Op-Ed By Del. Mark Berg (R-Winchester)
John Whitbeck, Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, has deemed me to have resigned from the official committees on which I serve because he alleges that I refused to disavow a write-in campaign against our Republican nominee Chris Collins, who was unopposed on the ballot on November 3rd.
I am told second hand that there will be an Appeals Committee hearing on this issue to be held tonight tomorrow night via phone conference. Executive Director of RPV John Findlay sent instructions to committee members that there will be limited debate, this is simply a yes or no vote.
I am puzzled as to why Chairman Whitbeck has taken this course of action without even calling me to discuss it. And I’m confident once my fellow members of the State Central Committee review the facts, this confusing action by Chairman Whitbeck will be overturned.
John Whitbeck was quoted in the Winchester Star on October 17th stating that I had not mounted a write-in campaign and was “staying completely out of it.” He added, “My 10th [Congressional] District Chairman Jo Thoburn spoke with Del. Berg, and he’s not supporting or endorsing or doing anything to support a write-in campaign.” The Winchester Star again reported the same facts the following week on October 24, 2015: “…[S]tate Republican Party Chairman John Whitbeck said that Berg told 10th Congressional District Chairman Jo Thoburn that he is not endorsing the write-in campaign.”
Party leaders went on record unequivocally stating that I was “staying completely out of it.” And they also stated that I did not violate any of the three actions that would trigger my automatic resignation under Article VII Sec C of the Party Plan when they were quoted as saying “he’s not supporting or endorsing or doing anything to support a write-in campaign.”
You can imagine my surprise when just a few days after the Winchester Star articles were published I received a certified letter from Whitbeck stating there was a crisis and a deadline and if I didn’t respond to his demand that I disavow a write-in campaign against Chris Collins, he would deem me to have resigned my official committee positions. This bizarre turn of events seemed to appear out of nowhere and was in stark contrast to what Whitbeck had previously stated on the record.
He wrote:
Since we are so close to the election, we unfortunately have to act now if we are to rectify this situation. Therefore, I need you to agree to publicly repudiate the write-in effort and ask for the organizers to stop using your name by Saturday October 31st, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Otherwise, you will be deemed to have resigned from the State Central Committee, the Tenth District Republican Committee and the Frederick County Republican Committee under Article VII, Section C.
Where was the crisis when I had made it clear that I had nothing to do with the write-in campaign and Chris Collins didn’t even have an opponent on the ballot?
With no communication from the Chairman before the October 28th letter, I wanted to understand the charges against me so I sent an email to RPV General Counsel Chris Marston to ask if he had issued a ruling to the Chairman. Whitbeck had referred to an official ruling in his letter stating, “It is the opinion of our legal counsel that allowing your name to be used in a write-in campaign constitutes a violation.” If there was a ruling, it had not been posted on RPV’s website and distributed in accordance to Article X, Sec. A, sub. 4 of the RPV State Party Plan.
I received the original call for the 10th District Committee via email on October 31st (even though the call was dated October 30th).
I happened to hear from a fellow 10th District State Central Committee member that a revised call had been issued on November 6th—just four days before the meeting—and a new item had been added: an election of my replacement on State Central. This violates the 7-day notice requirement.
I did not receive the revised call, so I emailed Chairman Jo Thoburn for a copy of it. She replied:
Mark, You have been deemed removed from the State Central Committee and therefore are no longer a member of the 10th District Committee. If there is an appeal, it would have to go through State Central Committee not the 10th District Committee.
I finally received via email the revised call the day of the meeting.
Not only is Thoburn incorrect on the fact that the proper place for appeal is through State Central, she gave 10th District Committee members inaccurate information which precluded them from making a properly informed decision. Under Article VII of the Plan, the proper course of action would have been to allow the 10th District Committee to reinstate me by a simple majority vote, something that would not have required notice. Instead, Chairman Thoburn rushed to have an election to fill a vacancy—a vacancy that should have existed only if the Committee had refused to reinstate me—and informed the Committee members they had to elect a “replacement” for me, all without the required notice of a new election and without giving me any opportunity whatsoever to appeal the decision.
And regardless of how one may view the issue of the write-in campaign, I’m confident that the State Central Committee will find that in issuing a revised call to include an election just 4 days before the meeting, Chairman Thoburn violated the 7-day notice requirement, which therefore invalidates the election of any successor.
