Politico
The Republican National Committee just got a taste of life under the new GOP order in Nevada.
Thanks to the efforts of Ron Paul supporters, the Clark County GOP — the largest in the key swing state — voted narrowly Tuesday to censure RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and demand his resignation.
His crime? Priebus is accused of violating RNC Rule 11(a), which stipulates that the Republican National Committee cannot “contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary.”
The resolution asserts that Priebus broke party rules when he announced April 25 that the RNC was setting up a joint fundraising operation with Romney since there were still candidates — namely Ron Paul — in the race at that time.
It was announced around the 10th of April, before Gingrich and Santorum suspended. Oklahoma is involved as well as 3 other states.
Is the goal to destroy the Republican Party? How is “Oklahoma” involved?
Do you not regard the party flouting its own rules an act of self-destruction? Or do rules not matter to you?
Quite the contrary, my goal is to save the Republican Party. Oklahoma, Vermont and two other states, if I remember correctly, were involved in this fundraising effort. Essentially, it was a partnership between the state, the RNC, and the Romney campaign. It is my understanding that the other campaigns were offered the opportunity to participate and declined, or at least that is what I have been told. That has been used as the justification for the actions taken. Others believe this is a violation of Rule 11A, which reads:
The Republican National Committee shall
not, without the prior written and filed approval of all
members of the Republican National Committee from
the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to
any candidate for any public or party office except the
nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is
unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing
deadline for that office.
So you can see where there would be questions about this. Although I was not there, it is my further understanding that this issue was brought up, for the first time I believe, at last Friday’s State Committee Meeting.
I am glad to see you asking about this, Mike. Please check it out, I haven’t had time. Some people I know think it’s a major issue, and others not so much, but I don’t think this is the last we have heard of it. More like the beginning of hearing about it.
Regardless of your position, it was probably not a good idea to do such a thing during the Primary.
Steve, there are lots of folks who disagree with your thesis that the Party needs to be “saved.” That appears to the crux of the disageements. That, and tactics.
It is my understanding that every candidate was offered the opportunity for joint-fundraising, but only Romney went for it. The joint-fundraising is on a state-by-state basis and Oklahoma, along with 4 other states were selected by Romney.
The whole idea of joint fundraising is to benefit the candidate and the party. Why a candidate would not want to participate baffles me.
Mike, if I am the only guy in the room I am going to stand up and demand the party follow the rules. I didn’t write the rules. I get ignored when I point out others breaking them. You want to explain to me how the party that is supposed to stand for the Rule of Law can’t follow it’s own rules?
Anybody that thinks this is over is not paying attention. Anybody that thinks this marginalization of the Liberty Movement is ok does not understand what our level of commitment is. Candidates that don’t support the Law, and more importantly the Constitution, are in for a rude awakening. Party officials – from the Precinct up – have eyes on them, and cameras, and microphones. I accept that we are not a majority.
We will be.
Today is the 152nd anniversary of the famous 1860 platform of the GOP. We were built standing against slavery. We now must stand for Liberty, before it is too late.
Steve, a few questions: “Follow the rules” This is an apparent reference to recent events and doesn’t speak to the genesis of dissent with the GOP. “Marginalization of the Liberty Movement” Who is doing the marginalization? “Stand for Liberty” I thought most of us did. Some who are dissatisfied with the GOP had hoped the Tea Party would morph into a real party. Hasn’t happened. When Ron Paul’s message resonated with many, there was hope he would fare well in the race; he did not. We can blame the media…but the bottom line is that many who heard his message opted to support another. By now, many understand the “MOVEMENT” isn’t just about Ron Paul…but is about Rand Paul and the Campaign For Liberty. “Candidates who don’t support the law” Enlighten us on this one. I don’t know anyone who “thinks this is over….”
My apologies for going off topic with my last post and addressing the Convention here. This article was on a separate matter and my second post addressed it.
To answer your questions, the first is who is marginalizing the Liberty Movement. The answer is those who currently profit or hold office pursuing big government solutions to societal problems. These people are not conservatives but they claim to be. I am of the opinion that the “Tea Party” is really just a bunch of regular people (like I consider myself) who are fed up. It’s not really an organized effort, but it will become one and is the future. These are the people who will fix things in the very near future, and are just now making their impact felt.
Ron Paul is ahead of the curve – people want freedom, and they’re getting fed up waiting for someone to deliver it. That’s good, because nobody is going to deliver it, they’re going to have to take it back from their government. You are right that some people ignore his message. I received an interesting text during the very short lunch break Saturday from my wife. She said “some people like to be in the dark”. I married well.
Rand Paul – I like what I see so far. We’ll see what the future holds. I am not familiar with Campaign for Liberty, and have not had any contact with them (I know who they are but am not involved with them). I have seen some videos they produced (campaign / rally type stuff). Personally, my time and money will not be going to them. It will be going to get Republicans elected to office in Oklahoma.
Candidates who don’t support the law: if you vote for bailouts you should resign in shame. If you voted for the NDAA last year, you should resign in shame. If you think security is more valuable than liberty, you do not deserve to hold office. Some will argue that liberty is not possible without security. I would argue that is not their decision to make, legally. Some will ask of my pointing this out, “why would you do that”. I would ask, “why did they do it”.
Even if they think it is necessary, they do not have the right to violate the Constitution.
The Republican Party is what it’s members make of it. I see it as a beacon of freedom and liberty, founded on the abolitionist movement. We have lost our way as a party more than we like to admit. Just because we don’t want to admit the truth doesn’t mean the public doesn’t see it. Lots of work ahead.
If any of this was easy, it would already have been done.