I must come to is that you simply have no response to my points, and no answers to my questions.
The shrill responses, the vapid ad hominem attacks, the bluster, convinces me that you are playing Alinsky games from your unprincipled stands.
I am very much opposed to this type of soft tyranny from the RINO’s on the left and you RINOs beyond the right and slantways to incoherence.
If you can’t make your case with a fellow conservative who thinks very highly of Dr. Berg, you don’t have a prayer with Joe Voter.
Then start paying attention. I am tired of trying to educate you.
Yep, point made.
As a voter in the 10th district I am fairly certain that the one thing this will likely accomplish long term, regardless of which side of the arguments and justifications you find yourself on regrading Mr Berg’s situation, is the further weakening of a once critical Republican state stronghold that is looking more and more vulnerable in my eyes to elected Democratic inroads. Twenty years ago this district was as rock solid Republican as any in the United States. Today the trend lines are moving away from the Republican Party and it’s aging rhetoric and legacy of broken commitments. It’s one thing to confront a challenging foe but something else altogether to do their work for them. If the local establishment membership and Rep Comstock believe this is the path to holding a Republican presence in the 10th they are delusional and in effect hastening their own demise. I had great hopes for Chairman Whitbeck but this constant internal squabbling is not a road to expansion and growth, this is a road to decline.
Nah, Republican leadership changes from time to time, sometimes via elections, sometimes via discipline and resignations.
If the Republican nominee is the best alternative for the electorate, they will be elected.
Aliases and pseudonyms are not accepted in Republican Party processes.
Not particularly useful for frequent commentator’s credibility on this blog either, get the point yet?
If the point is that who says something is more important than what is said, point thoroughly rejected.
I wouldn’t waste my breath on most of the personalities commenting on this blog because of who they are, I post so that folks will examine the debate rather than degrading into the personality parades that drive most of the ‘conservatives’ claiming to be TP.
I would prefer that pseudonyms/handles be the norm rather than the exception. I shouldn’t have to take into consideration the actual Bozos frothing rather than what they froth.
If my use of a pseudonym so blinds you to my arguments, then my identity wouldn’t have helped at all.
You want people to examine the debate and yet you deny what a transcript of the meeting says.
Don’t you feel lonely here when you are clearly in a small minority who believes what they want to believe?
By debate I mean the actions, issues, articles, and comments.
I was unaware of the transcripts and didn’t think you were sharing.
I’m not that lonely, I’m never in the minority when I speak Truth to Power!
I’m a principled conservative in the Republican Party of course I believe in what I believe. (Same for the other 9 of us 😉 )
When one considers that “Rocinante” was an old nag procured by his deluded master — Don Quixote — for tilting at windmills, nobody should be surprised.
That could possibly the most offensive thing you’ve said sir! You totally missed it.
I strongly urge you to reread DQ at once, it should be required reading for every conservative.
Rocinante — I’ve indeed read Cervantes’ “Man of La Mancha”, in which Don Quixote rides his decrepit mount “Rocianate” to joust with windmills — windmills that a deluded Don Quixote sees as giants flapping their arms.
First off, “rocin” is Spanish for an inferior horse, and “ante” is ambiguous, for it could mean several things, but in this case, it’s intended meaning is “before”. So translated, it means “inferior horse before”, but beauty was in the eye of the beholder, who was a deluded Don Quixote — a man Cervantes described thus: “In short, his wits being quite gone”.
In regards to Rocinante: “[Don Quixote] next proceeded to inspect his hack, which, with more quartos than a real and more blemishes than the steed of Gonela, that “tantum pellis et ossa fuit,” surpassed in his eyes the Bucephalus of Alexander or the Babieca of the Cid.”
Hey — I didn’t pick your Troll name — you did. Perhaps you should be the one reading Cervantes.
Sigh. Right church, wrong pew. I understand you can refer to it, and I understand you can quote it, but regardless of what you think of me, go grab an unabridged addition and read or re-read the whole thing. It’s worth the grok.
Some people stand behind their opinions some people hide behind them the choice is telling.
Thanks. I respect your viewpoints and opinions and will endeavor to make my arguments speak louder than my masquerade.
I don’t know anything about the background or individuals in this dispute, but i’m struck by this argument between folks I’ve come to know — through this site — as all good conservatives. Lawrence seems to offer good advice for moving forward.
We should all hang together lest we all hang seperately — Poor Richard.
Cheers,
— First of all, you’re not in the 10th.
— Second of all, Mark wasn’t expelled from the party, he is no longer a party leader… Because he supported other than the Republican nominee. And Republican leaders are supposed to support Republicans.
