Posted on 06/09/2002 6:00:00 PM PDT by PetroniDE
The Texas State GOP Convention was held in Dallas, Texas on June 7-8, 2002. The following are personal observations and activities from a Freeper's first time attendance as a delegate at this convention.
Thursday, 6 June 2002
I drove up from Houston with two other H.A.T. Freepers (Humblegunner and Flyer, they were my guests). Since the schedules would vary between delegates and non-delegates, we drove in separate vechiles, forming a two-car convoy. The drive took about 3-1/2 hours and we checked into the hotel ahead of schedule.
This was set-up day for the convention exhibits. The FR booth was already set-up and the three of us assisted in manning the booth. Even though the convention started on Friday, there were several committees in session (committee sessions started on Tuesday) and significant number of people in attendance. The only bad thing that happened was that some of the freep photos had not yet arrived. Eight freepers met for a nice BBQ dinner in the West End area.
Friday, 7 June 2002
The missing FR booth pictures arrived. They were set-up in the FR booth in addition to the FR Inaugural Ball Video. During the morning, I helped man the FR booth and talked to several people about FR.
The First General Session Convened at 1:00 pm. Mostly speeches, but a nice salute to all members/former members of the armed service branches (complete with their respective fight songs).
The First SD (Senate District) Caucus Session Convened at 5:00 pm. (Note: I am in SD17). Speeches by local candidates, and election of Permanent Caucus Chairman, Permanent Secretary, and Chairman of Credentials, Rules, Platform/Resolutions, Permanent Organization, and Nomination Committees. One of the speakers had noted that hearing are scheduled this summer in Austin, TX regarding textbook content of Texas History (I do not recall which person stated this). Fifteen freepers met for dinner at the Y.O. Ranch (west end). Good food (steak) but a little pricy.
Saturday, 8 June 2002
The Second SD (Senate District) Caucus Session Convened at 9:00 am. More speeches by local candidates. Election of SREC Commiteeman and Committeewoman. In my SD, both elections had multple candidates. Nominations regarding chairman and vice-chairman, Republican party of Texas were also held. After the caucus, I manned the booth for about an hour (giving MAF and others some needed relief) before the final general session.
The Second General Session Convened at 1:00 pm. Party Rules and Platform were approved. Heated debate occurred on several rule modifications. Three rules involved removal of term limits for National Committeeman/woman, State Party Chairman/Vice-Chairman, and SREC. I made a motion (eventually passed) that resulted in all three rules being adopted/not adopted in a single vote. As this was my first state convention, I did not plan on making a lot of motions, points of order, or debate speeches. However, after consultation with my SREC, conclusion was made that this was a good motion to make. Three of the H.A.T. FR members investigated Dallas pizza after the convention.
Certianly there are some like that but, by no means, a majority!
I assumed it wasn't quite that way, but it sounds like those issues were discussed.
We do that Bigun! That was the point of 43. These people (candidates) refused to tell us! We who have served on many official candidate
review committees come up against a stonewall from time to time. These same candidates often do not fill out official questionnaires and were
unavailable for candidate forums. We were still required to fund them the unknown quantity. Thanks! Your uninformed Comment above speaks
volumes as to why we still are plagued by the RINO beast. You and many like you don't know how the process works. No matter how crude
your comment, it was informative.
While a delegate to the Texas convention, I became even more frustrated with our leadership's attitudes towards the Conservative base.
The centralization of power in the state chairman rather than decentralization to the more-apt-to-be-Conservative SRECs.
Rick Perry, in his speech, rolled out more socialist programs without even taking a breath than any Republican in the history of Texas.
And after working very hard on platform issues at all three levels (precinct, senatorial, and state), it was insulting to find that our state leadership (Weddington and Barton) want us to line up and support Republican candidates come hell or high water..... (thanks for all you do)......but will not require our candidates to endorse our Conservative platform.
It is beginning to appear to me that the Republican party no longer is contributing much to the conservative versus liberal debate.
Rather, I see that our leadership at the national and local levels hungers for the power resulting from a victory in November far more than it cares about the core principles of our party.
I will vote for the candidates in November. But it will be hard to generate much enthusiasm to work for them in the meantime.
