-24 votes

Nevada Committeeman James Smack Issues Statement on Willis Flip-Flop

MEMORANDUM

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.

Sincerely,
James Smack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

civil disagreement

I think citizens are tired of politicians who consider their ideas and philosophy secondary to their ability to get things done. There should be the ability to disagree and even vote against a proposition civilly with no political consequences on future matters. Rather, branding others as political opponents because of their past votes should be seen as childish and unwise. Put simply, you should be able to vote for Mark Willis and then work with Reince Preibus on matters in which you agree, because that's what an adult would do. And if Reince Preibus truly believed that these new rules shouldn't have been passed, he wouldn't have shoved them through a voice vote that was clearly split amongst shouts of "division!!" Half of Ron Paul's attraction was his civil and honest manner in which he never compromised his values. I wish you all would learn that aspect of his political acumen.

traitor Preibus deserves to be hung

you dont have to deal with this scum. It only takes 50k precinct chairmen to control the party and the nation. Work at the precinct level

R3ovlUTION charles walker 8322474577

What a bunch of smack!

Let's break this down...

Smack Quote: "Chairman Priebus admitted that mistakes had been made in 2012"

My Response: Mistakes? Mistakes?? Mistakes???!!! How about outright fraud, deceit and treachery against the duly elected party members and constituents?

Smack Quote: "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."

My Response: There is no way he can know Priebus' intentions. Based on previous proven deceit is naive to trust a known liar.

Smack Quote: "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."

My Response: Abstaining from the nomination vote with Willis approval would have been the prudent course of action.Let one of the other 48 states be his final supporters. Active support was wrong. Kissing the ring never works with these types.

Smack Quote:"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."

My Response:Do you really believe that of your delegates? How insulting. Now you are kissing another part of Priebus anatomy. I am sure he reveling in getting you to do that.

Smack Quote:"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."

My Response: So, you believe that the only way to raise money is to kowtow to interests without principle? If this is just about money then we should just give up now...

Sad day for the hardworking grassroots of Nevada. It is too bad that a more diplomatic leader was not chosen when we won the ability to appoint one. Smack is out of his league and we are all along for the ride now on this.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

When will we learn....

There is one thing the Establishment fears more than Ron Paul, and that is Rand Paul...i.e. the ability to play politics, get dirty, build coalitions, and actually make change or win.

That's why IMHO that Ron Paul was left to himself...the MSM and PTB can always point and laugh at him as the crazy uncle who always said NO, no matter what, completely uncompromising on his principles.

Enter Rand Paul (or in this particular case Smack [I'm not saying Smack is comparable to Rand or Ron]). The MSM and PTB cannot simply relegate Rand as a rabble-rousing, uncompromising, fringe lunatic because he's more willing to play the game of politics and vote with his colleagues on issues where his father would have voted NO.

This doesn't mean Rand or Smack is compromising on their principles, it means that they're playing politics. Grow up people...please...for the sake of the movement...for the sake of Liberty.

Yes, be skeptical. Yes, do your homework. Yes, ask tough questions. Yes, challenge ourselves to be better promoters of liberty. But dammit, quit falling into the divide and conquer ploy being used against us!

We have to stay together. Not all of us agree on the best ways to promote liberty, and most in this forum would not consider running for office. Rand and Smack have chosen that route, and it requires a lot of different strategies than those required to post on internet forums or to protest in the streets.

One of the planks of the Just War Theory, which most here at the DP prescribe to, says that, "there must be serious prospects of success"...or in other words, don't wage wars which are unwinnable.

Please....for the love of all that is good, learn to recognize the lessons Sun Tzu spoke of in the Art of War...divide and conquer.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

RAND? Are you kidding??

Or, do you simply not know what Rand is?

The establishment (either party) does not fear Rand, because Rand is exactly what they want (or think they want). He's a go-along idiot, who'll do whatever is required of him, to keep his seat. Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul, and he never was.