This is chaos. The facts as laid out, taken in concert with my not receiving the revised call until the day of the 10th District Committee meeting, is enough to bring these actions into serious question.
What I am most disappointed in is Chairman John Whitbeck misinforming people that he sent me notification on November 5th that he deemed me to have resigned. Let me unequivocally state that I did not receive a copy of that letter until it was emailed on November 10th – the day of the state central meeting. And I did not receive a paper copy of his letter until it arrived via certified mail on November 14th. What’s even more troubling is the packet I received contained a copy of a letter dated November 4th which was clearly a different letter than the letter Whitbeck had circulated dated November 5th. The letter had a sticky note on it that RPV had tried mailing it to me but it had bounced back.
Whitbeck sent the October 28th letter certified and the November 12th letter certified but didn’t certify the November 4th letter?
As you can see, I had little time to prepare a defense or appeal because I didn’t even have the material facts until the afternoon of the meeting. I nevertheless did attend the meeting and I tried to address the issue before the committee that night– which per the Party Plan was allowable—but Chairman Thoburn said, “you are no longer a member of this committee. All appeals would go through State Central.”
10th District Committee members were given incorrect information by Chairman Thoburn and they made their decisions that night based on false instruction.
I’ve worked diligently with John Whitbeck and other Republicans to elect people to office who will fight for Republican principles. I myself fought very hard to represent those Republican principles while I’ve had the honor to serve in Virginia’s House of Delegates.
I wanted to make sure my fellow Republicans knew exactly where I stood. The afternoon of the 10th District Meeting, I emailed my fellow Committee members stating: “Let me be clear — I did not allow my name to be used, I did not publicly endorse nor did I affirm any other campaign against the Republican nominee.”
After I emailed that statement, after I was removed from my official committees and after my replacement was elected, John Whitbeck wrote a response on November 11th to the statement I had emailed to the 10th District Committee. He said,
Pursuant to the letter I sent him on October 28, 2015 this [statement] would have absolutely been sufficient for Del. Berg to maintain his position on all three Official Committees as one of the options he was given to correct the situation was an email to Party officials.
This is – again – another conflicting statement by Chairman Whitbeck because per his letter to me on October 28th he said,
I need you to agree to publicly repudiate the write-in effort and ask for the organizers to stop using your name by Saturday October 31st, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Otherwise, you will be deemed to have resigned from the State Central Committee, the Tenth District Republican Committee and the Frederick County Republican Committee under Article VII, Section C.
At best this is a series of unfortunate and confusing events. I have confidence in our Party process and believe that once the State Central Committee reviews these facts, the decision to deem me as having resigned from my official committees will be overturned. I also encourage SCC to correct the ambiguity of what it means to “allow” your name to be used, as well as address the self-execution of a provision that is subject to interpretation.
Finally, as we move forward, let us reach out to one another and discuss our concerns before we “purge” or kick people out of the party. We’re on the same team and we have the same goal to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and elect a Republican to lead our great nation. I look forward to continuing the fight alongside my fellow Republicans for the liberty our party holds dear.
69 comments
[…] Deeming Injustice in the Republican Party of Virginia […]
Since Jo Thoburn said at the 10th district meeting that appeals could not be addressed to that body but had to go through the SCC, what appeal is the 10th district hearing tonight? And who filed it?
Actions not words.
Mark chose a primary.
Mark lost a primary.
Mark did not support the nominee.
Mark did not endorse the nominee.
Mark’s “friends” and “supporters” started a write-in campaign and Mark CHOSE not to stop the folly.
I didn’t need Bill Clinton to explain what “is” means, and I don’t need Mark or anyone in Richmond explaining the meaning of “allows.”
He was not a leader and I’m glad he resigned.
Mark was a leader, which is why – in a write-in where his name wasn’t even on the ballot – he garnered sixteen-percent of the votes in Frederick County, and more than fourteen-percent overall in the election. On the other hand, Collins is a cheater who
openly courted the Democrat vote, and sent out smutty ‘liar fliers’ – paid for and authorized by “Collins for Delegate – on the eve of the election so that Berg wouldn’t have time to rebut them.
Those fliers showed a black-and-white ghoulish image of Dr. Berg hovering over teary-eyed children, and portrayed him as child molester who “was championing the rights of sex offenders who assault children and share their victimization over the
internet”.
http://franklyconservative.com/collins-flier-portrays-berg-as-a-pedophile.html
Sick and twisted be the darkened recesses in the mind of Chris Collins, and if you, or anybody in any Republican committee still thinks that Dr. Berg – a man of medicine who would never harm any child – be forced to hold a press conference endorsing Collins and denouncing a write-in, then there’s something seriously and mentally wrong with all of you.