IMHO, two truths of most organization: (1) no one is irreplaceable; and (2) people in power think they are irreplaceable.
Note: if I had not made the motion, several others would have attempted, and there was even one attempt (ruled out of order) while Rule 38 was debated.
I am NOT an expert on Roberts Rules; therefore, except for obvious errors, I would not have noticed.
I agree that platform should have been voted on plank by plank (or at least in groups). I only had a chance to read throughly the areas I am most concerned with, so did not notice inconsistancies regarding free-trade and CFR. I do not recall if anyone rose to argue against the blanket approval/dis-approval of the platform on that basis.
My first convention too. I intend to return.
Debate was over an hour, and some of the no votes from SD17 occurred because people were confused and were not going to vote "yea" on something that confusing. The SREC and several of the more experienced delegates did there best of educate those that were confused, but I estimate at least 20% of the SD17 no votes were because of that reason alone.
Regarding the Roberts Rules, like I posted before, I will let the experts on RRO fight it out (I am NOT one of them).
The rules committee chairman railroaded her agenda through at times declaring that there could not be any other reasonable opinion than hers. (NOTE: I was not for either of the proposed rules 43 and 44 in their email forms.) This was simply an abuse of power on her part.
Then we had Milton "Goebbels" Rister hiring kids to distribute his propaganda. Let's see, only 2 committee members backed the closed primary rule but somehow got a 24-6 vote to have the SREC select the chairman of the commitees. This is simply increasing the influence of the grassroots.
The change to rule 43 actually only required the candidates to put no comment on the platform which judicial candidates could have easily done, to be considered for SREC funding. It did NOT require adhearance to the platform, but was intended to just get the candidates to read it. In reality, the SREC gathers information on the candidates positions today before granting party funds. I will agree that for clarity purposes, the proposed changes could have been better worded.</soapbox>
Yep! That's me! A man who ran for state wide office as a republican when that WASN'T cool and who has worked to build the republican party in Texas from nothing to what it is today over the last 25 years just doesn't understand how the system works!
I voted to strike Rule 43 altogether for several reasons. Both the original rule and the proposed modifications are terrible. The onus should be on the candidate to get his or her own copy of the party platform at his or her own expense, not at the expense of the party. No candidates in my SD4 returned the survey this year, including the most outspoken proponents of it (hypocrites). I think an informed voter can read the candidates literature, go to meetings and hear the candidates speak and ask questions or call the candidate or his/her campaign office for clarification on where the candidate stands on issues. People who are uninformed voters don't do the easy things to find out where a candidate stands, so why should they make the trek to party headquarters to review the candidate's adherence to the party platform? Furthermore, I think forcing candidates to adhere to 100% of the party platform represents the "thought police". We have a choice in who agrees with the party platform and that choice is called voting in the primaries. Withholding state party funds from candidates who don't turn in the platform survey was a truly stupid idea that would have an unfunded republican running against a well funded democrat. I mean the idea here is to elect republicans not democrats right?
It's my impression that many of the delegates seriously want to turn American into a theocracy and don't want anyone to disagree with that.
You are absolutely right on this one. Some of the religious fascists in my SD called me a "Clintonite" because I disagreed with them. At least I participated in the March for Justice in 1998, when most of them were probably sitting on their dead asses watching CNN and complaining. The people from my SD that were the loudest shouters of "No RINOs" were the people who do the least for the party, no phone banks, no precinct walking, no campaigning, no fund raisers, no donations, just loud mouths. I think the defense against being called a RINO is just to agree that the name caller is more Republican than you are. It's such a silly argument . . . it's like saying you are closer to God than someone else.
On this my second state convention, I was just a bit more involved as the Sergeant at Arms for Senate District 12.
Imagine my disappointment at learning I would not actually be permitted to bear "Arms"!
I thought it was extremely close (in fact, I think they took the voice vote twice). What I didn't understand was this extreme aversion among delegates to take standing votes. I mean, the sighs were palpable when anyone suggested it. This rule in particular was important, whether one was for or against it in its amended form. It takes 30 seconds -- I told the SD15 leadership that I was unhappy with the sneaky manner of the process even more than the outcome.
