Political Parties-Not Primary Voters-Choose Presidential Nominees

by Alfred Adask

 

On Monday, March 14^th, The Washington Examiner published "CBS' Schieffer: GOP 'replaced by something new' post-2016".  In that article Bob Schiefer, former anchor of CBS' "Fact The Nation," argued that the Republican Party will cease to exist after the A.D. 2016 elections:

"Schieffer said the dynamic of the GOP has been flipped by the current front-runner for the nomination, Donald Trump.

"On the Republican side what we're seeing here is a changing of the guard," Schieffer said.

"If Trump wins the nomination before the convention, it will turn the Republican party on its ear.

"If the nomination goes to an open convention, it will be a bloody fight that could break the party into two parties.

"In either case, the Republican party we used to know will be replaced by something new."

 

*  Two days later, on March 16^th, CNBC released a politically-explosive video of an interview with Curly Haugland-a member of the Republican National Committee (RNC).  According to Mr. Haugland, under the rules for the Republican Party primaries, the "Republican Party"-not the votersin theRepublican primaries-can choose who'll be the Republican nominee for President.  

Thus, even if Donald Trump wins 90% of the delegates in the primaries, he can still be denied the Republican nomination for President by the "Republican Party".

When asked by CNBC, "Then, why have the primaries?"   Mr. Haugland grinned and replied, "That's a good question."

 

The first implication of Mr. Haugland's admissions are that the primary elections are a sham that might impress and excite the yokels, but have no real authority to control who'll be nominated for President.

Second, if the primaries are, themselves, meaningless-what's the purpose and legality of all the financial contributions given to candidates during the primary elections?  Are the primaries less about voters expressing their preferences than about candidates advertising themselves to general election voters?  If the Republican primary elections have no legal or even political authority, aren't they a kind of fraud?

 

Third, if the "Republican Party" will select the "Republican" nominee for President, but voters in the Republican primaries have no real say in selecting that nominee, then it's obvious that the "Republican Party" is something other than the voters in the Republican primaries.  

If so, the "Republican Party" does not include those who vote in the Republican primaries and mistakenly think of themselves as "Republicans".

If the votes in the primaries don't really count, the voters in the primaries who think of themselves as members of the "Republican Party" are deluded.  They are nothing but "house niggers" in the Republican "mansion".  They may live in the same mansion as the "Republican Party," but they're not really members of that party.

 

All of which leads me to wonder, who, pray tell, are the real members of the "Republican Party"?

I can't answer that question.  But I recall someone telling me back about A.D. 1992 (when I ran unsuccessfully for Place 1 on the Supreme Court of Texas) that the real "Republican Party" includes only those people who've been elected under the Republican Party banner and who are still serving in office.  

I don't know that that description was accurate then or now.  However, if (as Mr. Haugland has implied) the voters in the Republican primaries aren't really members of the "Republican Party," that description sounds plausible.

If the real "Republican Party" consists only of those "Republicans" who are currently in office, I doubt that there are more than twenty thousand "real" Republican Party members (from city dogcatcher in Medford, Oregon on up to President in Washington DC) in the entire country.

If those  "real Republican Party" incumbents are up for reelection this year, and if they disenfranchise the Republican primary voters' choice for presidential nominee, I'd advise those Republican incumbents to start polishing their resumes, since they won't be reelected this November-they'll be looking for a new job.

I recommend to everyone who voted in the Republican primaries that, if your vote is ignored and you're disenfranchised by the "real Republicans" in the mysterious "Republican Party," then you shouldn't vote for any "Republican" in the A.D. 2016 election (or in the balance of your life).  I don't care if the "Republican" running for office is your parent, spouse, child or significant other, don't vote for 'em if the real "Republican Party" disenfranchises those who voted in this year's "Republican" primaries.

Here's the CNBC video (a little over 4 minutes long) of the Curly Haugland interview:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuraprYFrz0 

 

RNC-member Haugland has unwittingly opened a can of worms that won't be easily closed or forgotten.  Assuming Mr. Haugland's admissions are legally accurate, his interview was explosive.  He may have ignited a political revolution.

On March 17^th-just one day after CNBC posted Mr. Haugland's original video-interview-The Washington Times published an article entitled "RNC weighs scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers".*

That article declares in part, that:

 

"Top Republicans will try to force more transparency at the party's national convention in July, aiming to scrap their 1,500-page rule book in favor of simpler procedures that they hope will head off arcane maneuvers designed to deny Donald Trump the presidential nomination."

 

Bunk.  These "top Republicans" aren't hoping to "head off arcane maneuvers designed to deny Donald Trump the presidential nomination."  They're hoping to "head off":

 

1) The political firestorm that may follow Mr. Haugland's admission that the Republican voters' votes at the Republican primary elections don't really count; and

2) The adverse political consequences of Haugland's implied admission that the "Republican Party" is some tiny elite that does not include rank-and-file "Republican voters".