— Third of all, his name is Mark Berg. The write-in was for Mark Berg. I’m not sure what you are/do in your Republican district, but ones name being used as a write-in against the Republican nominee is the opposite of Republican leadership.
Ive been in the political world for a while, so forgive me if I don’t buy into the bull droppings where a state central elected leader can take ‘a third way’ of not endorse, yet not reject, refuse to talk, and claim ‘I did nothing wrong.’
As one of his loyal supporters who voted for him, I don’t buy it. Bad enough he chose and lost a primary, time to stop the embarrassment!
And no one in the 10th cares about Harrisonberg, your blog pimping, or your podcast.
We care even less about non-Republicans lecturing us on how Republicans should behave.
All of your language indicates more of a club or a cult mentality regarding your participation in the Republican Party, instead of discussion on principles. I really think a hardcore communist that snuck his way into the Republican Party would win your support because he was a Republican. It seems you really have no principles other than being loyal to the party. Well done?
Spoken as one less familiar with the GOP than some other group. (Certainly not in the 10th Congressional district)
One doesn’t ‘snuck’ or sneak into the Republican Party. We have rules, principles, a creed, and pledges now and again. We vet candidates, members, and leadership.
Your righteous indignation continues to draw away from the fact that Party leaders are supposed to lead and supporting candidates other than our nominees is less than leadership.
This should be a really easy question for you…do you support candidates who do not exhibit the principles outlined in the RPV creed, simply because they are on Team R? Never mind, rhetorical.
I generally support the most conservative qualified candidate that the general electorate will select to represent them. These are usually those that are Creed compliant. Don’t you have any party elders in your district that can explain this stuff to you?
“Creed Compliant” and any other rule the party can devise to keep out conservatives but back candidates like Bill Bolling. Again, who would want to belong to such a club/organization? I know you think you are helping the party, but you really aren’t.
Creed compliant is my term for complying with the Republican Creed.
The establishment will try to keep out those non-establishment and vice-versa.
No unit should trust guys like Bill Bolling or Mark Berg. Their behavior was reprehensible.
Once these guys get elected, they seem to lose perspective and become ‘more flexible’
I wouldn’t be posting if I didn’t think I was helping. If you don’t think my postings are helping our cause and party, I would give serious consideration to gladly fade away.
And you’re commenting to who about what? And “non-Republicans” care what you think . . . because? And in regards to you being “in the political world for awhile”, I/we don’t even know who you are, since you hide behind some pseudonym and don’t use your real name. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you (drum-roll here) Internet Troll extraordinaire Rocinante!
It far easier to be super-duper brave while you’re cowering behind a pen name. Puff out that chest and stomp those feet!
Frank, I don’t care what you non-Republicans think, it shan’t be in the Republican Party, go try to destroy the Republic and the Commonwealth in one of your debating societies or Potemkin AstroTurf ‘coalitions’, you will not succeed.
You will make sure we are all terminated in the party?
Terminated? A handful of folks backing a non-Republican lose their voting positions in the party and we have to start looking for SkyNet?
When Republicans behave like non-Republicans, they demote themselves.
Republicans and Non-Republicans will continue to vote in open Primaries where they can and Republicans and non-Republicans will continue to vote in the general.
Quick tally. How many non-Republicans here attended a recent Republican event? Show of hands? How many Republicans here attended a recent Republican event? Citizens of Virginia? How about some out of stater driving down the interstate that just decided to take a break, attended a GOP meeting, and is now an avid reader of TBE?
Why would any non-Republican even care about all this drama from what passes for the republican party in Virginia? It’s less stressful to just watch new towns and cities turn blue on election night.
Maybe the term ‘non-Republican’ is defined as Virginia Republican voters who finally said the hell with it?
A non-Republican would care because it is where they could have significantly more influence in determining nominees than they could as a voter.
In these threads, I see non- Republicans as those individuals who have An agenda other than electing and re-electing Republicans to office.
There is only a small vocal group of non-Republicans (Mostly from outside Collins’ district and outside the 10th) who have seen their influence wane with the replacement of Mark Berg as Delegate, FCRC member, and 10th SCC member.
Their efforts to suppress actual GOP activity and involvement will not succeed.
Of course they won’t succeed, they will booted from your little group in the district.
There’s that ‘booted’ innuendo again — leaders who led against the party nominee retired their voting position — their picture is not on the forbidden terminal at party checkpoints, they can still frolic and play with us and may yet earn back their voting position. It’s a time-out not a keelhaul.
Let’s just go parliamentary style. Dump the primaries.
Totally agree.
Delegates get to choose, Mark chose Primary — live by the primary, die by the primary.
Why do you sound so happy about that?