Also unfortunately, I agree with jf55510 that the wording was imperfect. The ultimate function of a good chair is to explain what is being voted on, and when s/he is uncertain, to defer to the parliamentarian or to a member of the rules committee (this was never done) to explain the intent and ramifications of any change. Our SD15 chair and rules member were both eminently gifted at both. It's a shame that Sen. Shapiro, either b/c she had her agenda or because she was insufficiently skilled in parliamentary procedure, muddled the debate more than clarifying it.
BTW, SD15 was mostly for keeping the term limits. ("You're telling someone they can't vote for someone -- that's undemocratic," said someone in the caucus.) We voted largely for the Rule 43 compromise. I personally was against the motion to combine 40-42 -- I thought the items were different enough to consider separate without creating an inconsistent outcome since they do address different positions.
Sadly this was my impression at times. There is obviously going to be dissent in a coalition type of organization. The No RINOs proponents would like to have only one flavor of Republican, which would be death to a party (the situation is different for politicians who SHOULD take more risks). I think the situation has to be looked at without resorting to overbearing tactics. For example I sat next to two delegates who were polar opposites on NAFTA (like some on FR). I would not want to drive either of them on the party though. Nevertheless, I think that candidates should be strongly encouraged to disclose their position on the platform (which has a good number of things that I oppose). Let the voters decide, but get the information out there, and tie the money to the disclosure. The Rule 43 compromise amendment put forth by the Rules Committee was, I felt, a benefit to voter education (funded perhaps wrongly due to some language wackiness but not some enormously huge burden). I was disappointed to see it fail.
The motion to combine Rules 40-42 was close. I was surprised it won without a standing vote (most of SD17 voted in favor) but enough voted against to understand and agree to a standing vote. I read that you voted against my motion. I have no problem with that, though I am of a different opinion. See my post why I agree with term limits (and we should be consistent regarding their enforcement). It appeared that most of SD17 was mostly for keeping term limits.
So that was you! Good job, and thanks for shortening the convention a good bit.
If the convention chairwoman had had a corner of a clue, she'd have suggested this herself.
She certainy isn't in the same league, leadership wise, as Michael Williams who chaired the Houston convention in '00.
1)Getting rid of the state lottery - It's great and all, and I support that, *BUT* unless you provide a real solution to making up that revenue, that doesn't involve new taxes, there is no point. This also plays into the state income tax crowd
2)Getting rid of bilingual education : Sounds great, english only, etc. but just in the Austin area alone, we have a 100,000 people that can't speak english. If the kids of those 100,000 people in my area (and I know it's much much higher in south Texas and the Houston area) don't have a good way of learning english, they'll not make it through school, and will end up dropping out and end up getting on some sort of public assistance, which means my taxes will go up in some way, shape, or form.
Yeah, yeah, I'm cold-hearted and care only about keeping my taxes down. I support much of what the platform calls for, but some of these planks were either crafted with no thought in the end-results, or the people crafting them aren't from Texas, or haven't lived here long and are from the north.
Putting aside results/solutions, let's look at elections. A part of the Texas GOP really seemed anti-Hispanic. Those people could hurt Conservatives in Texas for years to come. Yeah, I'm being cold-hearted and just seeing Hispanics as numbers at the polls now, but let's face it - GWB was able to win, in part, to wooing Hispanic voters. Maybe they weren't that large of a chunk of voters, but they helped. If those Hispanics that share the same Conservative/religious values that the rest of us share, feel like we see no place for them on the right side, they'll vote for the dems, and that just means more votes will have to be made up elsewhere, and that will especially impact local districts.
Sorry for rambling. It just took us so long to get GOPs/Conservatives in power in Texas, and I don't want it discarded because of a few people or groups of people.
Well, you made the motion. :-) But really, I thought the motion was necessary and worthy of debate. And to be honest, I had mixed feelings about the term limits rules as a whole. Being my first convention, one funny thing that stuck me was how many SDs were very cohesive units in voting. I guess the SD leadership does has some sway. Our chair went up and down the aisles on substantive votes with a thumbs up or thumbs down. (Did yours and others?) I generally agreed with him (Have I been indoctrinated? Or am I a RINO now, hehe?). However, I was also happy to play the role of maverick a few times in loudly voting against the SD15 caucus.
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.