boonecountygirl
Wiley Coyote
hal
Herman Cain
Mark Pellin
The View From The Cheap Seats
If you’re anything more than a casual observer of conservative North Carolina politics, you know that this past weekend saw the 2010 NCGOP State Convention in Winston-Salem. As the marquee Republican event in the state leading up to what could be a historic mid-term election, most of the official attention paid to the event was focused on the party’s determination to re-elect Senator Richard Burr and what role (if any) the Tea Party movement will play in November.
Unless you’re comatose, you know that the big political story over the last couple of weeks has been the unprecedented move made by NCGOP State Chairman Tom Fetzer in inserting himself into the 8th Congressional District’s Republican primary runoff between Tim D’Annunzio and Harold Johnson. Fetzer’s public denouncement of D’Annunzio as “unfit for public office at any level” led D’Annunzio to call for Fetzer’s resignation and hint at possible legal action. D’Annunzio had a legitimate reason for demanding Fetzer’s resignation; the chairman’s action was a flagrant violation of the party’s governing document, the NCGOP Plan of Organization. The P.O.O. prohibits party officers and members of the State Executive Committee from using their offices to influence Republican primary races. D’Annunzio’s justification for a lawsuit was somewhat less clear, but no less adamant.
People have staked out different sides in that debate, with a loose consensus developing that Fetzer may have had valid reasons for involving himself in the race, but nevertheless should show respect for the party’s rules and step down. Speculation was rampant that D’Annunzio would come to the NCGOP convention with a large contingent of delegates to force a showdown.
Well, I was there, and I can tell you there wasn’t just one showdown, but several. None, however, involved Tim D’Annunzio or the 8th District Republican Primary. Instead, the 2010 NCGOP State convention involved battles that revolved not around personalities or congressional races, but rather competing principles and visions for the future of the Republican Party.
As at past state conventions, there were two business sessions where debates were conducted on the convention’s rules, the party’s Plan of Organization, Platform, and Resolutions. The action started during the Friday business session with the adoption of the convention rules. These were the rules that would govern the way the convention would conduct its other business. A dust-up occurred almost immediately, when a rule was proposed by the Rules Committee requiring that any resolutions offered from the floor (as in, offered by ordinary delegates not already on the Resolutions Committee) need to be accompanied by no fewer than 1,000 copies, which had to be passed out to attendees in advance.
A few delegates offered protests, saying that producing 1,000 copies was cost-prohibitive, and a motion was made to reduce the requirement to 250 copies (said motion didn’t get far, as the delegate count on Friday was already 347). An amendment to that motion raised the total to 350. However, before too long, a delegate called the question, and the amendment was defeated, leaving the required number of copies at 1,000.
This challenge was seemingly mundane, but its significance was underscored when I overheard a longtime convention attendee comment that he’d never seen a debate over the convention rules before. It spoke of distrust of the motivations of the rule-makers, and it set the tone for the day.
The major fight of the Friday business session was over a proposed change to the party Plan of Organization. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m the person who made this motion, so I can’t claim to be an impartial reporter here. The motion was to declare that no member of the NCGOP Executive Committee could be barred from any meeting of the NCGOP Central Committee.
A little background: a frequent complaint made by some members of the NCGOP is that while the Plan of Organization states that the Executive Committee is supposed to be the final authority in the party, the Central Committee actually runs the show. The Executive Committee is made up of hundreds of county-level activists from all over the state. The Central Committee, a much smaller group, consists of the top-level party officers. The accusation is that the Central Committee has a tendency to duck into closed session to make all the really important decisions. I made this motion with the intent of bringing about greater transparency and dispelling that mistrust.
Unfortunately, another Mecklenburg delegate, Carson Daves, made a motion to prevent consideration of the amendment. This motion was meant to kill my amendment without even allowing the delegates to debate and vote on it. As a result, the idea of greater transparency was debated anyway, as delegates argued whether or not to allow consideration of the amendment.
Those against increased transparency argued that since the Central Committee hires, fires, and sets salaries of party employees, private sessions are vital to preserve confidentiality. Those for greater transparency (myself included) argued that while such a policy might be fine for a private company, the hiring of employees (paid entirely from activist donations) and the power those employees are granted affects all Republicans, and the citizens of North Carolina at large. As such, those decisions, which are the most important ones the Central Committee makes, must be subject to absolute transparency above all.
