Nevada Committeeman James Smack Issues Statement on Willis Flip-FlopSubmitted by @JuggaloPatriot on Wed, 01/30/2013 - 12:43
To: Nevada Republican Party Members
From: James Smack, National Committeeman - Nevada
Date: January 29, 2012
Subject: Republican National Committee Meeting
Charlotte, NC - January 23 -25, 2013
This memorandum is in response to the many requests that I have received regarding the events in which I participated at the Republican National Committee meeting last week.
Let me begin with the facts:
Fact #1: On January 21, 2013, I attended a dinner in Las Vegas hosted by Republican National Chairman, Reince Priebus. Nevada Republican Party Chairman Michael McDonald and three other NRP Executive Board members also joined the gathering. At the dinner, there was an open discussion regarding how Chairman Priebus could help the NRP get stronger going into 2014 and the Presidential Election cycle of 2016. Chairman Priebus admitted that mistakes had been made in 2012, and agreed that we needed to fix these issues going forward.
Fact #2: I had previously stated on a Facebook post that I was supporting Mark Willis of Maine in his run for chairman of the RNC and that I would also make a nomination speech on his behalf.
Fact #3: Chairman Priebus did, in fact, ask Chairman McDonald and myself (after the other dinner guests had departed after the end of the meal) if Nevada would be his third nominating state for RNC Chairman as a way to demonstrate unity and to help bridge the divide that has existed between the Nevada Republican Party and the RNC since the formation of Team Nevada last year. At that time, I asked Mr. Priebus to give me until Wednesday evening to provide a decision for him on this matter.
Fact #4: It requires three states with two RNC members each in agreement to nominate any national officer. It was my understanding from Mark Willis that he still had nominations from only two states as of late Wednesday evening. In talking with RNC members in the states that might be still in play, I did not hear anything that led me to believe that Willis had any more than one RNC member from any of the other states willing to submit a nomination in his behalf. This information convinced me that he wasn’t likely to be nominated after all.
Fact #5: Taking all the above facts into consideration, plus factors involving rules changes, etc., I made the decision very late in the evening on Wednesday, and signed the appropriate nomination form for Reince Priebus at around midnight that evening. I asked Chairman Priebus to allow me the opportunity to inform Mark Willis personally of my decision before any information was released to the press and I personally informed Mr. Willis of my decision at about Noon Eastern on Thursday.
Now that you have the facts, let me provide you with my thought process in coming to the decision:
For at least the next four years, I’m going to have to be able to work in a spirit of collegiality with my fellow RNC members. This fact hit home with me at the Resolutions Committee meeting on Wednesday afternoon when it was apparent to Diana Orrock and me that a resolution we had submitted would not be considered or approved as worded.
However, a well respected member of the RNC from South Carolina had substitute language that directed the RNC to form the Rules Committee with all due speed to convene at the spring meeting and make recommendations for changes. There was a great deal of support for this, so I recommended that the Resolutions Committee consider our motion so that the substitute language could be considered.
This got the Nevada Resolution, as written, made and seconded by the committee. The substitute language was adopted unanimously, passed unanimously, and then was adopted unanimously by the entire body of the RNC, with Diana Orrock and myself as the presenters. This action garnered a great deal of support from individual members who are more than ready to blow up Rules 12, 16, and 40.
Now we’ve established a time line for considering rule rollbacks, and I asked Chairman Priebus if he supported this time line when I spoke to him Wednesday evening prior to giving him my decision. He said he would wholeheartedly support the recommendations of the rules committee. At that point, given the near certainty that no third state would come forward to nominate Willis, and the potential upside of being on good terms with the RNC Chairman as opposed to having him as an adversary, I made my decision to join Chairman McDonald in nominating Chairman Priebus.
Now, could I have gone down with the ship, nominated Willis and kept all the Liberty faction happy? Sure! I guarantee that, save maybe a couple of more votes against his reelection, Reince Priebus would still have been elected the RNC Chairman by a landslide, Nevada would still be in the wilderness, and we would have gained no friends from my work there. And, my ability to continue to fight for fair rules and other liberty movement goals would have been further compromised.
I also recognize that we may have gained nothing. Just because Chairman Priebus looked me in the eye and made a promise to help Nevada does not mean it will happen. Campaign promises can be broken. But, in my opinion, there was certainly more upside here by believing in what Chairman Priebus was committing to Nevada than to ignore it and make a symbolic gesture with the Willis nomination. I have him on record as ready to help, and the NRP stands ready for the help and is ready to work as a team with the present RNC leadership charting a course for the future. This has been too well publicized to not happen at this point without Priebus doing substantial damage to his reputation. I, for one, believe in this commitment, and you should too.
I firmly believe that by my decision to join with Chairman McDonald and give my support to Chairman Priebus that I very likely advanced the cause of Liberty far more than the group of rogue delegates in Tampa who gained the Liberty movement nothing more than a black-eye and embarrassed the state of Nevada on national television.
I don’t doubt for a second that the more popular course of action for me among my supporters would have been to ignore the numbers and to stand with Mark Willis to please the emotions of Nevada’s Liberty movement, but I have an ethical obligation to do what’s best for all Nevada Republicans, not just one group.
Fortunately, in this case, I’m fully confident that my decision in Charlotte last week will help all Nevada Republicans, including the Liberty movement, by allowing me to continue to be an advocate, rather than being sidelined as someone who acts irrationally and against the best interests of Nevada. I did my best to help both the Liberty movement and the Nevada Republican Party with the way I handled my vote.
Finally, Nevada Republicans who wish to be much more rebellious and stand solely on principle, even when that damages their ability to make real changes that will benefit their principles, can only do so when the NRP doesn’t have to continually worry about making ends meet and keeping the lights on. A party with no money has zero chance of influencing any decisions, because it will cease to exist, and those that support the party financially do so because they expect to see the party fighting for our core principles of limited government and individual liberty.
So, to my Liberty Friends who would like to step up and start donating $10 a month or more, please visit www.nevadagop.org and sign up. Those that are not interested in helping us be self-sustaining, or are unwilling to volunteer their time for the state party cannot expect your national leadership to insure the party’s destruction by taking futile stands on principle that prevent sensible donors from supporting the party.