Not happy at all with the results, but it is what it is. The system worked, unfortunately the other guy won. But I am unhappy with the behavior of the aftermath.
It would appear that most folks here are unhappy with the behavior of the ‘other guy’.
I know I am. It was a loss that stung bad, but we deserved it — no excuse for losing by that much in that way.
It looks like the new weapon of choice, following “slating”, is the “deemed to have resigned” clause. I and a half-dozen more are no longer members of the Frederick County Republican Committee due to our support of a write-in campaign. A campaign mounted more against the unethical behavior of the Challenger, than loyalty to the incumbent.
I would appear that this newest ruling now gives the Chairman, not the committee; authority to remove anyone he thinks fits into this category. I not clear on what the appeals process is & it’s unclear there is one. The conservative “TEA Party” purge is underway. While all the attention seems to be on Berg, the underlying reasons boil down to the establishment focus on incumbency re-election. Berg unseated the 20 year incumbent, Chairwoman Sherwood & that could not stand. A challenger had to be found.
I am still waiting for the Republican Leadership in Richmond, 10th District or Frederick County to issue a statement on why my party loyalty is being demanded for Republican candidates that do not abide with the principles / creed of the party. I did not join this organization to align myself with an individual candidate, but for what the organization stood for.
Here in the 29th District, Del. Berg’s challenger, Collins called for Democrats to participate in Republican Primary. Is this not a violation of the Party Plan? I cannot support his unethical behavior. The hypocrite sends a mailer to tens of thousands of Frederick County residents
accusing Del. Berg of “…championing the privacy rights of sex offenders who assault children” and “…won’t protect abused children”, all the
while Defense Attorney Collins is in court defending a confessed child
pornographer. Collins then courts former Senator Russ Potts (Supporter of Democrats McAuliffe & Warner) to host his fundraisings efforts.
Berg & supporters are removed, Collins heads to Richmond.
defense attys defend criminals.
defend the accused, whether guilty or not.
Not a new weapon of choice, the party is ridding itself of political toxins. RINOs claiming to be conservative are just as toxic as RINOs across the spectrum.
Mark defeated an incumbent Republican in a primary that she chose and Mark was an incumbent defeated in a primary that he chose.
The voters selected what they hoped would be a better representative. You, nor any of your tyrannical RINO’s, will be able to undue the election, nor would your all-too-conveniently choreographed, yet futile and embarassing, “write-in” thwart the will of the voters of the district.
You screwed up the reputation of a great delegate, his method of selection, his campaign, his good name, and his leadership position.
Haven’t you done enough to the guy already?
The district has had enough of your shenanigans and has put someone like Collins in to replace — what does that tell you about how they view the Berg term of service and campaign?
Yes, they called upon Dems in Winchester City to elect their “new” Delegate. However, the Republicans, lost the CA, Sheriff and were challenged in three other races by independents. If the trend continues, the political party will hold no sway & conservatives will seek independents to get the work done.
And the Republicans working for those goals hath been resigned, so I doubt your particular trend will continue. Without spoilers in the process, the voters will better trust our brand.
They resigned? Or were the ‘deemed to have resigned’?
I think the resignation is automatic and the Chair recognizes or deems to clarify.
Oh I see. The ‘deeming’ is just to clarify their resignation, the resignation they never requested or wanted. Gotcha.
Deeming is interpreting and recognizing for those less aware.
They requested it and they wanted it by their actions.
Party leaders who don’t support the party become not-leaders.
Do you or anyone think it is good leadership not to lead?
If folks begin inserting comments that violate the letter and spirit of TBE wouldn’t/don’t you prune and edit the most heinous?
If you were to do nothing or ignore correcting them would that be leadership?
Jay — There’s an old saying attributed to Mark Twain: “Never argue with idiots. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”.
Besides, this Rocinante considers Dr. Berg and his supporters to be “political toxins”, and said so in he/she/its previous post.
Try as I may, and repeatedly so to get this Rocinante to understand that the local GOP establishment had it’s behind whooped and lunch money stolen November 3rd, he/she/it can’t admit that, and still maintains it was a decisive victory for the GOP. Or, as Mark Twain said . . . . 😉
The party is fine, GOP exchanged one delegate for another, 5 GOP supervisors won 5 election contests. The GOP separatists made some grand gestures and celebrated with Whine and Jeez but at the end of the day, those GOP leaders chose a lesser role.
Toxins, poisons, minor bowel obstructions to the normal functioning of the party — nothing new, same drama that follows political cults of personalities.
Good news is their (your) activities have been made clear and those having GOP leadership have been cleared from obstreperation.