In the end, it was a mixed bag. Two votes were held: the first defeated Mr. Daves’ motion to kill debate, and the second defeated my motion to open the Central Committee meetings. The vote results were interesting and enlightening: Out of 347 delegates, 126 voted in favor of greater transparency, and 114 voted against it; 107 abstained, refusing to vote either way.
Essentially, the process revealed that one-third of the delegates wanted to keep an eye on party officers, another third didn’t, and one third was simply too afraid to publicly take a stand either way.
1 2
Like this story? Contribute $1.00! Click to Support PunditHouse!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=2266
Adam,
An excellent re-cap of the NCGOP Convention. Thanks so much for posting this information.
Were I actually still an NC resident and able to participate, I most definately would have supported your transparency efforts and I’m very happy to see that the NC Firearms Freedom Act resolution finally won over in the Executive Committee meeting. (It’s repetitive?! LOL)
I can’t believe a condemnation of the smoking ban wasn’t supported. I guess some in the GOP love controlling the otherwise legal activities that individual business owners choose to allow on their property. Drives me INSANE. Government banning smoking in government buildings or parks? I can swallow that. A private business establishment is NOT public property. I don’t get how people don’t see that.
There is one point of contention that I have with some of your phrasing, however. It may not be intentional (or perhaps it was exactly that) to speak of the Iran sanctions debate in such terms as to make the casual reader believe it was a “tea party issue” to oppose such sanctions. Perhaps a case of being technically accurate that “several Tea Party activists raised protests” over the sanctions resolution (because perhaps they were), but it almost seems to make the assumption that opposing the sanctions is something that Tea Partiers should do.
I would suggest that foreign policy has no role in determining one’s Tea Party bonafides. There are indeed members of all political persuasions amongst the Tea Party groups. We come together, as Matthew Ridenhour wrote last week, in support of “limited government, fiscal conservatism, and personal responsibility”. While the Libertarian wing of the Tea Party certainly believes that non-interventionist foreign policy is an issue of “limited government”, others in both the Republican and Democrat wing of the movement would suggest that we won’t be able to enjoy our freedoms and a “limited government” if our failure to be proactive in international politics ushers in a new era of American obsolesence…or the downright destruction of western culture.
It’s an interesting debate, and we’ve had it several times now. It’s one of those issues that we probably aren’t ever going to see eye to eye on. For that very reason, I would say it is ultimately against our best shared interests to include foreign policy in discussions of Tea Party issues. We need to be unified on our shared goals as a movement, but free to disagree on the finer points as individuals.
Thanks again for writing the convention recap. Great job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Adam for writing the article, I wish we had had the forsight to do this after every convention. I think it is helpful for new attendees to read such articles so they will have a better idea of what to expect. (Not that the unexpected doesn’t happen…)
Point taken Christian, I know we will continue to debate the merits/downfalls of sanctions and other “interventionist” ways governments (not just ours) deal with nations they disagree with or are aftraid of….. One other note, the “war” resolution we debated was in support of sanctions AND using nuclear weapons if we were attacked with biological or chemical weapons.
We Republicans who are libertarian leaning will argue that sanctions are war, that innocent people suffer and there is always another way to deal with a tough situation.
As a Vietnam Era Army Veteran, I stand by my conviction that our country should defend itself if attacked, even to the extent of using nuclear weapons, BUT, we need to do these things carefully, methodically. We need Congressional approval to go to war, with anyone, per the Constitution. This is a safeguard, put in place by the Founders, to keep our government from “jumping to conclusions” and involving the country in lengthy wars for unsubstantiated reasons. The Military Industrial Complex wants war, they make a lot of money when we are at war and they have a great PR /Lobby set up. More people believe that we must be at war somewhere than ever before, and they don’t just believe that, they believe that there is no other way for us to deal with “problem nations.”
Every war we have fought since WW2 has been undeclared. The war in Pakistan has now eclipsed the Vietnam war in length—nine years and counting. Congress needs to grow a set and demand that undeclared wars cease, or our Generals need to prove that they need to continue.
