-24 votes

Nevada Committeeman James Smack Issues Statement on Willis Flip-Flop


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.

James Smack

Comment viewing options

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

Wether you like it or not we

Wether you like it or not we have to form an alliance with these people. We can not win without them and they cannot win without us. It's a love hate relationship. But if our people on the inside want to represent, they have to learn how to play politics.

As a regular citizen, it is easy for you to say "stand your ground" and "don't give in" ect, ect. But in politics, it does not work that way. The game is tricky and everybodies hands get dirty.

As a citizen...I encourage you to protest, stand your ground, and stick to your principles. But it's a whole different ball game on the inside. Our guys on the inside will be bench warmers if they don't play ball with the rest of the players.

Protest is not moving forward. That's correct

Civil Rights Movement: You're going to tell me that the Civil Rights Movement actually gave minorities equal rights? It may have eliminated the segregation of private water fountains, but ultimately it empowered government, not people, and especially not minorities, furthermore, it took away from white males, who lost the most due to it, where most men could afford to raise a family, Mom's could stay home.. now Mom's work just as hard if not harder, especially when single, to raise their families.

Ghandi's efforts has not stopped the profiteering off Indian labor by other nations. The richest move to America to escape the slums.

Colonists efforts.. you do know what happened to the signers of the declaration of Independence?

Gun grabbers protests have made gun sales rise dramtically.



You're playing a game here of equating failure to achieve 100% perfection with the idea that the respective protests yielded no gains toward what was actually being protested. That's not going to fly with me.

Whether the outgrowths and perversions of protest goals are at times negative does not undermine the idea of a fruitful protest: (1) black people who were alive in the 50s, 60s and 70s will by and large tell you the modern situation with regard to schools, buses, access to justice and the like are FAR better now; (2) India is no longer a colony and its choice to be exploited or exploitive is its own (your point here was at best tertiary to Ghandi's efforts); and (3) see #2 (and you DO know who won the war, right?).

As for gun grabbers, the number of guns may have gone up dramatically, but so has population. Nonetheless, there are now whole blocks of weapons that are generally inaccessible either monetarily or due to the poison of having to allow ATF into your house to inspect. I'm talking about a number of machine guns, "streetsweeper" style shotguns, certain ammo, etc. The 60s and 80s saw the introduction of machine gun restrictions that will likely never go away, and if not for the sunset provision in the 90s assault weapons ban, the same would have been true for it. In some states, you can't even have magazine capacities beyond 10!

So yes, I think the facts bear out the idea that the gun grabbers have been rather successful in their protests by piece-meal removing certain weapons from ownership. You do that group by group until, well, there's nothing left.

You can bring up problems with the few areas I mentioned, but in no way do those problems show the protest was pointless and that the people should have simply accepted the status quo.

Politics is a form of gaming


You're thinking there's a way to a slam dunk.

I attended a university many considered a, "black school", in the 80's, because every department took a turn profiling black leaders of that institution/industry. The blacks, proud black community, spoke many times of how they wanted segregation because they were able to build colleges, run stores, develope comminities, organise churches and civic events, and didn't feel or think whites did anything other than infiltrait to profit and dilute their combined power. Some even went so far as to say the whole civil rights was a MSM propeganda to benefit the whites who resented the successful black communities. Many black people I know think the govenerment continues to manipulate them and hold them down with forcing them on government programs that reflect WHITE culture, not their African decent cultures.

Matter of fact.. my family moved from Hawai'i to New Orleans in 1973 when the school system was being integrated, and the students remained segregated by choice. As a military brat, I had grown up with black kids, so they were not just my equals, but some were my best friends in some areas being our Dad's served the military, and the others did not, and did not want to be friends with military kids. So when I went to make friends with black students, they were afraid, and I got threatened many times. I saw many kids carrying KKK cards who would tell me what happens to "niger lovers", like me.

As for who won the war.. seems to me England won that war, and then they gave us an industrail rEVOLution in the name of a civil war, they claimed it was to end slavery, but somehow, we all became slaves to industry. Bush and Obama both BOW to the crown.

We do not agree about "the gun grabbers" winning.

I have yet to see a protest that wins anything, and what's more, I believe most protests are astroturf and designed to for useful idiots. If you enjoy protesting, by all means.. I'll honk for yah!

Again, "No."

Your points can be distilled to "there are still problems even after a 'successful' protest, so protest is pointless." If anything, it seems to be you who thinks it takes a "slam dunk" or an absolutely flawless result to make acting on one's convictions worthwhile.

My position can be distilled to "one should act upon one's sincere beliefs" with the understanding that one should try to anticipate potential consequences and tailor actions accordingly. Because I don't believe in a "slam dunk" or 100% efficacy with something as malleable and transient as the human condition, I think our perspectives are simply incompatible.

Protests have plenty of points

They seldom wind up delivering because they don't promise anything, but rather complain about something.

Give you an example.. I protested water pollution at my surf spot. Collected evidence for two years against every industry on the bay. Took my evidense to the So CA Regional Water Qualtiy Control Board and in a large room where the hearing was held, up against many attorney's, I won, because my evidense was good. What did I win? $125K for the city to put "Leads to Storm Drain" on the gutters that drained into the bay.

Did that stop the pollution?


"Forward"???...why does that

"Forward"???...why does that sound terrifyingly familiar?

Terrifying as in FEAR motivated?

Tell me, because I have NO FEAR.


forward was/is obama's motto this last election...duh

Not a troll

As much as I hate granger's point of view on this, it is granger's point of view, and has that right. Granger is no troll.

Me a troll?

Match my supporting DP with $176.00 since November or be worse than a troll.

I'm not going to allow O's campaign lies stop me from going forward, especially in the name of FEAR.

I fear the O.

I fear the O.