Precisely. Why are so many trying to interact with this person. There is no conversing with this person. There will be no mind changing or any reasonable exchange. Troll extraordinaire.
Betsy_Ross — I’ve no idea why I’d imagined that there could be any reasoning with Jo Thoburn, John Whitbeck, or Internet Troll, Rocinante. When any party “resigns” it’s most fiscally conservative members on state and local levels, that speaks volumes regarding what that party truly represents. Tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend.
Fiscally conservative? What are they going to do? Vote the FCRC austerity budget? You have no place in a party when you run against the nominee. What if Bev Sherwood et al ran a write-in against Mark? One of her staff got ‘resigned’ for his non-leadership so your persecution theory don’t hold water.
You know, I’ve tried reasonable discussion, I’m actually an open-minded individual. Look at the threads — ignoring the political realities for a feel good narrative is not helpful. The local GOP and GOP establishment did not lose, they won. We lost on multiple levels, what strategic victory has occurred? No crap about winning this city or this precinct — Mark is not the shadow delegate for Warren County? The 3 independents did not lay the groundwork for their comeback in 4 years.
Nice summary Josh … The GOP is not the party my father supported and the sooner it gets straightened out the better. This kind of behavior is more like dictatorship than like the behavior of a free people. Conservative principles include not marching lackstep with a bunch of tyrannical leaders. Representing a free people requires freedom.
Ray…are you already engaged in making it better, or planning to get engaged to make it better? More people need to “get in the game”. Thank you if you already are (or planning to soon).
I do what I can Eric. The problem is that the GOP’s linkage with its base is almost severed. They increasingly only look to their own self-interest instead of to virtue, principle, and the representation of those they are supposed to serve. They speak reassuring words and go and do what they damn well please. Until more people understand how poorly they are represented the republic will continue to erode and degrade.
Yada, yada, yada.
We had a delegate who looked to his own self-interest by choosing a Primary.
The people were unhappy with that representation and chose another.
The Republic degrades when representatives of assemblies think themselves more important than those who elected (or rejected them.)
Conservative Principles trumped RINOSs in this issue — the Tyrannical leaders were disciplined. RINO’s were put in check.
Representing a free people requires respecting the will of the electorate. The Republicans of the 10th got the leadership we deserve.
Mark Berg ousted a 20 year incumbent ( if I remember correctly) and Chair of the Agriculture Committee… a very powerful position in the Food Freedom Fight. Considering how lucrative processed foods are (McKee, Tyson, Purdue, Dairymen’s Assoc, Farm Bureau~(tip~ they are not for the farmer they are for subsidized commodities for the processors) … the Republican Elite will stand at nothing to regain power. Lets see if his replacement will support simple freedoms as buying milk from your neighbor dairyman or a pumpkin pie from your grandmother… Liberty minded folks are making serious progress.. if not, the other side would not be fighting for its life…using less than austere tactics…
Yep, it was a good thing, but Mark himself got ousted in his primary this time. Sure would have been better if Team Mark could have held onto that seat!
He was up against a combination of RINOs and their democrat allies. The democrats were actually passing out Collin’s literature. Wonder where they got it… Of course that should mean that Collins would be kicked out of the party, but do you really thing that will happen?
Unfortunately, the RINOs and their democrat allies were more politically effective then the other RINOs and their “conservative” allies.
I wonder where many people gain their literature and supplies — signs, radio ads, sample ballots, etc.
I don’t believe there is a mechanism for ‘kicked out of the party’, even Mark and Jay were not ‘kicked out of the party.’
If you want mostly Republicans to choose the nominee, pick the process that will support that result.
The voters of Collins’ district, Dems, RINOs. TP’s, whatever’s, have made their choice and they/we must live with it for a term.
If we do not respect the will of the electorate, we are not worthy of participating in the process.
Over the years, I have gotten the impression that certain Republicans work harder to exclude members than they do to retain existing members and recruit new ones. Are we sometimes our own worst enemies?
Yes.
Yes, absolutely. My experiences with the party perfectly exhibit that…directly.
I’m not surprised.
You should be. I’ve been a dedicated, hard-working republican volunteer for years.
In the 10th? For candidates that you didn’t support in the nominating contests? If so, good on ya!
If not, thanks for exercising your civic duty and sure wish we had you in the trenches opposing, correcting, and fixing the only party vehicle we have.
I was explicitly barred from getting in the trenches to help Republican candidates by the Chesterfield and Henrico committees. Not very smart.
Not knowing anything about the issue and your posting here, I’m liking and inclining to agree with Henrico and Chesterfield.
Kinda explains your inclination to play in our sandbox.
Agreed, you know nothing about me or the particulars of the situation. It was fairly outrageous.