I pose a couple of questions to all who feel the government is right and that we need to be overseas fighting these battles. Do you believe that our government leaders, regardless of which party is in charge, has lied or misled the people, about anything? Have they broken promises? If you believe that those in charge have lied or misled us on anything, is it possible that they might be misleading us on the reasons for these wars?
Follow the money, who donates to whose campaign, who benifits when a certain path is taken?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christian,
It’s just as well that you clarified that the Tea Party is a diverse movement, united only by “limited government, fiscal conservatism, and personal responsibility,” and as such not all Tea Party activists are of one accord regarding foreign policy. I know, though, that Adam was not implying that all Tea Partiers share the views of Campaign for Liberty/libertarians/Ron Paul Republicans. (I think it would be quite obvious to anyone reading the article that the Tea Party is not an anti-war movement.)
Many Tea Partiers are quoted in support of things that I do not personally support, but I don’t feel the need to make sure everyone knows I don’t agree, and that that’s not what the Tea Party means to me. I assume that everyone knows by now that Tea Partiers speak as individuals and represent a variety of narrow issues that are loosely related. For instance, I’m not a GOOOH person or a 912/Glenn Beck person. However, if a GOOOH person or a 912 person got up to the mic at the convention and made a plea for one of their pet issues, they would most likely be classified (in an article, say) as “Tea Party activists” rather than their more narrow category.
I understand where you’re coming from, but it almost sounds like you’re saying that people who believe in a Constitutional/non-interventionist foreign policy should not be allowed to publicly identify themselves as “Tea Party activists” without adding on a qualifier, to avoid confusion – such as, “I’m a Tea Party activist, *technically,* but I’m one of those odd ones that has weird foreign policy beliefs, just so you know.” I think that’s ridiculous.
I’ve been at just about every Tea Party held in Charlotte since the beginning. Not to mention, the first modern-day Tea Party rally was held in Boston by Ron Paul supporters in 2007. I’m not “technically” a Tea Party activist… I am one. And I was one of the Tea Party activists referred to in Adam’s article, who stood at the microphone and debated in opposition to the resolution supporting sanctions against Iran.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the great summary, Adam. The convention battle over the transparency amendment to the Plan of Organization was very telling. It’s worth recognizing that it achieved a majority of the delegation’s votes on a Friday afternoon when delegates had only begun to stream in. The establishment was put into the uncomfortable position of arguing against more transparent and open governance. The argument of the apologists that personnel decisions require secrecy is tired and rings hollow, as it has been used as a convenient excuse to decide in the shadows the entire range of NCGOP decisions, including SBOE and committee appointments and questions of chairman’s compensation. It also ignores the spirit of the Plan, which invests supreme management of the party in the Executive Committee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well-said, Dave!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kristina, I’m running out the door to a meeting so this will be quick…
I want to appologize for any interpretation of my post that would cause you to believe that, “people who believe in a Constitutional/non-interventionist foreign policy should not be allowed to publicly identify themselves as “Tea Party activists” without adding on a qualifier”. That’s not the case at all! What I was trying to say with the “technically true” statement was quite the opposite…legitimate members/supporters of the Tea Party could also have the non-interventionist believes you hold.
To me though, and I’m open to the suggestion that I’m just reading too much into this, was that in terms of the overall context of the recap, it could be suggested that part of the specific Tea Party message is one on non-intervention…which I would disagree with.
I’ll clarify more later….gotta run….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of all the good and the bad that went down with the NCGOP Convention, the one thing that stands out as the most egregious was the red faced, vein popping ramblings of one Mr. Burr of Stanley County defending his position of tramping the inalienable right to decide how one is to govern his own property. Hookah my arse!!!!!! His tantrum was fitting for the bed-wetter sect of this party and stands as a testament to those of us who oppose tyranny of any kind. This is the face of the party that we need to remove.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a fellow Mecklenburg delegate who comes from the “libertarian side of the Tea Party movement”, I have to comment. I didn’t get involved in the sanctions debate because I was saving an argument for the Property Rights resolution that never got heard. While I am opposed to sanctions against Iran, I would not automatically argue “act of war”, “act of American aggression”, “Iran has the right to self-defense”, etc. Those things are technically true, but they are not the reasoned, conservative approach to being opposed to economic sanctions.
