In recent days pro-life groups have exposed a radical pr0-choice position of Barak Obama when he was in the Ill. State Senate. He not only opposed a measure to insure that babies that survived a botched abortion would receive medical care, he was the only senator to speak against the bill. Obama went on the attack and called those who brought this issue to the public’s attention “liars.” In the Saddleback Church interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Obama says that he can not define when a baby has human rights. That decision was “above my pay grade.” So Obama has taken the position that babies who survive a botched abortion should not be required by law to receive medical attention, and he supports partial-birth abortion which amounts to infanticide. This is no “moderate” Democrat.
The Battle for Home Schooling Freedom
In a stunning reversal of its own recent decision the California Second Court of Appeals said that home school families in California may teach their children at home without being state accredited teachers. The court relied on not only briefs from many home school defenders but also looked at the case law from other states which have allowed home school families the same freedom. The California Court acknowledged that the state had refused to enforce 50 year-old court decisions rejecting parents right to home school unless they were certified teachers. In fact, over the last twenty five years the state has allowed home school families to teach their children virtually free from state oversight. The court decision is not only a great victory for home school families in California but it solidifies that right in law and removes the uncertainty between the actions of the state and the former case law. However, it also makes clear that home school families must be involved in the political process of choosing our government leaders to prevent an erosion of our freedom through legislation.
While this has been going on Germany has increased its efforts to eradicate the fledgling home school movement in that country. A report today by CBN highlighted the issue. US attorney Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group (IHRG) has contacted THSC and asked us to come to Germany and testify as an expert witness on home schooling in a criminal case against one of the few hundred remaining home school families in the country. We plan to do so and seek the prayers and support of Texas and US home schoolers as we attempt to help these families gain the freedom to direct the education and upbringing of their children. Germany uses a Nazi era law adopted by Hitler to prosecute these families because they do not want these families to convey a world view that is different from the states.
No Guarantees
Much of the discussion going on now and that has gone on in the last 12 months regarding who we should choose for president is based on what one believes will happen if a certain candidate is nominated or elected to the office. Some have said that in the primary you should vote for what you heart tells you and in the general election follow what your head dictates. This was perhaps the reason that many Republicans chose not to vote for John McCain in primaries after it was clear that he would be the Republican nominee. They wanted to vote for who the really liked.
Now we see the general election campaign beginning and Obama is moving to the right to try to enhance his chances of getting elected. He has said he agrees with the US Supreme Court decisoin supporting the right of individuals to own fire arms, while he supported the Washington DC law that was overturned by the decision. He has also voiced his opposition to the ballot measure in California to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
His campaign is saying that will take the unprecedented move of spending money in every state regardless of whether or not Obama has a chance to carry the state. In fact, Texas is one of those targets and not because he believes he can win the state, but because Obama hopes to turn out enough Democratic voters to help his party win down ballot races. He hopes that his supporters will vote for Democrats all the way down the ballot so he can usher in Democrat control of government at the national, state and local level.
Many have responded to this blog saying that they will not vote for McCain and that is certainly their right to do so. McCain certainly has many positions that I disagree with, but the fact remains that either he or Obama will be president of the United States of America. There are no guarantees about what a president will do on a host of issues but we can judge general based on past statements and records. I strongly disagree with those who say that there is no difference between the two.
Although the Supreme Court has given some rulings that have heartened conservatives it has also disappointed. While we may be uncertain as to McCains possible appointments he as said he will appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. Obama will without doubt appoint those in the mold of Ginsberg. Add to this the issues of the war against terror and our desperate need to become energy independent and in my view John McCain is the only viable choice for president.
What Difference Does a Vote for President Make
In its latest magazine, World magazine, a national Christian news weekly publication, posted the first story in a series on the presidential race. Not surprisingly it focused on the issue of abortion and the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat nominees.
I talked to an attorney friend last week who is a very conservative Republican activist, and he told me that he would no longer “vote for the lesser of two evils” in regard to the presidential race.
So I had another of my discussions on the consequences of voting for a third party candidate. Congressman Ron Paul, once a Libertarian nominee for President himself, wrote an article that appeared in the same World magazine in about 2000 on why he decided to move away from the Libertarian Party and stay with the Republican Party. His reasoning was sound. Third party candidates help folks who want to make a statement or push an issue that the major parties have refused to deal with, but they rarely ever elect anyone. If we want to impact public policy decisions, we have to work through one of the two major parties and elect the people to office who make those public policy decisions. That is still true, in my opinion.