And I’ll clue you in on something more that will soon be known: In a Hitler-esque brown-shirt fashion, Collins sent police to the doors of some involved in the write-in campaign after he won the general election to become Delegate-elect Collins. Congratulations for sycophantically supporting this mini Nazi, or perhaps you should just shout: “Heil Collins!”
Oh, where to begin. Should we update this absurd timeline? Should we identify how appeals work? Should we clarify how reinstatement works? Numerous other things to address…
How about we start with: Nowhere in the GC ruling or the statements from the Chairmen is it identified when Berg is deemed to have resigned. Pick a day people. Identify the specific action or inaction on a specific day that equals resignation, and I will identify for you what, Berg, Whitbeck, Thoburn, and/or the 10th District committee could have or should have done differently.
Without a specific designated moment and specific designated action or inaction Berg was REMOVED from his positions by having been deemed to have resigned without due process.
Paul I always appreciate your logical efforts to lay out an argument or situation to provide clarity and/or insight but with this one I thing you are on an impossible mission. As near as I can infer – someone had a job, someone wanted the job, someone saw an opportunity, someone took the job. QED.
For those who may have trouble parsing through the wordplay. This is what Lawrence is saying, for which I agree: Someone desired to oust Berg, to make an example or to teach him a lesson. A method to oust Berg was created that could appear proper. The method to oust Berg is irrelevant to the person who wanted to oust Berg. Berg has been ousted, and he has either learned a lesson or is serving as an example to the rest of us. For those who are voting on his fate realize that you could be next.
Berg decided to oust Berg. Berg was a party leader who chose a non-party method to select the party nominee. When he lost (handily, as the incumbent,) he did not support the nominee but instead tacitly approved a write-in on his behalf.
All state central members who are stupid enough to choose and lose a primary, refuse to support the nominee that won, do nothing to prevent an embarrassing write-in SHOULD be next to resign from the party — you are no help, go bother the libertarians, you won’t be missed.
Aha! You admit it!! Berg is being punished and made an example of – because he did NOT override his COMMITTEE’s choice! Sen. Mark Berg acted with INTEGRITY and the Establishment is having none of that, thank you very much.
Aha? er, you’re welcome I guess. Is a puzzlement.
Since the long knives were out to get Berg, I doubt that the method would have mattered. The local Frederick County leadership was dead set against him and put Collins up to run against him.Would a mass meeting have worked when those running the mass meeting were against Berg? We have seen how the Deck was stacked against him in Central by their leadership (one person decision). And the strong democrat turn out for Collins could have also turned out to a mass meeting. The VRP has consistently refused to compile a searchable data base of those pledging to support the party so that democrat trolls can be turned away. So the loyalty oaths are worthless. Collins said as much when he invited Democrats to help him primary Berg.
A further question for everyone. Most of our political leaders here are lawyers. They didn’t grow up here, and they weren’t educated here. They are move-ins. Were they Democrats before they moved here, and changed parties just to get ahead in a republican area? I know of at least one who did, and I suspect many more could be what is called Democrats in Republican Clothes (DIRCs). This isn’t suppose to be a scratch football game where we pick teams, it is supposed to be a contest of Ideas and principles.
– David Sparkman (Disqus name SparkyVA)
Precisely! Just as with Obama, the manipulation has got to stop. This whole incident is being conducted as if the Republican Party is being run by bunch of high school girls or even worse, Democrats, which may in fact be true.
Yep, what else do you call people who do not support the party nominee and pursue a write-in Brigadoon?
Mark Berg did not pursue a write-in anything.
Which name got the most write-in votes in the Chris Collins for Delegate General Election? Which write-in would have gone to Richmond if they had received more votes than Chris Collins in the General Election? Which former candidate failed to educate the electorate that he was not pursuing a write-in anything?
Why and/or why not?
That explains the primary that Mark chose and lost, not his subsequent actions.
That is a real fear across the state. It’s already begun in Winchester where the some committee members are being deemed out of the party. I could be next. Anyone could.
Ooooooohhhhhh. Be afraid, be very afraid, Republicans actually expecting Republicans to support Republicans. What manner of Party does that?
