Comment: Mr. James Smack I was just

(See in situ)


Mr. James Smack I was just

Mr. James Smack

I was just reading over a memorandum that you sent out in order to explain the sequence of events and reasoning behind your actions at the RNC Winter Meeting. There is one thing that strikes me in what you wrote, pertaining to the progress made on the egregious rule changes. You state:

“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.”

The problem with this statement is that the resolution adopted by the resolutions committee, and the submitted amendment to be heard by the rules committee in April, do not actually address rules 12 & 40 at all. In fact, the submitted rules amendment, if passed, would destroy any hopes that we might have to take measures to reverse rules 12 & 40 anytime in the near future.

This is a big problem for the grassroots working within the RNC. Even if the submitted amendment takes care of rule 16 (which we were told was already taken care of while we were in Tampa, anyway), as long as rule 12 remains in effect, rule 16 can and likely will come right back. If we accept that John Boehner's teleprompter vote call was legitimate, then the grassroots have lost all power within the republican party, and there will be no need to continue participation within the party nor to ask others to participate in 2016, as no grassroots candidate will even make it close to the goal post of 8 states under rule 40, and even if they do, we have set the precedent that it's acceptable for the vote of the delegation to be nothing more than a courtesy.

Do you consider it to be a good deal for the grassroots that we had rules thrust upon us in an illegitimate manner, the most egregious of them all being rules 12, 40, & 16, and the amends made are that they will temporarily fix rule 16, which we were told was already fixed, and which won't impact us until 2016 anyway, before which point it may be changed back to its egregious form?

Signed,

Nicole Revels, North Carolina

Bryan Daugherty, Maine

If you are unclear about why the rule amendment to be heard in April does not address rules 12 & 40, please read the following:

http://carolinalibertypac.com/2013/01/the-upcoming-plight-of...