Yet seemingly deserved from what I am gleaning from your postings and positions.
Yet that is outside my district, so I don’t care — you should probably work on making good there rather than carrying on here.
WHOOOSH…..right over your head. This conversation is not constrained to the 10th, as much as you want it be, so as to limit debate.
You got a keyboard, the Internet and a Disqus account, you can broadcast your ignorance everywhere you like. I think it grand that we can provide such an example as how supporting other than the GOP nominee gives former GOP leaders much more time and freedom to spectate, blog and comment on party politics. Just look at the fine job done by the newest non-Republicans on this blog and in these comments.
I’m beginning to wonder if you’re really ok, clinically.
Your concern is touching and transparent.
yes. there are litmus tests that exclude many. sad
Yes, the litmus tests consisting of ‘support our nominees over other candidates.’ Those failing that litmus test have other places to be.
Is this impression based upon working within the party or sunshine patriots and summertime soldiers pretending to be conservative?
If you are a Republican leader who supports non-Republicans over Republican nominees, then you are our own worst enemy.
Agree totally. Certainly the case in Frederick County
If you’re not going to exclude folks working against your own nominees, what kind of party are you?
We’ve defined “working against” as “staying out of it entirely”.
Congrats…you’ve just created new definitions for words.
And ‘staying out of it entirely’ does not ring true with leadership.
Let’s pretend that you could be a leader of some organization and your activities result in a bad thing for your organization.
Do you really think that would make you a good leader for your organization?
Can you understand members not wanting you to continue to be a leader of that organization?
Have you ever belonged to an organization or club where they regularly booted people out? Did that organization grow? Who would want to belong to such an organization?
I have been in several organizations, there are always rules and protocols for expulsions.
But this isn’t a matter of expulsion, this is a matter of leaders not acting like leaders and discontinuing that role.
Too much drama for political leadership adjustments.
That is the $64,000 question. Not much has happened in Frederick County for years. Too many citizens thinking that the Republicans are the ones to vote for. What a fraud that party has become!
What is the position of the leaders of RPV and the 10th on primary candidates encouraging Democrat voters to participate. Isn’t that the actual catalyst for what happened? Condoning that kind of dishonesty is what deserves redress.
That’s the biggest question that the RPV refused to address, and I concur: What is RPV policy when Republicans ask Democrats to vote for them? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called a liar — literally — for telling folks that’s precisely what Chris Collins did. As such, I’ve repeatedly referred them to an article in the Winchester Star:
“Collins said that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, can
vote in the June 9 primary, with no obligation to support the Republican
party candidate in the November election.”
http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/berg_challenger_i_need_your_support
Wow. And no one said boo about it? That’s just wrong.
Lots of people said boo about it but Mark picked the primary anyway. It’s truly wrong because he was a conservative who had supported conventions in the past.
Your position: “Its fine that democrats were actively courted to skew the election results because Berg deserved it for picking a primary”.
Watching you bob and weave is truly fascinating.
Of course it’s not fine that non-Republicans are involved in nominee selection processes.
You wouldn’t necessarily have these results if Mark had not chosen the Primary. It was a bad decision.
Mark was out-campaigned and lost the election on the battleground he chose.
I’m not bobbing & weaving but you are misrepresenting.
Actually that is not the biggest question but I can see how you would think that from your non-Republican viewpoint.
You could go look up your question in the RPV plan, but I’m pretty sure there is no “policy” for obvious reasons.
Folks must be calling you a liar for different reasons.
For the sake of argument, I will accept your quote as accurate — do you see that his statement is true?
Mark CHOSE the Primary method allowing non-Republicans to vote with no obligation to support the nominee in November — Democrats, Constitutionalists, Tea Party One, Libertarians, Tea Party Two, LaRouche, Tea Party Three, etc.
This was done by design as a campaign strategy. A mass meeting or canvass would have a pledge that would have suppressed democrat and other non-Republicans from participating.
Mark’s Republican and non-Republican voters were LESS numerous than Chris’ Republican and non-Republican voters.
So the biggest question actually is why did not the elected Republican leader respect the will of the electorate and NOT actively and wholeheartedly support the nominee of the party in the general election?
Speaking as R. Republican, it seems to me that choosing a party process that allows non-Republicans to participate means you’re going to get non-Republicans participating.
The actual catalyst was not Mark choosing and losing his primary, but his behavior surrounding the subsequent write-in AGAINST the Republican nominee.
You are absolutely right about his dishonesty in that process and that was a key factor in his resignation.
Based on the analysis of the original post I see Mark took no affirmative action regarding the write in campaign. You might think it would be apparent to the establishment leaders that it’s tough to grow a party if you keep selectively kicking people out.