I remember hearing recently a caller to Rush Limbaugh discussing that in 1992 she voted for Ross Perot out of frustration with President Bush, Sr., and what she and the other voters who did likewise got in return was eight years of Bill Clinton. I believe just as World magazine articulates the differences between the Republicatns and Democrats on the issue of abortion, and I would add to that the issue of Supreme Court Justices and Second Amendment rights issues. John McCain is the better choice over Barack Obama on all of these issues, and it’s not even close. So if you want to see the political reincarnation of Jimmy Carter (or worse), vote for Barack Obama or a third party candidate. McCain will not please conservatives on every issue, but he will be far, far better than Brark Husain Obama.
Where Do We Go From Here
Will Lutz got it right recently in a blog post when he said,
“For the past ten years or so, the GOP leadership has succumbed to the natural human temptation to crush one’s opponents because one can. That approach may be legal, but it’s not always wise. Eventually, being too heavy-handed can backfire.
“A perfect example of the party’s heavy-handedness occurred at several of the convention’s committee hearings, most notably the rules committee. The committee passed a rule banning any audio or video recordings of the meetings. This rule accomplished absolutely nothing positive for the party and made the leadership look like it had something to hide.”
Some of my friends have suggested that we should not focus on the “divisive” issues raised at the RPT state convention because it will discourage people from working for Republican candidates. This has always been the manner in which party leaders have called for “unity,” asking that we simply disregard past violations. In the 1980s it was the divisive issue of abortion that party leaders did not want us to discuss.
In 1998, I carried a resolution on the RNC that called for the Republican Party at the national level to refuse funding to any Republican candidate or nominee who opposed efforts to end partial birth abortion. While this was very unpopular with party officers, it was strongly supported by the rank and file.
That same year the chairman of the RPT appointed an attorney and elected official to chair the RPT Platform Committee. When the committee tried to add language to the platform supporting the non-funding of Republican candidates who opposed efforts to end partial birth abortion, the chairman ruled it out of order and refused to allow the committee to vote on the measure. I declined to challenge this effort on the floor of the convention “for the sake of unity” since the chairman was “one of us.” In retrospect I believe that was a mistake, as we have again seen the same tactic used in the rules committee in 2002 and now the credentials committee in 2008.
To simply ignore the issues for the sake of electing Republicans, as we have seen, will only lead to more of the same. Gary Polland also comments on the RPT Convention and the lawsuit filed against the party which will be refiled in Harris County.
So where do we go from here? First of all we should work diligently to elect Republicans this fall. Regardless of the problems with party leadership, Republican candidates in general are far superior on the issues of limited government, lower taxes and family values. (Dr. James Dobson today talked about Barak Obama, and it was not positive.) That is not to say that we should not seek to change some Republicans in the primary.
We must also follow the activities of the RPT and educate ourselves as to what is happening and how and why. (We will make information available here as it becomes available.) Communicate with your member of the SREC. Read the RPT rules, learn from past mistakes, and be prepared not to make the same mistakes – or let others – next time. Finally, bring more of your like-minded friends with you in two years as you go to your precinct convention, county/senatorial convention and the state convention and be prepared to participate.
Just When You Thought it Couldn’t Get Any Worse
The postmortem for the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) State Convention continues to be written and analyzed. One thing that appears to be different this year is that people are not just going home and writing off the experience but seem to be saying that we are not going to take it anymore.
Twenty years ago the disagreements in our conventions centered around our platform and what the party would stand for. The arguments between the moderate and conservative elements of our party were over the social issues – primarily abortion – and whether or not the party should even take a position on such issues. That struggle is over. I noted with interest that reporter Will Lutz referred to the RPT platform adopted on a voice vote as “…probably the most socially conservative in a long time, which is saying a lot for the GOP.”
Lutz also, however, comments on the supplemental rules adopted by the rules committee prohibiting the recording of the meetings. Interestingly, there were no comments in his article regarding the platform and 15 comments regarding the gag rule, which was also used in the credentials committee.
In the ongoing saga from Nueces County, Vanessa Cayhill (vanessafratila@gmail.com), who headed the rump delegation that was not allowed to make their case at the state convention, has just completed a review of the voting records of the the County Chairman’s delegation (the one that was seated at the RPT State Convention). Her research shows that one delegate and one alternate in that delegation voted in the Democratic Primary and one alternate was not even registered to vote. In addition to that, of the delegates seated by the County Chairman at the Nueces County Convention (those not elected at precinct conventions but added to the delegate list at the county convention), seven had voted in the Democratic Primary and six were not registered to vote. I guess it is worse than we thought!
In an e-mail, a former state convention delegate who now resides in Tarrant County shared her story of local abuse of power which has some familiar strains:
“I have recently moved to Tarrant County from Dallas County and now I am part of SD10. One of the biggest Senatorial Districts. I showed up on Convention day, and found out that my credentials were challenged. I was shocked! I have attended 5 State Conventions in a row as either a delegate or alternate, and here I was not able to attend my Senatorial Convention. I was told however, that they did not need to go before the credentials committee and that once the credentials committee has their report, I could be seated. I however, wanted to go before the state delegation committee. I was denied. Denied because my credentials were not confirmed, and therefore they saw me as not part of the convention. I asked if I could come after I was seated, and was told no since their meeting would be over. I found this to be very odd and I was very disappointed. I hated knowing I was going to miss out on being a delegate, when I have been such a faithful supporter for the last 10 years. (since I was 21 years old).”