Reasons that may sway a crowd like that would include defending the people of Iran against their criminal regime. Let us not forget that last year, the people of Iran rose up against their leaders. Unfortunately, Obama, who is more interested in bowing and scraping to the Islamic world, than actually showing the world what the United States has always stood for (the inaliable right of people to govern themselves), NEVER said a thing about Iran’s treatment of their people. Putting sanctions against PEOPLE forced to live in tyranny only emboldens the criminal regime they live under. For example, Saddam played the martyr for a decade. Kim Jong-Il does the same in North Korea. Sanctions DO NOT work! They are the coward’s way out of dealing with tinpot dictators.
Also, by actually hurting the people that we need to help, we foment the type of hatred toward the United States that led to 9/11. What are we doing here? Are we continuing to do what we’ve done in the past? Is it going to be another 10 years of silliness between Iran, the next Hans Blix, the UN Security Council, and every other idiot who thinks they can tell people what to do? So, in 2021, do we have a repeat of 2001?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This just reinforces AGAIN that what we need to do bring about the kind of reform needed to actually have a real and meaningful impact – we need all of those who like to bitch and moan and complain about the direction of the city/county/state/country to put their actions where their mouths are and GET INVOLVED!!!!!
Now, in all honesty, the vast … See Moremajority of those do not know how to get involved. I think that would be a major push for C4L coordinators around the state as well as those who head up different groups.
The other challenge is that folks who consider themselves Tea Partiers frankly have not got a clue about the reality of the political process. They are frustrated and want change, but they still are anti-Republican and anti-GOP and think the party is “them and they” when the reality is, as we witnessed at the county convention that all of the political power in Meck is right there, sitting on the table, waiting to be taken. And that is nothing about or against anyone in the party today (fact is I LOVE much of what MECK GOP is doing and I am involved in helping as well – as are many of you).
But at the end of the day it boils down to three things:
1. Laser focus from July 4th – November 5th on touching personally, every Republican, Independent, Libertarian, C4L’er, to get them to the polls to vote Republican locally and in the state elections.
2. Learning the process, and committing to get involved from November 6th until the County Convention next year so that we can force the reforms of the party and make sure the direction we are headed is the direction we want to be headed in….
3. Taking that ground swell at the county convention and moving it to the district and state conventions next year to set the table not just for 2011 local elections, but to get out in front of what is going to be one massive, knock down bloody fight to put Republicans in control of America again.
But it all starts with the people who love to stand on the sidelines complaining actually doing something other than complaining.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christian,
I think I see what you were getting at…you’re concerned that people may pick up the impression that the Tea Party message even deals with foreign policy (either way). I agree that it really doesn’t…necessarily. See, the Tea Party really is diverse, and although it is unified in just a few things, it does include all the divergent views and issues. My main point is that Adam’s wording is accurate and also conveys an accurate impression. I think it can be assumed that most of the self-selected audience that would be reading Pundithouse are aware that the Tea Party movement is primarily unified on fiscal issues, and I also think we can credit the readers with an awareness that the Tea Party is not some kind of official organization with a rigidly articulated agenda/mission statement. It’s just a loose coalition of individuals speaking from their hearts about their own concerns.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken,
I think your arguments are very good and well-thought out, and you should have approached the microphone and offered them to the delegation. You could have spoken on that and then again on the Property Rights resolution (if it had been heard).
I think you’re wrong, though, in saying that my arguments were not a “reasoned, conservative approach.” (You may not have named me specifically, but I made the arguments you mentioned.) Ron Paul has said on many occasions that “sanctions are an act of war,” and he is the most conservative member of Congress.
I pointed out that sanctions cause the kind of widespread devastation and starvation that would result from bombing the country, or using other conventional weapons. When we imposed sanctions against Iraq, thousands and thousands of children starved to death as a consequence. That fact is under-reported, so that people remain under the impression that sanctions are a softer, less harmful “alternative” to the use of force, and an effective means of getting a country to do what you want it to do without appearing to initiate aggression. However, it is an initiation of aggression, and that should certainly matter, and I think it is an appeal both to rationality and conservatism.