Do Democrats boot party members who don’t always tow the line? I’ve not heard of that but perhaps they do. It’s not good for increasing our party members.
Party members? Or Party leaders? I’d be hard pressed to find any that supported the GOP. Perhaps I missed the ‘Democrats for King’ community activists moving higher up in the Dem circles, but I don’t track that. ‘Tow the line’ is one phrase, but I don’t think it’s asking too much for ‘supporting the nominee’ or ‘Write-in? with my name? not on my watch!’ I expect more from party leaders than from party members.
RINO means Republican in Name Only as in the term Chris Collins. Fortunately I do not fall into the group that can be kicked out for the Berg controversial as I am not in his district, did not work for the write-in, and actually talked two people out of voting for Berg (LaRock’s district). But I am a friend of Mark and Debbie Berg and believe he is a good republican. He has run up against power politics of the worse kind, and it is going to set the party back badly. The whole area is upset about this and Collins should know by now he cannot win reelection.
The RINO moniker also can refer to those who support the party nominee only when matching their preference — it is this ‘Fair Weather friend’ that makes party electoral success extremely difficult.
Mark could not and did not win re-election by definition.
For the sake of argument, assume Collins is a slug of the worst kind — he still beat Mark. The sum totality of the record of Mark, and the forces of Mark, were inadequate in beating the slug despite his, what you perceive to be gross, defects.
Mark was a good conservative Delegate for many votes — he didn’t have the full package to win re-election and due to his out of control supporters will be unable (IMHO) to mount a credible challenge next time. Team Berg has made it harder to get rid of the slug due to Team Mark’s inactions, non-actions, and behavior.
The day he lost the primary and didn’t endorse/support Chris Collins.
The day he heard of the write-in and didn’t tell Bitsy to ‘cool it.’
Any of the days that fellow Republicans contacted or tried to contact him in order to remind him how to be a leader.
Hindsight is 20/20 and we all can see how things should have been done, but it all starts with the actions of a party leader putting himself ahead of party. No room for sour grapes or personal protests.
So essentially you are saying every time he could have supported the Republican nominee and did not do so in an obvious manner he immediately resigned from party position. Under those standards it would take a while, and a little subpoena power, but I could probably show that 2/3’s or more of SCC has “resigned.”
Yes, yes I am. It shouldn’t take that long and in the 10th, only Mark has disgraced the party in this fashion. Let’s resign the rest of them.
You’re really flailing here now in light of this new information. I know you’ve made up your mind that you are RIGHT, and that the actual details/facts and the timeline don’t matter…but it appears that your run of propaganda is nearing its close. Maybe we could view your blather more credibly if you didnt cower behind a pen name. Maybe.
Mark Berg in no way ‘disgraced’ our party. You know that to be true. Mark is not the only one in the 10th who has recently been booted from the party, oops, I meant ‘deemed to have resigned’ and others are on the naughty list. I suspect you know that too.
Yes, as a high and exalted party leader, who refused to support the legitimate nominee and pleaded ‘no contest’ to a wink-wink renegade write-in.
Booted, cleansed, purged, jettisoned, dropped, actively resigned, deemed resigned, shoulda resigned, unanimously resigned, fell out of the quit tree and hit every branch going down all work for me.
Everybody has naughty lists, some more formal than others.
You can’t have a party without party discipline. If you aren’t able to enforce members keeping their pledges and supporting party candidates, why bother having a party at all?
Some people need a party enforced ‘time-out’ of party activities. Well, a lot of people in my opinion, but I’m compelled to save these time-outs for the worst examples rather than everyone in my naughty database.
Mark, there seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation out there. It sounds like misunderstanding continues. The 10th district could have voted you to fill your old seat had you run for it (which Jo did inform you) but could NOT have simply reinstated you to the SCC as you imply in this article (it’s not the same thing). My understanding is that per the process outlined in Article 7, you were deemed to have resigned from 3 committees where you held leadership roles within the Republican party. Each may reinstate you as a voting member by majority vote. And I hope we will. Had you returned calls – or even called some of your colleagues and dare I say friends on the SCC – this could all have been avoided.
Eve are you ok with the fact that there’s an appeal hearing tonight that Mark did not know about? He hasn’t filed an appeal so what exactly is the appeal?
The automatic resignation is to avoid party drama. Mark likes drama. I like Acts 1:20
why are yall quoting the Bible when this is a political issue?
