Posted on 05/31/2004 12:51:12 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
* Susan Weddington resigned her position as State Party Chair in November 2003
* As Vice Chair it was David Barton’s duty to move up as Interim Chair until Delegates to the State convention could elect a Permanent Chair.
* David chose not to exercise his Vice Chair responsibility and instead turned to the State Republican Executive Committee to elect an Interim Chair—threatening to resign if Gina Parker was elected.
* By a nine-vote margin Tina was elected to serve as Interim Chair of the RPT over Gina Parker who was already planning to run for Party Chair at the State convention. A switch of five votes would have elected Gina Parker. What happened? Many new members on the SREC were elected after Gina was no longer serving and did not know Gina.
* Now, Susan says if you do not vote for Tina, and Gina Parker is elected, “Tina’s opponent (Gina)will create a likely situation under our rules in which the Party’s Vice Chairman will be chosen not by convention delegates-but by the State Republican Executive Committee long after the convention adjourns.”
* Excuse me, Susan, who will be creating a situation whereby the Vice Chair will be chosen by the State Republican Executive Committee long after the convention adjourns? Only David can create that situation. Gina is ready and willing to serve with David or with whoever becomes the next Vice Chair of the RPT.
* Susan knew when she resigned as Party Chair prior to the completion of her term that the SREC would elect her replacement. That ‘situation’ did not seem to be a problem for Susan then, so why should she be so concerned about the SREC electing a replacement for David should he choose to resign?
* Why has David continually demonized Gina’s profession as an attorney when Tina is also an attorney? Gina was an attorney when she was appointed by Susan as Legal Counsel, when she served as Party Treasurer and when she was a member of the RPT Officials Committee. Nothing has changed!
* Should the threat of a resignation by the Vice Chair dictate who Delegates must elect as Party Chair-- or else?? Is this not the tail wagging the dog?
* How much time does any Vice Chair spend in Austin? A strong Party Chair and competent staff take care of day-to-day operations.
* Two years from now David will be term-limited out of office anyway and then a new Vice Chair must be elected. So what is twenty-four months in the scheme of things when we are talking about strong Party leadership for possibly the next eight years?
David is doing an admirable job through his Wallbuilder’s ministry. He will continue that ministry whether or not he accepts the Party Vice Chair position.
In the meantime, the strong-arm tactics being used to get Tina elected amount to political extortion—that is—‘You vote as I say or I will not play!’ A surprisingly very divisive spirit from one who has called so often for us to all pull together for our common cause.
Texas convention ping! Please ping anybody I missed
I keep trying to figure out whether you or Action America is running for one of the State offices.
Who is this author and why is she sending out these emails?
The author of this article is Shirley Spellerberg, SREC committeewoman from District 12.
I found her in a Google. She was with the Eagle Forum in the past, at least. And she was against all of the Texas Constitutional Amendments. Including Prop 12
But I will pass on a little trick Jerry Smith ( Federal Justice, 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans) showed me many years ago.
Immediately after the convention is adjourned, the newly elected SREC will meet in a side room for a "very quick" house keeping meeting before you all rush to your hotels to check out before they charge you for another night and rush to the airport to catch your planes.
The new state chair will very quickly congratulate the members on their election, welcome the new ones (not individually because there isn't time) and promise to have you out of there in five minutes. State staff will be circulating personal information forms, and someone will run in to remind you that it's costing money to keep the convention center occupied longer than necessary.
The chairman will very quickly name his parliamentarian, legal counsel, etc and some good ol boy will quickly move for acceptance by acclamation.
Oh, and then one final thing before getting out of there, the chair will ask for a motion to approve the current bylaws, "SO MOVED" good ol boy will say, quickly followed by "seconded"; "all in favor say 'aye', 'nos'. Meeting adjourned!
What Jerry showed me was that meeting is the weakest point of the established party clique.
Bylaws are difficult to ammend. Notice, referal to committees, 2/3 vote etc....
However at that initial SREC meeting immediately following the adjournment of the convention, there are no bylaws. All it takes is a simply majority to make any changes.
Before the chair can call the question, stand up and shout as loud as you can, "POINT OF INQUIRY", (or point of privilege or point of order, but NOT "question").
The chair has to recognize you (unless Pat Buchanon's thugs are in control). Ask if it is procedurally acceptable to offer amendments to the motion on the floor, such as .......(state some changes to the bylaws and the reason you think they are needed. Continue until good ol boy bitches about speech making.)
When the parliamentarian studiously admits that yes, the old bylaws can now be amended, have your amendments ready to go. Offer them together as one amendment with as many innocuous housekeeping provisions as possibly with the important ones deemphasized.
Have the votes you know you can count on lined up to "amen" everything you say. Be very polite and some new members may go along.
If you don't make fundamental changes at that point, you can hang it up. You'll never get a 2/3rds vote after the new members are influenced by the Gov and Senators. This is the only chance you'll have to make changes by a simple majority. Surprise and secrecy are your most important weapons.
"why is she sending out these emails?"
Maybe because we live in a democratic republic where citizens have a right to political speech.
Maybe because someone needed to reply to the errors in Weddington's widely distributed letter.
Maybe because she is an active and respected grassroots leader and member of the SREC who is qualified and has the guts to comment on complex party matters.
Maybe because she is one of a growing number of grassroots leaders across Texas who is tired of the Stalinistic-strongarm methods Susan and David have used to desperately hold onto power over the last 2 years.
