Comments for Longmont GOP https://longmontgop.org Working towards Liberty in our Lifetime! Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:34:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by jbreher https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-211 jbreher Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:34:30 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-211 Hi Charles – thanks for the reply.
I guess the rejuvenation of the grass roots likely is the same task it ever was. Talk to your neighbors about the issues that matter to you, and ask them to get involved.
The leadership of our party can get away with these heinous actions only because enough of we rank and file members have become complacent.
But some of us are organizing to change this. We are hoping to become a force the rotten core will be unable to ignore.
As a neighboring county, we should communicate frequently on these things. I’ll hit you up offline.

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by chas https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-210 chas Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:08:12 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-210 Joe,

A fellow traveler from nearby Weld County. I loved the letter to Ryan (“Can you hear me now?”) Call. I was also at the RNC in Tampa. Not to vote, but to help. The treatment of a minority of the party was shameful.

With the Weld CCM coming up, do you have any insight to help rejuvenate grass roots GOP activities in the area? Feel free to email or otherwise contact if you wish to take this off-line.

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by Val https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-209 Val Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:28:08 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-209 Joe, we did meet but no vote was allowed. There was even no Bylaws Committee consensus for at least one of the options but it will be presented to the assembly anyway.

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by Val https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-208 Val Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:23:13 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-208 Joe, are you aware of the “unit rule” provided in both county and State GOP bylaws? “What is commonly known as the “unit rule,” by which the entire vote of a delegation is cast according to the majority vote within that delegation, shall not be enforced nor adhered to.”

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by Val https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-207 Val Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:19:40 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-207 I proposed a method last night that would ensure participation, either as a delegate or alternate, for every single precinct. If state delegates are to be selected by house districts, precincts where people do nothing will have the same priority as precincts that pound the pavement and get out the vote. Something is terribly wrong about that. I will email you that message I referred to.

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by jbreher https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-206 jbreher Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:19:16 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-206 Incidentally, I’d like to know who sent the email barring you from information on delegates at HD.

FWIW, I support the process we used this last time around, because the previous legacy model made it impossible for anyone in certain precincts to attend higher assemblies. The two level approach gave a (theoretically) equal path to any interested voter to get to higher assembly.

Do you think there is the possibility of encoding something in the bylaws, mandating that equal (and full) access to information be granted to all delegates, could alleviate your manifestly real concern about control?

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by jbreher https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-205 jbreher Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:13:37 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-205 Thanks for the clarification, Val. I think I follow that the bylaws committee is meeting to formalize wording for the several alternatives in allocation of delegates to higher assemblies. This makes sense.

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by Nancy https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-204 Nancy Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:44:19 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-204 I’d like to add that I think the Romney-pledged delegates had it “easy” compared to the others, in that there would have been no struggle for them in how they should vote, no need to try to figure out how the rules worked, etc. Another thing to consider – the RNC rules changed as a result of the Convention, and the State rules may also change before the next Convention in 2016. So, one may not necessarily be able to base their decisions in 2016 on rules that were in place in 2012. Nor should assumptions be made as to decisions that were made in 2012, based on rules that have changed since that voting took place.

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by Val https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-203 Val Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:41:53 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-203 Joe, I hope I haven’t confused things. That’s why I prefaced my comments by “a little off topic but worth mentioning.” This is a meeting of the by-laws committee. We’ve been meeting by email (open to anyone interested) but several have called for face-to-face since the topic is so confusing. We’re trying to agree to a process of ranking precincts and how to allocate delegates to the precincts. This is the document that will be properly noticed and considered at the next central committee meeting.

There are some who want delegate selection to remain at the precinct grass roots level and some who want that removed from the precincts and centered in the House districts. I believe this is indeed insidious because 254 caucuses are not very controllable but five House districts are. In the last election, some were allowed delegate information for their House Districts, prior to the assembly, and some were not. I have an email, accidentally sent, that says I am not to have any information about my House District. See how five districts can be controlled?

]]> Comment on A letter to the Colorado state Chair of the GOP by Nancy https://longmontgop.org/a-letter-to-the-colorado-state-chair-of-the-gop/#comment-202 Nancy Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:32:38 +0000 http://longmontgop.org/?p=378#comment-202 Joe, not at all… I haven’t detected animosity from anyone on this thread. It has come from elsewhere. I think everyone did indeed make the best decision that they could, given the information they had. I think there are a lot of assumptions and misconception in the general public about how Conventions work and what their purpose is “supposed” to be. It felt to me that there was a lot of pressure on non-Romney delegates to cast their vote for Mitt Romney at the Convention and anyone who indicated they may not do so, were ostracized by many people, and viewed as being traitors. Some are of the opinion that the nominee had already been determined before the Convention, therefore we should all vote for that presumed nominee in order to show unity to Dems, media, etc. I disagree with that philosophy. If we were all expected to vote for the same candidate, why then would there be a need for a Convention? Another thing many people don’t seem to realize is that the rules governing delegate votes is different for each state. Also to consider was the difference, if any, of rules pertaining to bound versus unbound delegates. Trying to get information or figure out what Colorado’s rules are was not an easy task. And on top of that, there were changing variables that needed to be factored in, such as what happens when a candidate, such as Rick Santorum, releases his delegates? Are they now free to cast their vote for whichever candidate they choose or obligated to vote for a particular candidate? In the case of Rick Santorum, I don’t recall him even asking his delegates to cast their vote for Mitt Romney, although I seem to recall towards the very end, him saying he personally was going to support Mitt Romney. In the end, I think each of us had a responsibility to cast our vote in accordance with the commitment we made to those who elected us. We had to use our best judgment, given the information we had, to do that. Isn’t that why they elected us?

]]>