I wish Rand would become half the man his father is and was. But, if he does this, he'll probably lose his place, too. So, again; we've got a guy in there who will do what he's told, such as go to the wailing-wall at the behest of Bibi and Israel, our worst enemy, disguising itself as our friend. Until someone stands up to them, and Rand is not the guy, we will continue to jump into wars in the Middle-East, at the insistance of Bibi Netanyahu (who's already planning his fourth run, though their s-election was only the other day.)

In other words, we're screwed. And people like Smack are those who've helped to screw us, along with plenty who've said they're on our side, yet when it came down to it, proved they are not.
I hate this stupidity.

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

Did you read the rebuttal to my own comment below?!

My friend on FB made some really good points along the lines of what you said. I know Rand has shortcomings, but I just trust Ron and Carol's parenting, and I feel we're victims of infiltrators who want to divide, disrupt, conquer, and co-opt our movement.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

No, haven't read your rebuttal, yet.

But, I will say this: I do not put onto Ron and Carol the actions of Rand, as Rand is certianly old enough to be accountable for his doings.
Here's the thing; I have watched Rand since he's been on the stage *if you will*. I have not seen a lot of Ron in Rand. Or, I have not seen a lot of pro-constitutional thoughts or deeds from Rand. I know people who grew up close to the Paul's, and they say the same thing.
Rand is, sadly, not his dad. I allowed myself to have a little bit of hope only because Rand did come out and stump for his father (which actually surprised me, like I said, as I've followed Rand for long enough.) But, this hope was quickly dashed when it seemed that the person Rand had, "helped", his dad find in order to run his campaign was working against Dr Ron Paul, and of course, against all of us, too.
Based on the whole Jesse Benton debacle, added to the timing of Rand's coming-out for Romney (and I thought he always would, but that timing was terrible and obvious), causes me to believe Rand was working against his dad, always.

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

I'm reposting a rebuttal to my comment above...

I'm reposting this rebuttal from a friend on Facebook. It was really well thought out and articulated, and I feel it's important:

Rob, I love you man, but that's BS. The establishment is thrilled when they find someone who will "play ball" like this because it means they know what to do. They have the playbook, they know it works, they know they will win in the end. We have got to start learning our history on this stuff or this movement is already doomed to fail.

They were able to marginalize Ron only because he was the only one who would hold the line. It still terrified them, it's still why they threw tons and tons of resources at his house seat time after time to knock him out. They always failed because his constituency wanted him there and so did the rest of us across the country.

One of the strongest tools the establishment has to maintain the status quo is this attitude that fear and reprisals and requiring people to march in lockstep is a necessary, normal, and even healthy part of the political process. That debate is bad, and disagreement is worse, and if you don't go along with the majority you should not expect anyone to work with you again. This is idiotic and it is diabolical. It was the common practice of the Politburo, to the point that if someone did talk in favor of the eventually losing side, they were expected to rise after the vote and explain how wrong they had been before, and that they had now seen the light and were entirely on board with the majority. No dissent could stand, ever.

Whenever one person stands up and says no, and maintains that no, come hell or highwater, the establishment knows fear. Because they know that the rest whom they have pounded into a followers' paste are no longer that concerned about who they follow, as long as that person is strong--this is exactly what they have been conditioned for, after all. Those people will in fact start to find plenty who will work with them, and in short order it's entirely possible they'll be facing real opposition.

Ghandi's famous quote leaves out a very important step: First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they NEGOTIATE with you, then you win. If they can offer "seats at the table" and "influence" and "access" and get opposition to stand down that way they are happy to do so. They will gladly share the pie as long as they still define the ingredients and the shares.

The Just War requirement of serious prospect of success is to *initiate* a blood war, ie killing people. 1) A vote for RNC chair is not a blood war; though it has blood war implications, we did not ask Smack to end anyone's life. 2) That requirement is to initiate a war which once initiated is to be executed until its conclusion, the removal of the Jus ad bellum. The criteria to initiate war do not directly apply to every battle of that war. Plenty of battles are fought with 0 chance of direct success because of their effect on the overall war. 3) Serious chance of success gets judged relatively against the other components of the Jus ad bellum--when a population is facing extinction, it has to fight no matter its odds. See Britain during WWII.