Maybe just to annoy you.
And, maybe, just maybe, to try to spread some truth for those who aren't too blind to see.
We need to give the party back to the grass roots. I'm certainly not a big fan of Gina's, but there is no doubt in my mind that she is better than the power-hungry dictators that we have up there today.
One thing that the article didn't say, that bears note, is that since David is seen as the worst of the two, because of his complicity in the Susan Weddington Slavery Apology Rites, if you want to make sure that David leaves, you must vote for Gina, in the hope that he will keep his "promise" and resign. On the other hand, I don't think that a little thing like a "promise" will be near enough to make someone like that give up that power, when it comes right down to following up on that "promise".
It's a shame that the whisper, letter, email and internet buzz is so negative, focusing on supposed weaknesses in personalities and name calling. I'm going to feel secure in knowing that the new Party Chair will be a prolife conservative woman, and that the Vice Chair most likely will be a pro-life, conservative man.
I do have one answer for the author, as to why Gina's occupation is mentioned, while both women are attorneys:
It seems that Gina has huge glossy ads in the Waco (and I believe Houston) phone books that declare her services as a plaintiff's attorney and malpractice attorney. These ads cost 100's of thousands of dollars, so there's not likely to be a mistake. Personally, I'm not offended, but evidently a few people were.
I understand the biggest problem/dispute in the campaigns is that Gina claimed endorsements she didn't have, naming names, and that Mark Cole used photos of Party officials without permission. I did notice that Mr. Cole had changed his last mailer, so the back doesn't have pictures of all those celebrities any more. He changed just as soon as his errors were pointed out.
Cathie Adams and I (and Mrs Spellerberg) disagreed on Prop 12. However, at least in the case of Cathie, I know that she and I have the same basic motives, we just disagreed on the possible interpretations and outcome of Prop 12. We will continue to be in agreement on the sanctity of life, the importance of the US Constitution in guiding our dealings with the UN and the rest of the world.
Now, what I'd love to see is a contest to determine who is the most Constitutionally driven and the most pro-life! That's what I'm interested in.
I am concerned that some of the comments, such as AA's tagline may become fodder for the Dems and the Press. But, all I can do is cast my vote and be as positive as possible in my own actions and comments, hoping for unity in the next 5 months, in order to re-elect President Bush, who signed the partial birth abortion ban that was vetoed 3 times by that man, Mr. Clinton, and whose leadership has toppled the Taliban and Saddam Husein.
Again, exactly where is the name calling you speak of? You seem to see name calling hiding behind every rock when it simply isn't there. I do have one answer for the author, as to why Gina's occupation is mentioned, while both women are attorneys: It seems that Gina has huge glossy ads in the Waco (and I believe Houston) phone books that declare her services as a plaintiff's attorney and malpractice attorney.
I've only seen one such ad in this campaign. It is a general practice attorney's ad in a phone book, presumably from Waco. It is not glossy nor huge and occupies what appears to be either an eighth or quarter of a page in the newsprint section deep inside the yellow pages - pretty standard stuff for a yellow pages ad for just about anything. While it does indeed identify her as a plaintiff's attorney, that alone does not disqualify her from being conservative. In fact, I've seen other non-ad listings of Gina's law firm in directories that identify her as a Republican and a Christian attorney. The yellow pages ad also identifies her as a Christian attorney. And since you are evidently so concerned about whisper campaigns, you should probably know that copies of that ad are being quietly circulated by the Benkiser camp to discredit their opponent by association.
I understand the biggest problem/dispute in the campaigns is that Gina claimed endorsements she didn't have, naming names
Such as who? I haven't heard of this one yet.
and that Mark Cole used photos of Party officials without permission.
Cole put pictures of himself standing next to elected officials. He never claimed any endorsement from any of them and permission is not required to simply show a photo of yourself with somebody famous.
Thanks. That's a useful piece of advice
Well, I'm going to let y'all know that I decided today that I'm going to volunteer for Tina, David, and Cathie, so my remarks should be read in that light.
GOP, "Stalinist" was used today on this thread. And I said that I'm not bothered if Gina has advertised herself as a plaintiff or malpractice attorney.
This shouldn't be such a reason for anger. We are disagreeing, as I said, on which of these people is the most prolife, conservative candidate. There's no doubt that the basic (prolife, conservative) qualities are there.
Yes, to refer to the act of strongarming people into voting for a desired candidates by means of intentional deception, vieled threats, and over pressures. Weddington's cronies have engaged in all three of these practices.
And I said that I'm not bothered if Gina has advertised herself as a plaintiff or malpractice attorney.
I'm happy that you are not. I posted on that subject because it needed some clarification and because I know that the Benkiser-Barton camp has been spreading disinformation about it.
This shouldn't be such a reason for anger.
I'm not particularly angry at anybody here and as I have said many times I will work to elect the Republican in November regardless of who wins this internal race. You seem to be mistaking strong heartfelt beliefs and exhibited support behind a candidate for "anger" when describing them as "anger" is in itself unfounded. As you probably know, I seldom mince words on this forum and seldom hold back exactly what I think of a person running for elected office be it good or bad. So don't mistake bluntness for anger.
I'm glad to read that you're going to work to elect the President, no matter what. That's what's important.
Couldn't tell if you got pinged on this. More crossfire to read b/f SA, unless you're one of those folks who drives down Monday night to watch the Rules Committee, in which case it's too late to save you:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.