The “Presumptive Nominee” scheme is, in Washington State, a shop-worn tactic of the Republican Left to control any nomination for left-leaning Republicans. It consists of one or more of the following stratagems:
-
The early introduction and endorsement of a candidate by well-known Party Establishment Figures (usually connected with the left-leaning “Mainstream Republican” organization), like Dan Evans.
-
The widely- broadcast assertion, based solely on establishment endorsements, or early fundraising claims, that the “moderate” candidate is “the only one who can win.” (Shortly before becoming State Party Chair, Diane Tebelius, while still National Committeewoman (Washington State RNC Representative), was already making those claims for John McCain in 2005).
-
The early endorsement, without grassroots input, of the favored candidate by the tiny Executive Board, in a session unannounced to most Republicans.
-
Restricting the access of any other candidate to Republican Party functions, lists, and internal communications.
-
The assertion, both explicitly and by implication, that opposing the Establishment’s choice for the nomination is detrimental to the Republican Party and therefore, by itself, a reason to oppose the conservative candidate.
-
The assertion, entirely without evidence, that contested primaries are a contributing factor to Republican losses.
The intended outcome of the “presumptive nominee” scheme is to unfairly and irrationally paint conservative contenders for Party nominations as NON-VIABLE and their candidacy as an INSURRECTION against the Republican Party.
When effective, unsuspecting Republicans begin to believe that even running for office is an immoral act by conservatives, if done against the wishes of the Party Elite.
The use of Presumptive Nominee Scheme by Party leaders is unethical. It’s use by Chairs of Caucuses and Conventions, like EVERY OTHER FORM OF CANDIDATE ADVOCACY (promoting a particular slate, for instance) is explicitly illegal under Roberts Rules of Order.
reaganwing.wordpress.com 
Doug,
“The early endorsement, without grassroots input, of the favored candidate by the tiny Executive Board, in a session unannounced to most Republicans.”
Wrong.
Only the full State Committee – the 117 people elected by the grassroots – have the authority to formally endorse a candidate on behalf of the state Party.
Once again, facts matter.
I was present when the Exectutive Board, under your leadership, though under some slight protest, extended their annointing to Mike McGavick.
True facts matter.
The Executive Board, by WSRP ByLaws, cannot even approve their own resolutions without the State Committee, yet they recently emailed a “rule” radically changing the conduct of the State Convention, (which would violate State Law) to hundreds (if not thousands) of Republicans across the State as if they had the actual “authority” to do so. Luke Esser’s staff immediately began to enforce it like a rule. How are delegates supposed to know it isn’t?
Pointing out that the Party Elite (acting, in this case, as the McCain Campaign), do not have the “authority” to act as they do, has never seemed to be much of a deterrent.
Doug,
Were you there the next day when the State Committee endorsed McGavick? Under the bylaws it takes a vote of both the E-board and the State Committee to endorse pre-Primary.
The E-board can adopt resolutions. The rules specifically allow for that. Unless the rules specify otherwise, under the WSRP bylaws, the E-board has the authority to act on behalf of the State Committee between meetings of the State Committee.
The E-board can’t adopt rules regarding how the convention is governed, but the State Committee, operating under the rules adopted by the RNC, has the authority to adopt rules regarding delegate allocation. The E-board, acting on behalf of the State Committee, has adopted language clarifying how delegate allocation will work in regards to the delegates awarded via the primary election. That would seem to me to be within their authority.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – en·dorse·ment /ɛnˈdɔrsmənt/ [en-dawrs-muhnt]
–noun
1. approval or sanction: “The program for supporting the arts won the government’s endorsement.”
2. the placing of one’s signature, instructions, etc., on a document.
3. the signature, instructions, etc., placed on the reverse of a commercial document, for the purpose of assigning the interest therein to another.
4. a clause under which the stated coverage of an insurance policy may be altered.
The State Executive Board, the day before the State Committee followed their lead, ENDORSED Mike McGavick, enacting one element of the PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE scheme.
Why the move to get the State E-Board endorsement if only the Committee is supposed to endorse? It seems obvious to me ~ to improperly “influence” the State Committee.
Why the move to choose our candidates before the grassroots have a say?
To get candidates that the grassroots wouldn’t choose.
The elite are “mainstream” (liberal).
The grassroots are conservative.
Doug,
This is the process spelled out in the rules; rules adopted long before I (or Luke) ever became Chairman.
The State Committee is elected by the PCOs. The State Committee speaks for the grassroots.
Candidates seek an early endorsement so they are eligible for national support, especially in terms of fundraising.
When the State Committee endorsed Dino were they endorsing a candidate the “grassroots wouldn’t choose?”
Dino Rossi overcame the elite, and you, in particular.
“Dino Rossi overcame the elite, and you, in particular.”
This may be the biggest lie ever posted here. Amazing.
Doug. This is really sad. If you can’t win a fight, your answer is to burn down the whole house.
Why can’t you just show a little dignity when you have been out-voted and out-numbered. This is a democracy, and when the minority (which you are) are done debating, they take a vote. Sometimes you lose when your group doesn’t have a majority of the votes.
