UPDATED: Reince Priebus Reads the Daily Paul Quite Often and Knows Jesse BentonSubmitted by RobHino on Sat, 01/26/2013 - 08:16
Let me give you the skinny. So, as we were getting ready to go to the strategy session, we couldn't help but notice signs on easels advertising a Reince Priebus for Chair party for tonight, after the Bobby Jindal dinner. This wasn't part of the agenda, and I got the impression it was thrown together to further cement support for Priebus, just in case there was ANYONE still on the fence.
We found out that Mark's candidacy came to an end just before dinner. After dinner, some of us decided that there might be some useful thing we could do to advance the cause of liberty by going to what was now Priebus's victory party, and if there wasn't, we could always leave.
So, we mingled a bit, and I had just finished my beer, and was beerless. Reince sidled up to me, jostled my elbow, and suggested I have a drink in a friendly way. At the point, the interaction was pretty superficial. He was just playing the role of amiable host, and I was just playing the role of gracious guest. We engaged in a little small talk, he gave me another friendly nudge, and ambled off to schmooze the next party goer.
And after a few minutes, it hit me. Why didn't I just go talk to him about our "stuff"? What did I have to lose?
So, I approached him, and waited about 10 minutes or so while he finished up a long conversation with two ladies. I got his attention, and pointed out we hadn't been properly introduced earlier.
"Reince Priebus, RNC Chair." God as my witness.
I introduced myself as the chair of the Texas Republican Liberty Caucus, and we were off to the races. My goal was to offer an olive branch, in an attempt to heal the rift between the liberty movement and the RNC establishment. If he smacked it away, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
He didn't smack it away. He seemed genuinely interested in figuring out what to do so that he could get us to not just tolerate each other, but be, as he put it, "happy warriors".
If he could get a grade for talking the talk, it would be an A. Of course, there has been no walking the walk yet, and I suspect that's the part we care about, anyway. But along the way, he mentioned that he did read the Daily Paul quite often, knew Jesse Benton, etc.
We were joined by Benjamin, and later by Eric. It was getting to the point where we were really monopolizing his time, but to his credit, he didn't just bail on us. I didn't have a watch on it, but I wouldn't have been shocked to find that he spent 20 solid minutes on us.
I think where we all left it was a pledge to get back with each other and have a more substantial conversation by the rules meeting, which would mean by April.
Maybe this was all nothing. Maybe this was an important step in gaining acceptance for the liberty movement. Only time will tell.
End of commentary.
Just for fun, this photo is appropriate!
Commentary by me from comment section below:
I did not write the preceding commentary. It was written by a friend who has done more for our cause than most on this forum. I tried the whole working through the party thing. I was a state delegate in 2008 and in 2012, and I even attended the RNC in Tampa and witnessed first hand the blatant corruption. I've told my friends that I would be by their side to help in anyway that I could, and dammit that's what I intend on doing. I have chosen to work outside the party by trying to help libertarian entrepreneurs, but some of my friends are darn good at what they've been doing inside the party, especially in Texas. I intend to support them through thick and thin and you're welcomed to join. We'd love to have you and any others who want to quit complaining and start doing.
The person telling the story above was not convinced of Reices's sincerity completely, but rather is going to use the opportunity to pursue the same ends we all want to advance. I assume most have not read further discussion on this topic, which might actually be set as "public" on FB if you go digging around. I suggest if we all desire the same ends that we be more tolerant of others means. "IF" being the operative word.
Yes, as many have alluded to below, leadership has proven to sleep with swine, but an ever growing amount of underlings and grassroots people in the GOP are already or are slowly becoming sympathetic to our cause. We must continue to pursue their hearts and minds, and if continuously outing their leadership as not beholden to their own rules and promises makes our job of spreading the ideas of liberty easier (it will), then we'll continue to catch them in lies.
When Priebus doesn't do squat like most of us assume based off his actions to date, when he doesn't honor his pledge to meet with us and work to fix the rules, it's now documented that he once again remained divisive and disinterested in the libertarian wing of the party.
Like I mentioned in the comments below, I'm not working through the party anymore because it's too frustrating for me personally, and I feel like I'm more effective in other areas, but that does not mean that working through the GOP is not necessary. I'm not out protesting in the streets either, but that does not mean that's not necessary too. I support all efforts to advance liberty and expose the crooks. What's so hard to understand about that?
To quote a good friend of mine, "If you tell me that we are charging the gates of hell and I say I will support you then I promise you won't have to look around for me. I will be the guy on your right with a bucket of water."
I've told my friends who have made the decision to stay and fight for all the grounds liberty has won in local and national GOP politics (which in Texas is quite impressive), and as I said, dammit, that's what I intend on doing!
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle
Please try to be more tolerant of others' means to our same ends, assuming we have the same ends at heart.
What happens when SHTF and all those GOPers are looking for answers, looking for where to go? Wouldn't we be in a better position to influence them if we've been in their meetings the whole time leading up to the crisis trying to warn of the impending danger?