This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:16:07 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today...
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today...  (Read 394 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2016, 06:27:01 PM »

Sorry if this should have gone on the 2016 board, but as it fits in more with the whole downward spiral of the GOP and has effects that go beyond 2016, I figured it fit best here.  Feel free to move it if I was incorrect.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full story: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/17/gop-ouster-trump/92300180/

There are a few reasons this was the wrong move:

1. Perhaps the most important, the plain language of the bylaws actually doesn't give the chair the power to remove an officer for refusing to back the party's presidential nominee. The bylaws state, "The Chairman shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any officer who refuses to support the Republican nominee for any office within the State of Michigan." The office of President is not an office within the State of Michigan. There's an argument to be made that the chairman should have the power to boot an officer for refusing to support the Republican nominee for any position on the ballot in Michigan, but that's not what the bylaws actually say. For being the party that supports judicial conservatism, interpreting the bylaws any other way is pure hypocrisy.

2. It accomplishes pretty much nothing, brings further attention to the fact that the party is in shambles, and draws attention to the fact that key Republican leaders aren't backing Trump. If the intent is to help the nominee, drawing attention to the fact that people aren't backing him doesn't further the goal.

3. It's bad PR when the party ousts someone for not backing the nominee when it did nothing to oust people who have done far worse to hurt the image of the party. If we oust people from their positions for not backing the nominee, but we won't oust convicted felons (Google Darwin Jiles, Jr., Trucker Randy, and Bill Rauwerdink to see what I'm talking about) or people who spout homophobic and Islamophobic rants on social media (Dave Agema... I think we've had threads on him here), what message does that send?

4. There are much better things to focus on, like spending time, money, and resources on getting Republican candidates across the state elected. Instead of doing that, key figures in state party leadership decided to spend a couple days talking to lawyers, the media, and other party leaders about an intra-party scuffle. What harm would have waiting until November 9th to do this caused?

Sometime in the near future, MIGOP leaders are going to be asking, "Why do we have so many Democrats elected in this state?" The answer, in part, will be because of nonsense like this.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2016, 06:30:29 PM »

Last one left turn out the lights!
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2016, 07:01:14 PM »

There are a few reasons this was the wrong move:

1. Perhaps the most important, the plain language of the bylaws actually doesn't give the chair the power to remove an officer for refusing to back the party's presidential nominee. The bylaws state, "The Chairman shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any officer who refuses to support the Republican nominee for any office within the State of Michigan." The office of President is not an office within the State of Michigan. There's an argument to be made that the chairman should have the power to boot an officer for refusing to support the Republican nominee for any position on the ballot in Michigan, but that's not what the bylaws actually say. For being the party that supports judicial conservatism, interpreting the bylaws any other way is pure hypocrisy.

Even if you want to be pedantic that the office of President is not technically within the State of Michigan, the office of Elector certainly is. Otherwise, I agree with your post, but making this technicality your most important point is ludicrous.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2016, 07:08:15 PM »


2. It accomplishes pretty much nothing, brings further attention to the fact that the party is in shambles, and draws attention to the fact that key Republican leaders aren't backing Trump. If the intent is to help the nominee, drawing attention to the fact that people aren't backing him doesn't further the goal.

I don't really care about this issue, but I feel someone should point out that this just isn't true. For one thing everyone already knows this, and for another Grassroots Vice Chair Wendy Day  is a nobody in their own house.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2016, 07:11:43 PM »

There are a few reasons this was the wrong move:

1. Perhaps the most important, the plain language of the bylaws actually doesn't give the chair the power to remove an officer for refusing to back the party's presidential nominee. The bylaws state, "The Chairman shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any officer who refuses to support the Republican nominee for any office within the State of Michigan." The office of President is not an office within the State of Michigan. There's an argument to be made that the chairman should have the power to boot an officer for refusing to support the Republican nominee for any position on the ballot in Michigan, but that's not what the bylaws actually say. For being the party that supports judicial conservatism, interpreting the bylaws any other way is pure hypocrisy.

Even if you want to be pedantic that the office of President is not technically within the State of Michigan, the office of Elector certainly is. Otherwise, I agree with your post, but making this technicality your most important point is ludicrous.

But she's never come out and said she won't support the Republican electors.  If the party is going to make that technical argument, then they're really wrong, because she hasn't indicated she's refusing to support the nominee for any elector position.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2016, 07:20:27 PM »

Is Ronna Romney McDaniel related to those Romneys?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2016, 07:34:32 PM »

Is Ronna Romney McDaniel related to those Romneys?
Mitt's aunt, IIRC.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2016, 07:36:46 PM »


No, Ronna Romney McDaniel is Mitt's neice.  Ronna Romney (Ronna Romney McDaniel's mother), was Mitt Romney's sister-in-law, as she was married to Scott Romney (although the two are now divorced).
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2016, 07:55:33 PM »

I'm of course disgusted that she was removed, but there is no love lost between myself and any "#NeverTrump" Republican (cough Inks cough Vosem cough couch RogueBeaver cough) who wouldn't afford the same clemency, say, to a Ron Paul supporter who didn't support Mitt Romney as a "matter of conscience."

Eff your consciences. You guys don't have 'em.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2016, 08:01:22 PM »

I'm of course disgusted that she was removed, but there is no love lost between myself and any "#NeverTrump" Republican (cough Inks cough Vosem cough couch RogueBeaver cough) who wouldn't afford the same clemency, say, to a Ron Paul supporter who didn't support Mitt Romney as a "matter of conscience."

Eff your consciences. You guys don't have 'em.

Mitt Romney wasn't a racist, mentally unstable, ego-maniacal sexual predator.
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2016, 08:07:08 PM »

I'm of course disgusted that she was removed, but there is no love lost between myself and any "#NeverTrump" Republican (cough Inks cough Vosem cough couch RogueBeaver cough) who wouldn't afford the same clemency, say, to a Ron Paul supporter who didn't support Mitt Romney as a "matter of conscience."

Eff your consciences. You guys don't have 'em.

Mitt Romney wasn't a racist, mentally unstable, ego-maniacal sexual predator.
Plus, ideologically most Paul supporters were probably closer to Mitt than to Obama. With Trump in the ring, this isn't as clear.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2016, 08:16:25 PM »

I'm of course disgusted that she was removed, but there is no love lost between myself and any "#NeverTrump" Republican (cough Inks cough Vosem cough couch RogueBeaver cough) who wouldn't afford the same clemency, say, to a Ron Paul supporter who didn't support Mitt Romney as a "matter of conscience."

Eff your consciences. You guys don't have 'em.

I don't think I've ever called for removal of someone from a party position for failure to support the nominee; in fact, I've known people who've refused to support state-wide GOP candidates, and I've still supported them for intra-party positions.  I can't say I never would, because who knows what circumstances would come up, and I certainly continued to attempt to persuade Ron Paul supporters to back Romney, but that's not the same as booting them from a position.

But even if I were to advocate for it, I certainly wouldn't be intentionally blowing it up on social media and in the press like the instigator here did, and I certainly wouldn't worry about it before the election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.