“I was seated at my convention and found out that my whole precinct was challenged. My precinct chairman told me that she had called a few weeks before to make sure our packet was received and that everything was correct. She was told that our packet was “lost”. She then contacted a Jeremy (i do not remember his last name) , who called the temp chairman of the senatorial convention, and asked under the open records law, to see all precinct packets. Low and behold, ours was found among them with notes next to each of our names as ‘Ron Paul’. I was told this was probably because we were all new first time voters in our precinct. I was shocked and hurt when I read this.
“For them to assume that was wrong. They don’t know who I am or who I voted for. (I voted for Huckabee). And who cares. That is not what the convention should have been about. This was going to be my first state convention that I was not a delegate. I got shafted and there was nothing I could about it. It was too late and they were not going to give the delegates who were challenged a chance to be seated at the State Convention.
I was angry, hurt and disappointed in my district and its leaders. I still am.“
This would appear to be evidence of a coordinated effort across the state of Texas to systematically exclude new participants in the RPT convention process.
Another great tragedy of this convention was the total lack of recognition of one of our most honorable and conservative party officers – National Committeewoman Denise McNamara. Denise has been a role model of grace and a staunch conservative representation of the grassroots of our party. Last year in the heat of the debate over the illegal immigration issue, Denise co-sponsored an RNC resolution with the National Committeeman from Arizona that reflected the viewpoint of the grassroots of our party. The National Committeeman for Texas, Bill Crocker, took a phone call from Karl Rove at the Whitehouse and offered a competing resolution that reflected the President’s view, instead of that of the grassroots. I guess it should come as no surprise that under the current RPT leadership Ms. McNamara would not be recognized and lauded for her 8 years of service to our party as the National Committeewoman for Texas. Nevertheless, she is a lady of grace, courage and character who deserved far, far better. She, too, has posted her comments on the RPT State Convention, and I hope you will read them and give her the words of praise and appreciation that she richly deserves.
Abuse of Power – RPT Style
The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) 2008 Convention was a study in the abuse of power by the chairman of our party. Unfortunately, this is a pattern.
The tendency first became apparent when she was the Rules Committee Chairman in 2002. A controversial rule was proposed by delegates who argued that the RPT had authority to, by rule, move the party to a closed primary. The delegates were frustrated with Democrats who were voting in our primary to influence the choice of our nominees. (Many will recognize this tactic with the tables turned as “Operation Chaos” promoted by Rush Limbaugh this year in the Democratic Primaries.) In spite of legal opinions supporting the right of political parties to take this action and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Chairman Benkiser, after hours of discussion, ruled that the committee would not be allowed to vote on this issue. Her stated reason was that the proposal would be a violation of the Texas Election Code (TEC). When a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair was offered and seconded, the chair ruled that motion dilatory and refused to allow the will of the committee to be expressed by a vote.
Benkiser was later heard saying that she had just accomplished the “dirty work of the chairman.” Many believe the reason that a vote was not allowed to be taken was that there would have been at least twenty percent of the committee who supported the proposal – which would have resulted in a minority report to the convention floor for debate and final decision by the convention delegates. The Chairman of the RPT at that time did not want that to happen and therefore directed the committee chairman (Benkiser) along with the legal counsel and parlimentarian not to allow it.
Fast-forward to 2008. RPT Chairman Benkiser had Judge Rene Diaz do her “dirty work” in the credentials committee. Regarding the Nueces County debacle (See blog entries, Thrown Under the Bus and The Inconvenience of the Rule of Law.), RPT Chairman Benkiser defended the Nueces County Chairman (NCC) before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in his bid to illegally withhold the minutes of the precinct conventions from those who held a rump convention.
Also, Diaz’ Credentials Committee (actually Diaz himself) ruled that the minority report of the committee concerning the Nueces County delegation was not really a minority report. Thus Chairman Benkiser, as the temporary chairman of the convention, ruled it out of order in the general sessions. Repeated attempts to allow the convention delegates to hear the issue from the temporary credentials committee and make the final determination were rejected on Thursday and again on Friday. Just as in 2002, although the delegates at the RPT State Convention are supposed to be the final authority for the establishing the rules, positions and officers of the party, Benkiser denied the delegates an opportunity to hear and make the decision for themselves. Judge Diaz, therefore, also did not present the Nueces County issue to the SREC. It had been “resolved,” he told them. In the end, the delegates of the Convention were neither allowed to hear the facts of that case nor to voice their opinion by voting on it.