Fear is an acrynom



i had to vote against my principles in order to vote for my principles. hmmmm...sounds vaguely familiar.

principles? principles? we don't need no stinking principles!

What are your principles?

Do you have one or more and what are they, moral, ethical, and if political,, could you state what they are? Thank you.

How About...

...not supporting someone who opposes liberty...how about that?

I know, I know...that is a real toughy and is expecting a lot, huh?

Fact is, people who actually HAVE fundamental-liberty principles, well, they will NOT go against or compromise them.

Mull that concept over a mite.

How about that?

If you are given a choice between someone who isn't really running, but making a statement, and someone who is.. what CHOICE is there?

Either You Failed to Mull Over My Point...

...or you simple do not grasp the issue of fundamental principle.

I will go with door #2 as my guess, since you willingly put yourself in a position where you would have to support party over principle with your 'oath'. That simply says to me that you do not have the underlying principle, or you never would have put yourself in the position where a choice may be necessary.

I cannot but allow the words of Thomas Jefferson to say it best...

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson-

And prduce illegitimate children that became outcasts in society

as a matter of priciple, eh?

More Evidence...

What about that relates to this topic....don't answer, it is self-evident.

What any individual chooses to do that doesn't affect you, is their business, not yours.

I understand that you likely detest Jefferson, as evidenced by your comment. After all, he spoke against much that you seem to support.

Careful, your 'collectivist-stripe' is showing, again.

I don't detest Jefferson at all

I think Jefferson was a genius and by far one of the greatest men of his generation.

I also agree with you, that what an individual does, that doesn't affect me, is THEIR business. What he did with his slaves was his business, until he produced illegitimate children, that were rejected by the society he lived in, and many generations thereafter.

We are discussing principles.. and while slavery was legal (principled during his lifetime), illegitimate children were not. Principles are usually founded on morals and or ethics.. where does prodcuing illegitmate children with a slave fall as ethic or morally principled? Don't get me wrong, that does not detract from Jefferson's genius or massive and valid contributions to the formation of the United States, constitution, Federalists at all.

In Smack's case, we are talking about political principles.
#1 remaining in the game and that is what he's doing. Better to stay in to fight for Liberty, than to get out and have no further fighting chance, after all, Preibus isn't worth it, because Willis did not run against him to win.


Ron Paul has, long, told us that working within the party is the only way to see change. You can't change a thing, if the elitist assholes shut us out. Stealth is the only way!

And I Assess That He was Dead Wrong

Ron Paul is not the word of some 'liberty god, neither is he the bible.

It would pay to realize that there is a globalist-collectivist cabal that has taken over the government over many decades. The 'party' is exactly that, a single Globalist-Collectivist Party which has the GOP as its right-wing and the Dems as its left-wing. The cabal has international roots and it has very specific goals and plans.

Restoring the Republic will NOT happen via working from 'within' the 'party', nor will it be a federal government driven solution. This cabal will not allow any take-over via 'the process' and they will never 'allow' a movement based on individual liberty to control schite.

Wake up. Individualism and individual liberty is anathema to collectivism and to this cabal and their aims.

The only thing that will provide a chance if for whatever tiny percentage of people who can grasp and stand on fundamental principles, to understand what is facing us and to refuse to comply, compromise or cooperate. These people must be vocal, visible, unwavering and openly make ready and bluntly declare for all to see and hear, that we will resist by any means necessary, even via force of arms.

A line in the sand, as it were.

When all is said and done, if the IX and X Amendment movements fail it will revert to employing 'Liberty's Teeth'.

I pray we avoid that, but do not believe we will.

On that dread day and certainly during the lead-up to it, all you faux-principled, work-with-the-enemy types, 'compromise to stave off worse', quislings, rationalizers, justifiers and various and sundry apologists for the aforementioned, well, stand aside and better yet, go hide. Not only will you get in the way, you are almost certain to be looked at as something that needs corrected, too....least you once again work your weaselly, insidious ills.

As I see it.


easy: say what i mean and mean what i say.

Perhaps it's time you studied what principles are?

They are far more profound then saying what one means and meaning what one says.

That may be a foundation for principles, but principles, especially politcal principles are challenged constantly, and not so easy when the tables turn to throw you off and OUT of the game.

The foundation priciple in politcs is to stay in the game, and many here have not even attempted to get in.

How about you?

Are you registered Republican?
Are you in a committee?

Just Goes To Show You

...how amazing Ron Paul really is. This NRP Chairperson wilted under the pressure of one party dinner while Ron Paul withstood decades of pressure in D.C.'s political cesspool.


RP ate lunch by himself, and no one gave a damn what he said for decades, as they veiwed him as the, "crazy uncle".

What pressure did he endure being a loner?

He minded his own business. He didn't make waves. He didn't sign wave, or go on TV and tell Americans, YOU'RE LOSING YOUR REPUBLIC.

Kent Snyder had to practically beg Ron Paul to run for president in 08.. THE RELUCTANT CANDIDATE. For years we were screaming at debates.. TELL THEM RON TELL THEM!!! And he wouldn't. He would stand there and smile. DP had threads miles long from folks who would tell us what Ron Paul could have, should have, might have said.

Ron Paul kept his congressional job because he brought home the bacon, not because he was an outspoken champion of Liberty.

Wait...he never gave speeches

Wait...he never gave speeches telling Americans that we are losing our republic? Do you ever go on youtube?

Can you show me any speach pre 2007

besides his LP presidential campaign in 1988.. the floor was empty when he spoke, and he's the first to admit that.

Oh Granger...I don't know off

Oh Granger...I don't know off the top of my head. I've seen countless videos of Ron Paul. I'm not going to sift through them all. But...I am there are some out there.

And I'm up voting you because someone down voted you and that is just rude.