 

News that the "Republican Party" doesn't include the "Republican voters" just might wreck the "Republican Party".  That's the news that "top Republicans" are trying to "head off" with The Washington Times article.

 

 

"Top Republicans will try to force more transparency at the party's national convention in July, aiming to scrap their 1,500-page rule book in favor of simpler procedures that they hope will head off arcane maneuvers designed to deny Donald Trump the presidential nomination.

 

More bunk-and big-time "bunk," at that.

 Does anyone really believe that, just four months before the Republican National Convention, these "top Republicans" will really "scrap" their entire "1,500-page rule book" just to create "more transparency"? 

Isn't it more likely that the "top Republicans" are willing to "scrap" their entire 1,500-page haystack of rules in order to quietly dispose of whatever "needles" (like the rule that says the primary voters' votes don't count and a description of the real "Republican Party" as an entity that doesn't include primary voters) that are presumably hidden in that haystack? 

I'll bet that these "top Republicans" are so terrified by the thought of the public finding the rule that says their primary votes don't really matter, that the "top Republicans" are willing to destroy the entire rule book to conceal that fraud.

The move to "scrap" 1,500 pages of rules is no small thing.  This is tantamount to the Methodist Church burning all copies of the Bible because there's a verse hidden somewhere in the Bible that exposes the Methodist Church as some sort of ungodly fraud.

Think about it.  The "top Republicans" aren't saying that they need to tweak one or two rules.  They're saying that they need to "scrap" all 1,500 pages of their rule book.  That's evidence of panic.

 

 

"RNC committee members across the country echoed that sentiment. They said an attempt by Republican insiders to manipulate the process would spark a revolt."

 

"Revolt," my butt. 

If the "Republican Party" (whatever that is) refuses to honor the votes and authority of the "Republican voters" at Republican primary elections, there won't be a revolt.  There'll be a death sentence for the "Republican Party".  That party will be executed by its own shifty rules.  It will virtually cease to exist and might be preventing from winning another presidential election for years into the future.  It might even have to change its moniker from "GOP" (Grand Old Party) to "GOA" (Grand Old Aristocracy).

The Washington Times article made no express reference to Mr. Haugland and/or his claim that the "Republican Party" (whatever that is) can overrule and ignore the Republican voters' preferences expressed at the Republican primaries.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that it's only coincidental that The Washington Times article was published just one day after RNC-member Haugland let the cat out of the bag. 

The RNC must know that Mr. Haugland has exposed information that could wreck the "Republican Party".  The RNC's only escape (if any escape is possible) will require the "Republican Party" to repudiate whatever specific rules and/or their entire 1,500-page rule book that cause primary voting (and primary voters) to be without authority, null, void and of no legal authority, force or effect.

 

One of my readers responded to my initial comments about Mr. Haugland's admissions.  He recommended we use "write-in" candidates rather than vote for the person nominated by the elite of the "Republican Party".

I doubt that any national write-in candidate could win election.  If there could be one write-in candidate, why not two, twenty, or two hundred? 

We can fantasize that, if Donald Trump were denied the Republican nomination, he could run as a "write-in candidate".  But so could Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mitt Romney.  So, for that matter, could I.  (Does anyone doubt that Marco Rubio would run as a write-in candidate if he thought there was one chance in a hundred that he might win?)

If we pushed the write-in candidacy idea, there'd probably be so many write-in contenders that they'd tend to cancel each other out and no one would win a majority of the votes. The best write-in candidate might not field more than 20% of the vote.  How could a candidate who received just 20% of the vote effectively govern?

 

Mr. Haugland implied in his interview that some, most, or even all other "political parties" (including the Democrats) also operate under rules that allow the "Republican Party" to ignore the preferences of primary voters.

If it's true that "Democrat Party" rules also recognize no authority in the votes cast at Democrat primary elections, then this might be a perfect time for Mr. Trump to attack both parties for refusing to honor primary voters' preferences. 

Q:  How could Trump attack both parties? 

A:  It might be possible to start a Third Political Party that advertised from the beginning that:

 

1) It would be absolutely bound by the preferences of its supporters as expressed at their primary elections; and

 2) The "party" would include all rank and file voters who voted in the primaries and/or perhaps all others who merely contributed, say, $5 (or maybe $20) to get a party "membership" ID card.

 

How 'bout that?  How 'bout a third political party that absolutely represented the will of the people rather than the will of the establishment, major corporations and/or an aristocratic elite?

 

RNC-member Haugland's admissions could turn out to be the most explosive issue of the A.D. 2016 election-even bigger than Trump, himself.  I doubt that any party can publicly justify any rules that allow the primary voters' votes to be effectively cancelled or, at least, ignored.  It's possible that every political party's rules will soon become the focus of much unwonted examination, criticism and even rage.

Once again, Donald Trump is in a position to cause revolutionary changes in American politics.  Like him or hate him, you have to admit that he's come into the "garden" of American politics like the first "Adam".  Now, that he's here, there's gonna be some big, big changes.