For a party densely populated with self-professed Christians, the Judeo-Christian doctrine of “just war” – attacking only in self-defense – isn’t being paid much attention. I noted the irony of a plank of our party’s platform referring to our ‘recognition of the sanctity of all human life,’ being adopted unanimously, on the very same day that an argument citing the death by starvation of thousands of children is roundly deemed a totally lame and unpersuasive argument against sanctions.
Also, Ken, your argument is really related to mine, so that if my argument isn’t likely to persuade that audience, yours would only stand a marginally better shot, if that. Your argument (that the people themselves will suffer from the sanctions while the dictators benefit), just like mine, assumes that the delegates care about the well-being of the people of those nations, and perhaps they don’t. That would make it a weakness shared in common by both arguments.
I also think some of the “persuasive” merits of your arguments as compared to mine make (or re-inforce) certain assumptions that I don’t want to encourage or perpetuate. For instance, saying that Obama is more interested in bowing and scraping to the Islamic world, is an emotional appeal that might owe its effectiveness to peoples’ prejudices about Muslims, along with their knee-jerk dislike of Obama because of his associations with Islam (which have nothing to do with his actions in government, which are certainly deserving of criticism).
As for the argument that Iran has a right to defend itself – that’s a conservative, and rational approach for another reason, and you said it: “The United States has always stood for the inalienable right of people to govern themselves.” That American principle is at the very root of why it flies in the face of our heritage to try to control another nation’s nuclear program. To claim otherwise is to assert that other nations are not in fact even sovereign nations at all, but colonies or imperial subjects to some kind of U.S.-dominated global hegemony. And I have no doubt that some delegates in that convention believe that’s the way it should be, but haven’t considered how contradictory that is with American principles of freedom.
The real coup-de-grace was the guy who said “The world should be dominated by America defending freedom!” That sentence is a schizophrenic mess. The world…should be *dominated*….by America defending….*freedom*?
I also think there’s one more problem with part of your argument, which is that it neglects to take issue with the assumption that it’s our government’s responsibility to defend people of other nations against dictatorial regimes (or internal wars or struggles, or anything else.) As always, it remains the unimpeachable right of individuals to help other people across the world with their time, money, volunteer work, weapons, skills, medical assistance, or anything else. But it is NOT the province of the U.S. government to do so. If you don’t blow a hole in that assumption, it will be all too easy for the government (at the behest of the military-industrial-complex and other interests) to convince the people to support interventions that appear to be for really great, humanitarian reasons, but lo and behold, are yet again for the same corrupt reasons as always.
Remember that a non-interventionist foreign policy is actually the traditional position of conservatives, going back to “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft and long before. Ron Paul reminded us in the 2008 debates that George W. Bush ran his 2000 campaign on a platform of “no nation-building, and no policing the world.” Conservatives were outspoken against previous foreign intervention in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. under the Clinton administration. When Democrats do it, Republicans are against it, and vice-versa. Isn’t it time we all saw through this football-team jersey mirage?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well said, kristina.your understanding of traditional,rational,constitutional foreign policy philosophy is a refreshing view here on the local level.
as thomas jefferson observed;
“the spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Adam,
Thanks so much for writing this. I went through the process of becoming a delegate, but at the last minute had a family commitment and did not attend. I appreciate all the good information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Once the Resolutions Committee concluded its report, delegates would have typically had the opportunity to introduce resolutions from the floor (such as the one supporting the NC Firearms Freedom Act). However, another delegate quickly made a motion to adjourn, which takes precedence over all other motions, and the business session was ended before the other resolutions could be introduced.”
This rule should be hotly debated during the rules of the convention discussion held on the first day of the convention. I believe this rule comes directly from Roberts Rules of Order and should be discarded. If ANY delegate has an issue to be heard at our convention, it should be heard. If it is a resolution that the delegates do not want to go for, a “call of the question” can be entertained on the resolution but hopefully after all debate is heard and considered first. Isn’t this why we have amendments to the constitution? Freedom to assemble and Freedom of speech should not be squelched in any forum. Especially at the convention of the Republican Party!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0