Your characterization of grassroots conservative and constitutionalist Republicans wanting the party establishment to follow the rules as being “disruptive” says a lot about you.
The current Republican (Tory) party can either reform its ways or be destined for oblivion. I’m coming to the conclusion that some of you Tories would prefer the latter.
Baloney, SecAmndmt, the whole lawsuit is a power play, not a move that’s “grassroots conservative and constitutionalist.” There’s a difference in definitions of the words in the law and a desire to subvert by lawsuit rather than resolutions and process, that’s all.
Why not put forward a resolution at the rules or platform committee? Why cost the Party money through a lawsuit, why call “the establishment” “Tories,” unless you are disruptive?
Have you read the platform of the Republican Party of Texas? Who do you think wrote that platform? Where do you come off calling names?
As I asked earlier, exactly how will voting for the chair at the first session empower the “grassroots conservative and constitutionalist” more than holding the votes to Friday morning? I told you how it will cost each of the delegates and alternates.
I predict that the lawsuit will end the fussing that we’ve been having over which wing - which group of would-be leaders - of the Party will lead. When our Delegates hear about it, they/we will vote down the disrupters at the first chance we get. I, for one, will be at the microphone to speak against any candidates put forward by Medina, Polland and their cohorts.