An Illogical RNC

An Illogical RNC

by Jeff HymasJeffHymas289

One of the most eye-opening experiences of the convention for me was the role of the Republican National Committee. They don’t just play a role – they are the whole show! So, I was disappointed with their behavior on many different counts. It’s their job to ensure that the party is unified and effective in carrying into execution its mission. But, as I explained in last week’s ‘Hole in One, unfortunately they seem to have experienced some mission drift and have turned from a party by, for and of the people to a party by, for and of the elites.

Of course, this is human nature and it is to be expected but what seems illogical to me is that they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to accumulating and maintaining power. It is clear that it is in their best interest to keep those in the party happy. Of course, at times what the party wants may threaten their grip on the party in which case one would expect them to act in ways that keep them in charge and in power. That’s logical. But what isn’t logical is when they do and say things that create unnecessary division. What I saw at the convention was an RNC so drunk on power that they couldn’t see straight and their actions resembled an inebriated man rather than a sober one. Let me explain.

The first big issue that came up was the petition vote wherein 7 states needed a majority of their delegates to put in writing that they wanted a roll call vote instead of a voice vote on the important issue of rules. The RNC was so scared of this roll call vote that they ran around like chickens with their heads cut off and looked silly. What’s worse is that they perpetuated the fractured “we v. them” mentality they say they are trying to avoid at all costs (which they most definitely should if they want to stay in power.) Wouldn’t it have been much more logical for them to simply allow for the roll call vote to occur instead of trying to maintain the perception that “all is well in the Republican Party”. They already knew they had the numbers to win the vote, so if they had allowed it to take place, they would assuaged those of us who opposed the rules and we would have felt grateful to have been treated with respect and to have had our chance to be heard. As it was, the exact opposite occurred. We were discontented. We showed our frustrations vocally. And, it was very apparent that indeed all was not well. To add to this odd behavior, consider that when they finally did come back to the podium to sort things out they said 9 states had submitted petitions and 3 had withdrawn, leaving only 6 states with petitions – one short of the necessary 7. Why did they not just say that from the beginning? Why did everyone have to wait (and scream) for 15 minutes) while the RNC tried to figure out how to respond to this situation that they had to have known was coming? And, why, when states such as Utah and Wyoming demanded the RNC share with the party which states had petitioned and which had rescinded, did the RNC refuse? (Okay, that’s an easy answer isn’t it?) Those actions, in and of themselves were illogical, but how they handled the rest of the story was unintelligible as well. When states started reporting out their official delegate votes by speaking in an open microphone for thousands of participants in the stadium and millions at home viewing on TV to hear, the RNC would at times receive the official report and change it – all on a whim, or at least that’s how it appeared, openly and unabashedly for all to hear. Alaska, the second state to report their official votes, was stunned – and so was everyone else – when their official vote was changed by the RNC immediately and openly right after they had reported it. Many other states were irritated with this occurring. None was more obvious or blatant than Utah who reported out 40 votes for Cruz and who were told, point-blank, only a few seconds later for all to hear by the RNC that their 40 votes would go to Trump. Now, what would it have taken for the RNC to simply explain what they were doing? Why would they just move right along and ignore the issue? Apparently, as I found out later, the RNC was claiming to be exercising a little known provision in the Utah State Republican Party rules which states that if there is only one candidate left in the race all delegate votes will go that candidate. Why didn’t they just explain that up front instead of adding fuel to the fire? If their logical goal is to keep the party united – and therefore their claim to power undisputed – why did they level the blow of a heavy hand mafia-esque disregard for the very people (we, the dissenters) who represent the biggest threat to their empire? Wouldn’t it make sense to keep us happy rather than to rattle our cage?

What You Can Do

Share this information with others. We’ll continue to be labeled as extremists and as disrupters of the Republican Party until people within the Republican Party recognize that we are fighting against the leadership of the RNC in favor of the people and what the party stands for.

Part One…

In liberty,

Jeff Hymas
Executive Director
Jackson Hole Tea Party

Constitutionally-limited Government

Fiscal Responsibility

Free Market Economy

Copyright © 2008-2023 All rights reserved   Terms of Use    Privacy Statement