RXJ (RXJ continues here!) tells some pretty gut-wrenching stories about what it was like to watch the shining stars of his generation's movement get picked off by the compromise, and the go-along-get-along, and sometimes the direct bribes. It went on until he was the last one standing. They tried to come for him, but they knew it wouldn't work and it didn't. So they moved back to making fun of him, because with the numbers he had left that would work again.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

+1

Thank you, exactly!

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

This is also why....

...Hannity always tries to co-op Rand and Beck is trying to co-op libertarianism....because we've already won and our ideas are slowly becoming more accepted. The cat is out of the bag. So they have to resort to the next steps. Co-op opposition groups and initiate divide and conquer to destroy said groups from the inside...create internal strife.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Co=Opt Rand and Libertarianism?

1. Rand is far from being Libertarian.
2. The "Tea Party" (who call themselves Libertarians) have been purchased by the Koch Brothers, out of Israel (Dual-Citizens)
3. Hannity has been bought-out, too. Yes, he used to say the right things and seemed to be on our side, but that's not the case any longer. He proved himself when Ron Paul was running and he was a part of blacking-out the man. When he would finally ask Ron Paul to come onto his show, he'd mistreat him and lie about Dr Paul and what he'd said.

We need a REAL Constitutionalist, one who understands it and goes with it. We don't have this, in this moment, and Rand is surely not it. It makes me sad and I imagine Rand is quite the disappointment to his parents, too.

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

What?!

I guess, after reading this, I truly understand that we must, wisely, pick our fights. Here we come, rules changes! I accept his explanation. Hope it does not make me look like a traitor. I lived next door to a town in Arkansas that has decided their cops will stop everyone in a certain section of town, to ask for their ID! We have ton stop these lunatics, before they ruin this country!

Unforunately people don't

Unfortunately people don't seem to understand this decision means nothing and this is still a shitty game until we have enough people to change things. If he made a deal that will benefit us, in anyway, in exchange for this little unity show, it's a damn good deal.

Some people need to do a cost benefit analysis when playing politics. We need to be willing to do anything to win, because they already are.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

How does it mean nothing?

I think, any time one has the option to stand up for right and instead goes with what's always wrong, it says a lot about the person making the decision.
I don't know (probably none of us know) that whatever list Smack went though to decide, "everyone else is doing it", and he ought to just go ahead and bend-over, but I think he was either played into believing it, or he never was the guy we hoped he'd be.
Who knows who told him everyone else was going with priebus?
And, why do we like Dr Ron Paul so much? He has never been one to go along just to stay in his seat.

Again, how much power does Smack have, if he's so easily convinced to do exactly what he was elected to NOT do?

I wonder how the decent Republicans of Nevada feel, based on this punk-move?

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

It means nothing

Because the establishment controls the majority of state parties. Making enemies out of the chairman, with no benefit to us, does nothing to advance liberty. If you trade nothing for something, then you are winning. This is a game for now. Play it or lose by default. Ron "has never been one to go along just to stay in his seat."? Then why did he vote to elect Gingrich as house speaker? Hell, why did he join the republican party?

This isn't about dying for principle, not yet, it's about winning so we don't have to.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Smacks of betrayal

.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Listen up peeps. Now is the

Listen up peeps. Now is the time to take seats in your local committee. You want change? That's how you do it. Period.

What's that saying about power?

Oh, right, it corrupts.

What we witness here is not a snake in the grass with nefarious intentions double-crossing the rest of us and selling out on his principles. It is far more basic than that. This man ascended to a position of power. No doubt, his ascent was the restult of a great deal of personal effort and sacrifice; however, it was also accomplished on the backs of those who put him there with the trust that he would represent them.