I thought it was fashionable and I was swimming with the current in this thread. But some folks think quoting Scripture makes ya look more high -falutin’ — I’ve been known to do the same with obscure references and quotes.
Acts 1:20 —
“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’
That sums up the Berg Vacancies.
Are politics and Truth mutually exclusive?
It’s funny to see Mark’s name and drama together. Anyone who knows Mark Berg knows he isn’t into drama and he doesn’t play political games. He is oft criticized for not being political savvy. But for many of us, we find that trait refreshing in politics. It doesn’t happen often.
Not into Drama??? His actions and party activities are so chock-full of drama Hollywood has dispatched teams of writers to shadow his appearances! Not play Political Games??? The primary, the loss, the phantom write-in, the posturing, the correspondence, the airing of grievances??? Take away the drama and the political games and you’ve got an empty suit! Nobody is going to dismiss the fine work Mark did for the commonwealth and his district, but that ship sailed early in his term leaving nothing but drama and political games. It’s the reason why he was defeated. Perhaps he didn’t play political games WELL, or perhaps he LOST political games — But he played and is playing them, along with all the affiliated drama.
why is everyone still fighting about this? why would Del. Berg even want to be involved after all this?
Delegate Berg seems to prefer “involvement” to winning. Many others are choosing to focus on process and procedure rather than a poor party leader desperately clinging to a moral ground of mud.
It isn’t about Berg alone. It’s about the precedent this sets and what it means for others in the party. Whitbeck has taken us into new territory. Kind of like Obama. What do you do when someone just makes up the rules and rams it through by fiat?
Yes, the precedent of party leaders having to unite rather than divide the party over sour grapes and write-in mirages.
I’ll be watching and will be voting against anyone choosing to recognize and/or reward Mark’s inappropriate behavior. It could also have been avoided by Mark doing the right thing after the vote Tally on election night. Had Mark supported the nominee, the write-in wouldn’t have mattered.
My goodness, now we have threats. Yikes.
Not a threat, just a clear advance poll. We elect leaders to represent and lead, when they don’t, they are resigned or electorally retired. Any State Central member that thinks that Mark’s decisions (choosing a primary, being a sore loser, and a hypocritically-acting write-in) are worthy of him continuing in that seat, is going to be losing support as THEY lean toward retire.
With only the same things to say, you sound like a parrot. I have some stale crackers around somewhere . . .
Yes, but it does stem the revisionist narrative. I think we have more than enough crackers around here.
That sounded inequitably, ineluctably, and inextricably racist.
That will go over the heads of many but I thought it darn funny!
How could anyone support the nominee after he solicited help from the democrat party? Is he republican or democrat? I have seen nothing on dishing out reprimands to Collins. It is all about Berg. Next year we will have a tidal way change in the Federal government, but we will still be stuck with the Jeb Bush’s of our local republicans. Folks, the times are a changing. (Sorry John Dillon)
It was Mark’s selection of the Primary that enabled this.
Collins outcampaigned and out maneuvered Berg.
Collins went after non-Republican Democrats, Berg went after non-Republican Tea Party-whatevers.
The Berg political void created the Collins.
The voters selected Collins, I’m really sorry about that and I’m sorry that so many of the Faux Republican non-Republicans didn’t like that and refused to honor the result of the primary election.
Those in a leadership role have been demoted.
You repeat the often given story. Still you haven’t a clue. You assume that the alternative would have made a difference – Mark doesn’t. The instigators of this purge were prepared either way to oust him with their Democrat muscle. And since his opposition would be running the mass meeting, the Dems would be allowed in. It is still going to end up before the SCC, and with people like you on the committee, the VRP is again turning against the people of Virginia.
Who is appealing the decision in tonight’s conference call? Will Mark Berg be allowed to speak at this appeals meeting? It’s not much of an appeal if Berg can’t present his side.
I just spoke with Delegate Berg who is in New York. He had no idea there was an appeals hearing tonight and he is confused as to how an appeal will be heard when he hasn’t filed one.
If Mark Berg didn’t appeal the decision, who did? How can there be an appeal without Delegate Berg asking for one? Like Berg, I am confused.
I think he’s waiting for someone else to ‘write-in’ his appeal.
Appealing what? That he lost an election and not only didn’t support the nominee, but tacitly approved a write-in? I expect party leaders to lead and be a good example.
He expressly stated that he was not supporting a write-in. Can you read words? Like, for example, the quotes in the Winchester Star? lol the dishonestly is amazing.