 

The "Republican Party" and/or "elitists" and/or "establishment" thought that they were sooo smart that they could use their "rules" to defy the primary voters' preference and prevent Trump from being nominated.

Working from behind the scenes, these smart guys conspired to use their weight, brains and "secret" rules to prevent Trump's nomination.  Unfortunately, these "smart guys" forgot that there are no secrets in the Internet Age.  By plotting to use "secret" rules to prevent Trump's nomination, they inadvertently exposed their heretofore "secret" rules.

Result?  Their conspiracy has not only blown up in their faces-it's provided grounds for a controversy that might yet destroy the "Republican Party" itself. 

 

The very survival of the "Republican Party" is now jeopardized.  It may well be that Mr. Haugland's admissions are enough to ruin the "Republican Party" no matter how many rules or rule books the "top Republicans" scrap. 

If so, I'll bet that the "Republican Party" will no longer dare to oppose Trump's nomination.  Trump has the only viable band wagon at this point.  The "Republican Party's" only hope of survival may be to jump on Trump's band wagon and become Trump's BFF.  

From here on until the November election, I suspect that Trump will rule the Republican Party.  Why?  Because, if he really wants to push the issue of not counting Republican primary elections votes, he can destroy the "Republican Party".  On the other hand, if Trump promises to keep his mouth shut, the "Republican Party" may promise to stop opposing Trump's candidacy and let him win the Republican nomination.

In fact, if the Democrat Party's rules are as aristocratic as the Republicans', Trump might even be able to push hard enough to destroy the Democrat Party.

If that turns out to be true, even Hillary had better "play nice" with Mister Trump.

RNC-member Haugland's public admissions may have unwittingly guaranteed that Trump receive the "Republican Party's" nomination.  Haugland may have even given Trump the Presidency.

 

Love him or hate him, Trump is the 800-pound gorilla in this year's election.  He's the political wrecking ball. 

When was the last time you saw an American presidential candidate who caused as profound political effects as Trump? 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt? 

Is Trump another Roosevelt?

Or is he the anti-Roosevelt and remedy for the New Deal?

 

One last point.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for "Administering and Enforcing Federal Campaign Finance Laws".  I haven't yet researched the relevant laws or the FEC. 

Still, I wonder what FEC laws justify allowing any political party to collect campaign contributions for presidential candidates during the presidential primary elections if the votes cast in the primary elections carry no legal weight.

I don't know which FEC laws, if any, relate to primary elections.  I assume that some federal laws govern the primary elections.  But I could be wrong.  Given that each primary election takes place within a single "state," it may be that only "state" (not federal) laws govern each state's primary elections.

Nevertheless, it seems certain that either "state" or federal laws govern primary election procedures.  Therefore, how could any laws not only regulate but effectively approve of a primary election process wherein votes cast could be overruled by some party elite or "establishment"?

However improbable Mr. Haugland's admissions may seem, the recent evidence implies that there are laws at the state and/or federal level that allow political parties to ignore and overrule the votes cast in primary elections-but still collect political campaign contributions for those elections.  What sort of firestorm do you suppose we might see if those laws are discovered and exposed?

 

If you've previously suspected that the major political parties are ignoring your votes, it turns out that your suspicions may have been legally accurate.

It may also be that Bob Shieffer's prediction that the A.D. 2016 election will cause the Republican Party's demise could be right on target.

 

 

 

 

*  When I first watched RNC-member Haugland's video interview, it struck me odd that he was often wearing a fixed grin.  I didn't connect the dots at the time, but it now occurs to me that Mr. Haugland may've been about half-snockered during the interview. 

If he was sober, how do you explain him making those extraordinary admissions?  If he was sober, he was either angry at the RNC and wanted to screw 'em big time-or he's a political dunce who had no idea of the explosive implications of what he was saying.

If Haugland was intoxicated during the interview, then the "Republican Party" may be threatened or even ruined, by one RNC-member having had a "liquid lunch".

This is all so improbable and yet so explosive that it's almost as if we're seeing evidence of the Hand of God working in American politics.

I'm not arguing that Trump is God's anointed-choice for President any more than I'd argue that Rameses was God's anointed-choice for Pharaoh in the face-off with Moses. 

I'm not arguing that if Trump is elected, America will once again "get right with God".

But, I am arguing that something is going on in this year's presidential election that's so exciting, divisive and explosive that it can't be easily explained as "bidness as usual".  Whatever's going on may not truly be inspired by the supernatural, but that sure looks like that's a possibility.  And, whatever forces may be at work, they seem to all swirl around Trump.

• Alcohol 86 million
• Tobacco 69.5 million
• Marijuana 18.9 million
• Rx Painkillers 4.9 million
• Rx Depressants 2.4 million
• Cocaine 1.6 million
• Rx Stimulants 1.2 million
• Hallucinogens 1.1 million
• Heroin 669,000
• Methamphetamine (Meth) 440,000