He did more than that. There was actual communication between Berg and Whitbeck as noted in the Winchester Star.
Yep, and actual communication between Republicans and their leaders.
Would it make you feel better if you were to become Republicans or Republican leaders and could resign in solidarity?
Read past the self-serving post, read the other sources and my brilliant commentaries. In the GOP, leaders lead, or they lose and resign. Mark et al, did both.
Mark chose the “open primary” to give everyone — Republicans, Independents, and fiscal conservatives — an equal chance to be represented, and at that time, the Dems planned to run their own candidate; Kristine Stubbs:
https://twitter.com/kristineforva
http://kristinestubbs.wix.com/start
Oh, but wait . . . Kristine couldn’t find any financial contributors — zilch, zero, none:
http://www.vpap.org/candidates/256793/donors_sector_totals/?start_year=2014&end_year=2015
As a result, the Winchester-Frederick County Democrat Committee
(WFCDC) “disqualified” its own candidate, for they knew she was doomed, and they formed a sneaky alliance with Collins.
What makes this so obvious is that the WFCDC waited until the very last day that paperwork could be submitted for their 29th District candidate before “disqualifying” her on a technicality. Stubbs had filed paperwork in plenty of time for the WFCDC to review, but they waited until she couldn’t legally refile before giving her the boot.
As was clearly documented by the Winchester Star: “Collins said that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, can vote in the June 9 primary, with no obligation to support the Republican party candidate in the November election.”
http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/berg_challenger_i_need_your_support
And it that’s not enough, the WFCDC chair, Steph Vaughan put this in writing: “I’m so glad that my Dems voted for Chris Collins!”
If you, Whitbeck, and Thoburn think that all Republicans and fiscal conservatives should blindly support a Republican nominee that colluded with Democrats to elect him, and start throwing fiscally conservative Republicans from committees on state and local levels because they refuse to do so, you may as well vote for Democrats.
Congratulation for being a sycophant for the brown shirts who now rule by oppression in Hitleresque fashion, but if history repeats itself, it won’t end well for the RPV, nor for local Republican committees.
The Hitler reference is a bit much, but otherwise spot-on.
Mark chose the open primary and stuck the taxpayers with the bill because he mistakenly thought that was his best path to victory.
So the Dems played Mark and Collins out campaigned Mark.
I would expect the Dems to say the same statement if Mark won, thanking their voters to elect Berg.
The pretend Republican leaders demonstrated their true colors and resigned from their leadership roles.
And of course anyone opposing you RINO’s is colored with Nazi imagery. Sigh.
I’m glad your Occupy-GOP movement is over and you can go back to your circles of self-praise and faux conservative preening.
As you stated, you are basing your opinion on what you read from others. You were not at the meeting. Others were incorrect. Berg was allowed to speak and was very kindly informed by Jo Thoburn that he could have his name put in nomination that night, he didn’t ask anyone to do it and no one nominated him. Jo told him he could certainly appeal his removal, but since he was deemed removed from the State Central Committee, which automatically removed him from the 10th, that he could only appeal to the SCC. My understanding is that he intends to do that.
No, that was not said. Jo never said Berg could have his name put in nomination. I have seen the transcript of the meeting and that was not said. Jo Thoburn said the 10th district committee was done with the issue (or something like that, I need to look again at the transcript) and Mark could appeal their decision to the SCC in December. There was someone at the meeting who wanted to nominate Berg but Jo had closed that option.
It’s becoming more and more obvious: The RPV has circumvented its own rules by violating its own policies and protocols to “remove” Mark by saying that he “resigned”. As you’re well aware, Bev Sherwood was the queen of pork, and would vote for every lard sandwich Speaker Howell presented. Not so of Mark, an anti-tax/anti-spend conservative.
This is a clear-cut message — a shot across the bow for every conservative who challenges the GOP establishment’s supposed “fiscal conservatism”. I say “follow the money”, or in this case, lard sandwiches, to find the true events leading to Mark’s ouster.
It’s becoming more and more obvious that you are not a Republican and have no skin in the game.
The clear-cut message is that Republican leaders who don’t support our nominees will no longer be Republican leaders.
Mark chose taxpayer spent money on a Primary — not conservative.
True events of Mark’s resignation as a party leader is his refusal to act like one.
Rocinante — How dare you deem anyone who doesn’t register as a Republican can’t have “skin in the game”? Who died and appointed you as the supreme deity? Your ego is huge, and your mind is small.
Everyone has “skin in the game” where elections are concerned, and readers of this blog should take exception to your shoddy reasoning.