Being outvoted doesn’t mean fraud, or evil-doing, or liberal plots, it means that a majority (51% or more) voted for soemthing. People with your extreme views are on the fringe, and you really don’t make up a majority, even of conservates as a whole.
Except in these small private gatherings of like-minded malcontents, you are the minority of the party and of conservatives. That is what has happend to you. You are the only people who show up to your own meetings and as a result you think that because everyone at your meeting thinks just like you do, then you have a majority (in the room). It reminds me of the story about the people at the Washington Post who were amazed when Richard Nixon won the presidency because not a person they knew had voted for him. They lived in a self-confirming bubble and so do you.
Ronald Reagan always talked about a big-tent of ideas, one that is big enough for a broad stripe of perspectives. But if you can’t keep that tent only to yourself you want to light it ablaze.
It is so sad. I continue to pray for you.
Peace
Joel
Thanks for your prayers, Joel. I hope, someday to go to meetings like yours… where more people show up than actually attend.
Doug.
I don’t quite follow your logic “where more people show up than actually attend.” What does that mean exactly?
You’re welcome. I continue to pray for you.
Peace
Joel
PS and blessings too (I say more than peace you know).
Joel,
You had said, “You are the only people who show up to your own meetings…”
Obviously we were a group who only were attended by the people at our meetings.
I had assumed, from context, that is to say, from your logic, that you were from a group superior to ours, a group that included more within itself that the sum of its parts.
Peace be with you Doug.
Joel
As a little bit of a silly afterthought, I like my “avatar” it is sort of a snowflaky thing. It’s cute.
Peace
Joel
I hear another symptom of Pot smoking is an undo interest in small things.
Man, look at the snoflaky thing man, it is so like snowflaky.
Peace Man Peace.
Joel you really need to lay off smoking that pot.
Alex
I don’t know that it is an “undo interest” [sic] (I think you meant “undue interest”), I was being a little light hearted with Doug. I just commented on my “avatar” or whatever it is that it is called.
Do you think by accusing me of being one who smokes Marijuana long enough that will somehow make it true?
There is no point in arguing over this, you have not one shred of evidence, you are just making baseless accusations of me being a “pot smoker” simply because you don’t agree with me. That’s is fine, I guess, but it doesn’t prove anything other than you have run out of arguments and have resorted to name calling.
In any case, why would you even care if I was a conservative, if I was a Christian, or even if I was a “pot smoker”? What is it to you anyway Alex? Do you really care about this? Or is it that what I write pricks a part of your soul, and it irritates you? Could it be that some light is shone upon a dark crevice of your soul, and it makes you uncomfortable?
Like I said in another thread, I will keep you in my prayers, just like I keep Doug in my prayers.
Peace,
Joel
Chris, (at 5):
I should have pointed out that when the State Committee (who, by the way, are never held to any grassroots accountability for their actions since they meet in virtual secret and their votes are not published) endorsed Dino, he had no “Mainstream” opponent.
There was no contest for the nomination, that year, because the GOP left considered the office unwinnable.
I also should have pointed out that “rules adopted long before I (or Luke) ever became Chairman” have no authority. Your implimentation of such “rules” was a violation of your duties in office.
Doug,
You are wrong on all three of your assertions:
1. Federico Cruz, a very moderate Republican with a lot of support among Mainstream, was in the race for Governor, and dropped out when I made it clear to him that we were going to endorse Dino.
2. State Committee meetings are publicized in advance and always open to the public.
3. The Party’s ongoing rules do have authority – but I think you and I have exhausted that subject.
That was quick, Chris, thanks for reading. Re: 17:
1. “very moderate”? is that like the clothing size, “extra medium”? Don’t you mean “very liberal”?
Your prevarication about the political events of 2004 preclude uncritical acceptance of any claim you make as to your actions. How can we verify this with Mr. Cruz?
2. State Comnmittee meetings have never been “publicized,” since the Jellen/Dunn campaign to ruin Jim Summers in 1989. They may not be secret, but I will wager you an enormous sum that we could demonstrate the level of their defacto secrecy by randomly quizzing any gathering of PCOs at any regular meeting anywhere in the State as to the business conducted in any State Committee meeting.
3. “Exhausting the subject,” I believe, would consist of my pointing to State Law and you simply claiming an authority, contrary to that law, that has never been delegated by grassroots Republicans, under any circumstances, without citing any source for your claim.
Joel (at 15), regarding the controversy over whether or not you smoke pot.
I know from experience, some of it provided by you, directly, how frustrating it can be to be falsely accused of something.
May I make a suggestion? If you will arrange, at your convenience, for us to meet, I will arrange for you to be tested, at my expense, for marijuana use and publish the results to exonerate your name! That is your name, isn’t it, “Joel”?
Deal?
Doug.
There is no controversy. The only controversy is one that you have propogated with your alter egos. You truly do talk to yourself. “The Many Faces of Doug” it could be a feature film. Maybe you could pitch it on your website.
By the way, I wouldn’t trust you to hold a cup of coffee for me much less voluntarily take a drug test and then give you the results.
You know, I think it is you that is on drugs.
So go get bent.
Joel
Doug.
And if I need to be more clear about 20 above – NO DEAL.
Joel