I liked this article:
Posted: October 17, 2015 By Sally Voth The Winchester Star
“He may have lost the Republican primary, but a group of supporters still plans to vote for 29th District Del. Mark Berg, R-Frederick County, on Election Day.”
And this blog article :
Which in part said:
“What is surprising, however, is the deafening silence coming from both Berg and from the far right blogosphere on this issue. Berg,
an elected RPV State Central Committeeman, has not said he supports the write-in efforts, but he’s also not denounced them or otherwise
suggested that his supporters stand down and support the GOP nominee. As noted in the Winchester Star article, repeated attempts to contact Dr. Berg were made with no response. Dr. Berg is no newcomer to party politics, and his role on State Central makes his silence on this issue unacceptable. Not a single of the far right blogs, who are usually so eager to demand party unity from those they oppose, has covered this story either. This is all the more surprising given the close relationship Berg has to some of those blogs.”
Dishonesty is amazing, but not acceptable for party leaders, not at the top, not at the bottom.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Seriously? You’re quoting Bearing Drift?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Not only that, I quoted a BS written article! (well, they’re all BS but I could only stand the one section of the one article that I googled) I almost flagged myself as inappropriate!
John Whitbeck is quoted in the Winchester Star on October 17th affirming that Delegate Berg was “staying completely out of it [the write-in campaign]” and Whitbeck also said, “My 10th [Congressional] District Chairman Jo Thoburn spoke
with Del. Berg, and he’s not supporting or endorsing or doing anything
to support a write-in campaign.” Same statement in the press on October 24th. John Whitbeck misled all of us and just got caught red-handed. And tonight he’s rushing through the appeal via a phone conference with the appeals committee. Executive Director of RPV John Findlay has instructed committee members that there will be little discussion, just a yes or no vote. John Whitbeck is rolling the grassroots. I urge everyone to call his office and denounce this. Where is the due process? Why the rush John Whitbeck?
Where was the due process for the elected nominee? Where was the due process for the Republicans that voted for Mark now being told that they have a second chance to choose the sore loser party leader over the nominee? Where was the due process for the party nominees that couldn’t benefit from a unified party led by someone who put party ahead of personal gain? Why the rush and attention upon a political embarrassment?
Sorry….you lost this one. Probably better to just state “oops” and move on.
Oh Darn. Sorry to trouble you with this Republican folderol. You certainly told me. Thanks, bye now.
is due process required for being “deemed” resigned from SCC?
No, there is not.
Due process in this case under Article VII “such member may be re-instated by a majority vote of the other members of the commitee.” Jo Thoburn denied Berg this opportunity. The seat was not vacant until the committee met to decide whether or not to re-instate.
Everybody who watches Law and Order can be a lawyer. “May be” is not shall. Jo Thoburn did NOT deny Berg the opportunity, she said the opposite, that Mark could run to fill the vacancy. Nobody stepped up and said ‘Mark did the right thing, I like the cut of his jib and want that kind of Republican representing the 10th.” Just like not enough voters at his primary stepped up and said “I want Mark to continue to represent me as Delegate.” Just like the even fewer voters bothered to write his name in as the protest write-in?
As far as “The seat was not vacant until the committee met to decide whether or not to re-instate.” — If the seat was not vacant, how the heck could the committee decide to address? And if the committee met to re-instate, or met to not re-instate, a seat that was not vacant, wouldn’t that mean the committee would be affirming or rejecting him? That makes even less sense
Here’s the essence of it — the spirit of the party and of the rules. If you are a party leader and you support a democrat, you’ve resigned. If you support someone or something other than the nominee, you’ve resigned. No drama, no armchair lawyering you’re out! — you want back in after you’ve resigned? — take it up with your committee.
I know you’re familiar with our creed and our pledge. We in the 10th, don’t really care all that much for oath-breakers in our party.
Playing these silly games rather than supporting the party and its nominees is why the Democrats win.
That is definitely NOT what Jo Thoburn said during the meeting. She expressly said if Mark Berg had any objections he could appeal to the SCC in December.
Yes, she said that any appeal of the decision was up to the SCC. However, she specifically and directly said Mark COULD be elected to fill the vacancy — I understand that particular nugget caused several eyes to bug out. (I think the microphones on Susan’s Stealth Dirigible picked out numerous sub-vocalized ‘Oh God please no’s)