If you believe for one second that it’s your way, or the highway, and I will shut the (blank) up because you say so, you’ve mistaken me for someone else.
He does have a high opinion of his opinion, thats for certain. Probably a pen name for one of our “Drifters”.
It is a cross that I must bear, but I don’t mind allowing some of my brightness to illuminate and elucidate.
Frank, I’ll try to help you out with the political bits. There is no party registration in Virginia. So there is no such thing as registered Republican.
If you spare the histrionics and righteous indignation, you will be more receptive to the political realities.
I am not the supreme deity but if you look to Him, He may offer you guidance and wisdom.
I never approved of Democrats and/or other non-Republicans voting for Collins in the Primary nor for Berg in the general.
‘Skin in the game’ is a metaphor. Every voter and citizen has skin in the game, it is the rationale for suffrage.
I’m sure most skip over my commentary because I use a pseudonym anyway 😉
It is my way, because of my knowledge, experience and prescience, I’m happy to explain to those of you less than familiar with politics and human nature.
Please don’t quit posting, you clarify my arguments with every post, and you help me learn more about the fringe players. Thanks for that.
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious: If one isn’t a “registered member” of the Republican party, how can one be removed from it, or deemed to have resigned from it? Duh.
Attempted backpedaling on your part shows that I hit the nail squarely on the head. When you said “It’s becoming more and more obvious that you are not a Republican and have no skin in the game”, that was a clear message from you that I should just mind my own business and shut up. Backpedaling by claiming you used it strictly a metaphor is weak.
When was it you took ownership of The Bull Elephant, or when its owners appointed you moderator of this board? I have just as much “skin in the game” as anyone, because I still support Dr. Berg, and feel he’s being railroaded.
You’re an Internet Troll hiding behind a phony identity, and nothing more, so please spare us the pain of your claims that “It is my way, because of my knowledge, experience and prescience”. Your way or the highway? Barf bags, anyone?
Mark was a GOP leader, not just a Republican. Mark was supposed to lead the party to electoral victory. We do this by facilitating our nominees winning elections.
If you do other than this, you are not leading and our party rules automatically resign you.
This happened. Mark became NOT a leader. His leadership position automatically became vacant.
You have no skin in this game because you have said you are not a Republican leader and probably not that much of a Republican when you don’t get your way with GOP nominees.
It is a metaphor, (you’re on your own to learn about metaphors.) This means you don’t know the rules, you’re not in the club and you really should have no role in selecting our nominees. (Unless establishment RINO’s wish you to favor them in a Primary.)
I don’t own TBE, and I’m not a moderator. Your feelings don’t mean anything in the party or to me but I’m sure they are important and I recognize that you have those feelings. Dr. Berg used to be a FCRC member, and 10th District SCC representative. As a result of his own actions/inactions, he resigned and is no longer. I’m sorry you don’t like this and feel bad about this. Your support of him in this matter and $2 will buy a USA Today.
Rocinante — Bingo! Only liberals read USA Today. I believe you just told us who you really are.
Ok, let me try again — Your support, added to a number equal to 2 will still end up equal to 2.
So your support is equal to nothing.
If I support Sarah Palin in her failed quest for Vice-President, that support is worth nothing — because she lost the contest for vice-president, she is not Vice President.
My support for her, like yours for Mark, doesn’t matter a hill of beans in this case.
How convoluted.
Really? I can see a lot of things but convoluted is not one of them. How are my arguments convoluted or incorrect?
I was sitting next to Jo Thoburn at the meeting. I stand by what I said above. What meeting transcript have you seen? Since you’re not a member of the 10th and I am, how did you get a transcript (ie, minutes) before I did? Could you please furnish a copy?
No, I will not furnish you a copy of the transcript nor will I tell you who was recording the meeting.
Your memory was incorrect. The transcript is just as I quoted above. I have quoted exactly what was said. Feel free to prove me wrong because you cannot.
Why not? Have they been creatively edited? Missing time? I believe you have correctly quoted Jo in the ‘between the quotes’ statement but you are incorrect in the rest.
The minutes as revised will be the reflection of the meeting proceedings.
It’s a very good idea that you do NOT disclose who was recording the meeting. I’m glad it was not you.
The minutes are being revised. How interesting.
Why would you be glad that it wasn’t me who was recording the meeting? It was a public meeting, anyone could have recorded it, including me.
The minutes will be revised and corrected as per the rules and protocol.
I am glad because I would think less of you for surreptitiously recording the meeting.
Of course anyone could have — unfortunately, I must now expect active recording devices at political events, meetings, and conversations.
That can’t be helpful. We are all Google Glass!