I would be willing to bet that, in his mind, he is doing just that. Representing the people who put him there to represent them in the best way that HE knows how. Ah, there's the rub. I would be equally willing to bet that, in his conscience, he knows that his actions fly in the face of the vast majority of the people who helped him ascend so that might represent them. Hence his admission about how the Liberty Movement will feel about his actions.

That, my friends of liberty, is politics. This man, as a result of an earnest thought process, has determined that since he's been ordained he now knows better how to represent those who hired him to represent them. It's the same reason that oBOMBa probably was a champion of civil liberties until he had the opportunity to represent all of us, at which point the noble king must do what he believes is right... it's for our own good.

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!

big mistake? or....

The only problem I see is trusting the leader of the elitists, saying they will not screw us over, next time around. Sadly, we could see another Republican loss, because the elitists in the establishment, just screw us over again!

Gullible Is ...

...as gullible does. The decision to not nominate Willis was one thing. It did not necessitate going the next step of agreeing to nominate Priebus instead. What happened to the other option (simply doing NOTHING)? What is with this obsessive compulsion of having to "do something" all the time? Why not let one of the other many states nominate Priebus? Why Nevada? Nevada is still on the map. One stupid gesture doesn't make everyone suddenly perk up and say "look, there's Nevada! I didn't know they were still around".
Does anyone believe Nevada is now "special" in Priebus's little black book? After he finished his cigarette and showered he was already looking up his next "conquest". Pathetic.

I Negotiate for a Living

And trisport's logic is correct. This whole thing has me wondering if Mr. Smack has not gotten some under the table assurances of future actions which will benefit him PERSONALLY, because he got nothing for the movement (the word of Mr. Priebus is of no value) by going the extra step of nominating him.

This again calls into question the validity of working through a system which rewards the most duplicitous and self-serving. It is too hierarchical. We might as well try to join the Gambinos in the hopes of "reforming them from the inside." Again, I negotiate for a living and I am not opposed to compromise- when it actually advances our interests.

These guys will only respect the power to hurt them, and Mr. Smack just traded a lot of that away for nothing of tangible value- again unless there is more here than he is telling us. In that case what he tells us here is just, pardon the pun, "talking smack."

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Oh, i don't know about money (or power) of Smack..

Smack probably does not have any power, and he's proven it by acquiescing for Rinse... (you probably know the rest..)
I don't know, though, that Smack needed financial enticement in order to do with RPribus. He probably still thinks he holds some power, but as he's bent-over for the PTB (cuz everyone else was doing it-- whaaah), what power does he really have? I'd say; ZERO.

But, yes; I would agree with Smack talking Smack. When it came down to it, though, he only did what he was told to do. Isn't this what just about all of our politicians do, up to Obama, who's been a puppet to Israel (for sure)?

We had SOME proof, but RNC does not care about Rules n Laws- they just break and then change 'em to suit whomever (not PAUL).

The word of Mr Priebus has power in the GOP

.

His word does not lack value..

because it has no power, it lacks value because it has no credibility. Especially as it pertains to his doing anything of substance to aid the liberty movement.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

He has power in the GOP

I'm not going to knock the Liberty Movement. I don't consider myself part of the Liberty Movement. I consider myself a part of the Ron Paul rEVOLution, which may be part of the Liberty Movement, but the Liberty Movement is not exclusive to the GOP, and I, at this point, as an elected officer, am GOP, where Liberty Movement is all over the political map.

Willis to me was a HUGE dissappointment, and so I don't blame anyone who is elected in the GOP for going with Preibus because he really had NO competitition.. he had a protest.. but NO REAL competition.

Hopefully that will change soon, as there were a couple of folks who claimed to be in the GOP below, I encourage to run for Preibus's possition next election.

All we hear is more compromise.

And compromise is why we are in dire straights.

Good one....

This guy is afraid of embarrassment...what a joke....What's an embarrassment is the republican party as a whole to anyone who is of sound body and mind.

