NCGOP moves into damage control mode

 

 

 

 

In the face of a “Fire Hayes and Clean House” groundswell among party activists, the folks at NCGOP are taking steps to limit damage caused by the leak of a videotaped rant by state party chairman Robin Hayes at the recently completed national convention in Tampa.

I’ve received word that Chairman Hayes has plans to attend the September 10 dinner meeting of Moore Tea Citizens in Southern Pines — definitely a journey into the lion’s den for the party chief.

NCGOP executive director Scott Laster has fired off an email to local Republican party leaders across the state:

County and District Chairs,

By now you have become all too familiar with discussions that were talking place at National Convention concerning Rule 16 and Rule 12.
I know it is coming at you a little late in the game, but we have some information that we can now share with you:

Rule 16
The revised language closes a loophole in our party rules, which previously failed to include a penalty for delegates who break their binding.  This language was supported by the vast majority of the Rules Committee members.
We are pleased that our party has come together to fashion this compromise.  This will allow all Republicans to focus on the most important task of defeating Barack Obama in November.
The language simply prevents a bound delegate from nominating or casting a vote for a different presidential candidate than the one to whom the delegate was legally bound.
A delegate who attempts to violate his binding is deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention will record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule.

Rule 12
After full and open debate, the committee overwhelmingly voted to provide our party the flexibility to enact changes to the party rules if 75% of the entire RNC membership agrees.  This safety valve mechanism will allow our party to adapt to circumstances that change between Conventions.

Laster neglects to mention two important things.  One, the videotape of the Hayes rant reveals that NCGOP’s representatives on the convention rules committee had real problems with the rules changes.  Why is the NCGOP so passionately pushing rules changes that our state’s reps on the rules committee aren’t too keen about?

Two, the “agreement” to the rules change by the convention rules committee cited by Laster is highly dubious.  To document that statement, let’s go to the videotape.  As the tape shows, it’s not real obvious the “ayes” have it.  (It’s also *nice* to see the vote result already installed in the teleprompter.)

What’s the old saying about someone urinating on your leg and telling you it’s raining?

I shared the Laster email with  long-time NCGOP activist and Tea Party supporter, who shared this with me:

“The hard-nosed, bully-boy tactics used to push this stuff through is the most disgusting part to me.  It’s the real atrocity.  If this stuff is so important, and so necessary, why did they have to be so sneaky and ruthless about it?

This is all about consolidating power at the top — with the party establishment.  With these rules changes, what’s the point in having primaries and picking delegates at the local level?  The big boys at the RNC, and in the nominee’s campaign, are going to have the final say. There’s nothing small-dee democratic about this.  It’s very authoritarian and totalitarian — two things our party is supposedly NOT about. ”

I asked my source his thoughts on what the state party’s next step should be.  His response echoed what I’ve been hearing a lot of these past few days:

“Robin Hayes needs to go NOW.  People I talk to — they are so angry at what they see on that videotape that they can’t even think about Barack Obama. Robin is a big distraction to the mission of ridding this nation of the Obamas.  He and all of his little flunkies at headquarters have got to go.”

 

 

 

3 thoughts on “NCGOP moves into damage control mode

  1. “I know it is coming at you a little late in the game…..”.

    Really? No kidding! I guess a major party rule change wasn’t something you thought needed to be shared with the counties in advance of the convention.

  2. Hayes and his flunkies, including Wayne King, need to go. Trying to whitewash this is just crap. There is a huge difference between allowing presidential candidates to oust delegates and guaranteeing delegates vote as they are bound on the nomination. They are NOT the same thing.

    If we had a real chairman, like a Frank Rouse or a Dave Flaherty or a Jack Hawke, they would have been standing up for North Carolina and for the grassroots, not playing mafia enforcer for the Washington beltway party elite. Hayes did not come up through the grassroots, he came through Congress and therefore identifies with the beltway boys not with party activists. He is not, and never has been, one of us.

    Down with Hayes! Down with King!

    We also need to remember that it was Hayes and King who pushed liberal Democrat Arthur Williams as a GOP legislative candidate, the same Arthur Williams who after being trounced in the GOP primary puts Democrat campaign signs on his property, including ultra liberal Congressman Butterfield.

  3. Remember the “cutting off Scott Keadle at the pass” in the Republican Primary Run-off by flooding the District with TV advertising the last week of campaigning! Robin had a lot to do with that sordid power move.
    Boehner, Cantor and Hayes are good “establishment” Republicans who got us into the sordid mess of allowing a communist mole to be elected “president” and send us over a financial cliff! They do not seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel is a locomotive driven by Russian communists and the Tea Party
    saved their ass in 2010 by winning the House.
    The Tea Party is about to trounce the Russiam mole in the White House and take back control of the Executive Branch of our country. From communists no less!
    When is the “establishment ” going to realize the Tea Party is their strength? When the Real “Party of The Tea” is formed? Remember the Whigs of 160 years ago?

Comments are closed.