Incorrect. Mark was told by Jo that he could be elected to fill the vacancy. No one made the motion to fill the vacancy with Mark, no one seconded it, no one objected, no one raised any points or appeals or motions of reconsideration. Didn’t happen. Ask others who were there.
No that did not happen. I have written above exactly what was said by Jo Thoburn. I don’t need to ask others, I have the transcript. People often misremember, transcripts do not.
Technically, they don’t remember, and transcriptions are only as good as the source and the transcriber. No doubt your quote of Jo is accurate, not so much the other inferences I believe.
Without supporting verification and confirmation, I fear some may view your transcript as suspect.
Outstanding article! All your points were spot-on. You expressed my thoughts and feelings exactly!
What are conservatives to do? Perhaps its time to begin discussing the creation of an “Independent Republican” party or some-such. To be clear, I’m not advocating for something like this, but it just might be the next logical and prudent step for those who wish to actually respect the principles and values as listed in the republican party creed. Some of the state committees are so weak that it wouldn’t take much for advocates of such a plan to actually become the majority party.
No time for splinter groups. Let’s clean up what we’ve got. Much easier.
I agree. When the Left splinters, then we can afford to splinter.
That’s the problem. Half of “we” doesn’t see it as “we”.
Yes, we means unified — don’t pick primaries and don’t oppose our own candidates.
You know, I looked up the definition of “unified”, & I didn’t see any mention of slating in there. Huh.
I get the rhetoric attempt, but slating is a different subject. Groups adhering to rules will always take actions maximizing their own best interest.
Here’s your “we”.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/11/12/va-gop-lt-gov-bill-bolling-undermined-cuccinelli-at-every-step/
Good article, I think it pretty accurate and valid assumptions.
Yes Berg acted the same as Bolling and if Bolling was holding a party office, he would be deemed resigned as well.
While both demonstrated poor choices, only Berg had a SCC seat to resign from, but had he more closely followed the actions of his RINO mentor Bolling, he might have not been in a party leadership position to lose.
Berg’s actions Bollings actions. I get that it helps you explain away what happened, but its not even close.
Both lost an election, resented the nominee that won, refused to support the legitimate nominee and, took actions that benefitted the person running against our nominee. If you want to quibble technically then yes Berg was worse because he was a multiple leader of the party and he could have personally gained from the endeavor and Bolling’s lost election was procedural but it was for higher office and on a grander scale so I called it a draw, but I will yield that Berg was more egregious.
Agree, Collins should never have challenged an incumbent in his own party.
Collins wouldn’t have if Mark was politically and electorally proficient. A series of political missteps led us to where we are. I’m not sure Collins would have triumphed in a canvas or convention.
Exactly! And we can’t have a we unless we suck it up when we lose and do a better job of winning the nomination contests against the other half.
We can never afford to splinter.
Rocinante — Perhaps you think that the Republican party “can never afford to splinter”, but it’s done precisely that by removing several members on state and local levels. Your statement contradicts itself.
Thank goodness I seem to have infinite patience. No members were removed. Some leaders who did other than support or not support the Republican nominees in a contested election resigned from their leadership position. Many, many more did not.
This is not splintering, these are steps to reduce and stop splintering.
My preaching here is an effort to better clarify (to the Republicans in the 10th not the out-district peanut gallery and syncophants.) about how the party should and is supposed to work.
Reading through the comments, you haven’t been that successful. Mostly because you are wrong.
Where have I been wrong? Without the invective please, I’ve been called lots of names, but not been shown wrong with anything real.
Right, become good Republicans and make a difference within the party rather than noses pressed to the glass on Primary and General Election Day. I will warn you, we do have rules and expect leaders to lead and not bolt when contests don’t go their way. And for God’s sake, don’t choose Primaries! And no secret whiny write-ins.
A) Not embarrass themselves by choosing and losing a Primary.
B) Yes, please start discussing, I’m sure you’ll have the same political impact you do now.
C) You’re not advocating but are advocating — no wonder you can’t elect your way out of a paper bag. Chris Collins has a better claim on Independent Republican than you non-Republicans.
Nobody has a gun to your head begging you to come screw up our party. Go pretend to have principles and relevancy by trying to spoil our contests. We know the game, and appreciate your resignations. I deem it so.
You seem really angry. Maybe take a walk to let off some steam?
Alinsky tactic noted, I think I’m quite the happy warrior!
A Presidential election year is the worst possible time to do that, but if the GOP manages to drag Kasich, Bush or Christie into the nomination, I will be right there with you.
I can see why you need a lot more discussing. The GOPe has already set things up favoring their agenda. They have many arrows in the quiver to maintain power or, worst case scenario, cut deals to elect non-Republicans.