From a Nevada National Delegate

Understand, when Smack came on the scene in NV 2008, he was working w/the Ron Paul people. He was a RP person. He helped us get the rule changed for electing national delegates from the floor of the state convention. Then the lights were turned off. That summer, he ran for Congress. The RP people helped him. He lost. He was too unknown to be running for US Congress. Then, he ran for Vice Chair of the state party. The RP people supported him 100%. WE got him elected. He ran for National Committeeman at our 2012 state convention. Same story. The RP people got him elected. Then he started "supporting" Romney. He told me & others, to our faces that he didn't say "endorse Romney." He reassured us that he was ALWAYS in our corner. Now, he says this to us? What he doesn't seem to understand is that at our last state central committee meeting, the RP members dominated. How is he going to work with us, now that he's made his pact? He doesn't seem to understand that had he stood with Willis & then had the state gotten backhanded from Priebus, he could have gone to the press. He could have made a national name for himself, perhaps even gotten on the talking heads programs, wondering why the RNC was throwing Nevada to the wolves? People talk about representation, if this was Smack's game plan, why didn't he take it to a half dozen RP insiders who could be telling us, "Hold on, this is going to work out for the better." He didn't. The only insiders he's working with are the Priebus gang. The capper was his statement about the delegates who unbound. Now, he could say that he was forced to say something like that to make it look like he truly had thrown us under the bus, but I doubt it. I have to say, the RNC is totally lost on how to rebuild the party. It's truly pitiful.....

So he did great until Romney?

Convince me that Ron Paul was running to win.

I voted Romney. I didn't vote FOR Romney. Last week at my committee meeting the Chair said, "I don't think any of us voted FOR Romney in the primary". TRUE. NONE OF US voted for him.

I voted Romney because I signed a loyalty oath. Romney was shoved down our throats and then.. the statement from his wife that Romney wasn't running to win.. well I think that was true. I think we have a system that needs to change, and to change it we have to stay in the game.

I don't believe Nevada has a loyalty oath.. but I don't know what the upper offices have..

Does anyone actually believe Rand wanted Romney over his Dad? I don't.

The name of the politcal game is staying in, and we get tested, tempted, manuvered all the time..

The RNC, is corrupt. Smart isn't being corrupted, he's telling you the truth, he's staying in the game, and while he may have lost your support, he has gained mine, and I will work to help him get other's support.

Willis ran to protest. Not only was his speaches weak at best, he totally FLOPPED, let a lot of people who HOPED and helped him down. Willis is the one who should be raked over the coals for being a fraud. Smack is telling you, and us, his TRUTH, and that's more than what Willis did.

I'm sorry you are burnt on the GOP.. Thank you for all you did. I wish you the best of luck as an Indy or Third Party, knowing, you will get nowhere. I was there for 33 years.. worked very hard. Where's the Libertarian Party today? Nominating Republicans willing to don a GOP pin because they have NO way to win a GOP nomination.

I think Priebus is aware what he's up against. What has he won? A party that has Ron Paul Republicans that he can't shake despite broken bones, rules changes, and shenannigans to make a criminal blush.

The message to Priebus might as well be, BE CAREFUL FOR WHAT YOU WISH FOR, eh?

You Did Good!

You did the right thing.

As a GOP committee member in CA with voting rights, I came to conclusion that Willis's campaign was protest, and protest is not moving forward. We need to move forward and you did.

THANK YOU

What!?

What!? "Protest" is not moving forward, huh? When disagreeable things happen, people should just go along to get along in the new paradigm? Please tell me you don't really believe that "protest" is a wasted effort.

What about:

The Civil Rights Movement?
Ghandi's efforts in India?
The Colonists efforts back in the 18th century?

Hell, what about the gun-grabbers' protests that have seen the 2nd Amendment get relegated to red-headed stepchild status DESPITE those protests calling for blatantly unconstitutional, ill-advised, and wrong-headed solutions? They've been protesting and slowly getting what they want all this time. It seems to me that protest is what makes victory possible. You can't win anything if you don't even try, which is what it sounds like you're advocating.