Paul Perry lost his last minute bid to unseat Benkiser but gained a third of the vote (in spite of attempts by Benkiser forces to paint him as a liberal because of his support for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, in spite of his 20 years as a conservative Republican party activist). There appeared to be a clear understanding by most of the delegates that an abuse of power had taken place with regard to the Nueces County delegation at the hands of the credentials committee, but perhaps many did not perceive this to be the “dirty work” of Benkiser that it was.
The Gatekeeper
The focus of controversy in the RPT State Convention has been and continues to be the Credentials Committee, with more challenges at any time since 1976 when the Reagan conservatives came into the party and asserted their right to participate. In spite of that record number of challenges, the committee did not convene until Wednesday while other substantive committees began on Monday.
The focus of the committee continued to be the egregious actions of Nueces County Party. The Credentials Committee chairman, Judge Diaz, offered his committee’s report during the general session of the Convention on Thursday afternoon after the convention was called to order about 4pm. When members of the Credentials Committee presented a minority report to the chairman, seeking to bring the issue of the rump convention and the challenge regarding Nueces County Chairman to the full convention under RPT Rule 24, he decreed it not a valid minority report and thus the convention was not allowed to hear the issue.
The Permanent Credentials Committee, of which I was a member, asked the chairman for an explanation. He said that a minority report must be presented before the end of the committee meeting, which is not supported by the text of Rule 24. He also stated that it could not be valid because the report included the rump convention of Nueces County, which the Credentials Committee had no authority to address. How is it the Credentials Committee had no authority to even hear the case of the delegates who had determined that the original Nueces County Convention was illegal because of rules violations and thus held their own convention? It was, the chairman explained, because he had determined that the Credentials Committee had no “jurisdiction” to hear the case. The Credentials Committee had no jurisdiction to hear the case of a rump convention and determine if their reasons for doing so were legitimate?
The Chairman explained that he was “a gatekeeper” and he listened to the preliminary testimony of the rump convention delegates and determined that it should not be heard! His reasoning was the delegates of the rump convention had not notified each member of the original delegation that they were being challenged. This, indeed, is the rule for individual challenges, but in the 20 years of my experience in the party, this has never been the case for dealing with a rump convention. Such challenges are usually resolved by hearing the testimony of each group and then making a determination of which group should be seated, based on whether or not the original convention was illegal because of rules violations.
So the challengers were denied an opportunity to even present their case because of what can only be described as a technicality, while the delegation – which, by undisputed testimony, added 35 delegates to their roll illegally, denied the participations repeated requests for points of order and were given minutes of the precinct conventions to prove this only after forced to by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals – were all seated with the exception of the credentials committee chairman of the county convention. In fact, a former county chairman from Nueces County testified to the committee that the party had been operating in this manner for over 20 years.
For the first time in my experience in the RPT, a difference was articulated between a “contest” and a “challenge,” which heretofore, in my experience, have been used interchangeably. This artful creation was also used to “resolve” many of these rules violations without the final dispostion being made by the delegates at the convention.
The “gatekeeper” made his final ruling in the Permanent Credentials Committee when he decreed that it was not possible for the permanent committee to address anything other than what the temporary committee had reported based on RPT Rule 34a. In other words, it was out of order to discuss Nueces County rump convention or the credentials of the Nueces County Chairman. Nor was it possible to have a minority report on those issues. A motion to appeal his ruling was offered, and the committee upheld the chairman by a vote of 18-12. In subsequent discussion it was pointed out that other subsections of Rule 34 gave the same direction to the Platform Committee and the Rules Committee, and the long time practice of those committees was not to limit the permanent committees only to the work of temporary committees. When the chairman was asked his opinion of whether those committees were likewise limited, he explained that he did not have an opinion on those committees, and it did not matter. It is the view of many members of the credentails committee that the chairman created interpretations of rules to accomplish what he and the Chairman of the RPT desired from the beginning.
This is more evidence, in my opinion, of the reason we need new RPT leadership.
Convention Process 101
There may be some reading this blog who are new to the convention process and are getting cross-eyed trying to figure out what this battle over the rules is all about. For any of you in that boat, we would like to suggest that you read an article called “Texas Republican Party Officials: An Overview” and a followup article, “GOP Conventions: An Overview.”
Maybe that will help clarify things.
Lawsuit clouds state GOP convention
After County Court-at-Law Judge Roberta Lloyd said Monday she had no jurisdiction to try the lawsuit, the group appealed to the all-Republican, Houston-based First Court of Appeals, which refused Wednesday to intervene on an emergency basis. That means the convention will kick off at 1 p.m. free of any court orders.
But the court — justices Tim Taft, Sam Nuchia and Jane Bland — asked lawyers in the case to send written arguments on the case by 5 p.m. today, leaving the possibility of further court action.
