May 202024

It has finally happened. More Proxies than Delegate Bodies.

This is pretty much the story.

I have to salute Luis Buhler, he is a brilliant man. There is a reason why he is consistently a Presidential Delegate despite his long history of fighting conservatives.

People on the opposition side should take a master class from Buhler about how to manipulate organizations through legal, Robert’s Rules ways.

Buhler took Tim O’Reilly’s By-Law proposals, gutted them, amended them and got something passed that was less obvious, but equally as effective. My estimation based on what I saw is that there will be about 200 less delegates in the pool. You need 30% to get three and 45% to get five. My understanding is below 30 is candidate only.

The other amendment eliminating delegate status for write in’s was tabled.

This was an absoulte master class by Mr. Buhler.

What is in italics is false. I knew it was false when I wrote it. I wanted to see if Steve Frank or crew would come and correct the record… as previously I had to post the entire letter between Tim O’Reilly and Keith Cascio to force the truth in to the open.

Rick Marshall has always been an honest operator, but he is an indepdenent guy and not part of Team Steve Frank everytime on every thing. Thank You Rick for the comment below. It was almost 24 hours between the time I posted this and Rick’s comment and Rick was the only person from the opposition to speak up against the false information.

Do better folks.

Stay Informed!

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.

  7 Responses to “UPDATED: 2024 CAGOP Convention Summary: No One Came, Rules Changes Ensure Even Less in the Future”

  1. So, if I am reading this correctly: Tim O’reilly’s by law proposal made it, albeit, with a few modifications?

    smh. Interesting.

    I guess the elephant in the room question is: That was it? Nothing else happened? Nothing much of interest took place? wow.

    Our Wargame gatherings during September hold more promise than this……………

  2. That’s it? Nothing else happened? You’re kidding, right?

  3. Hey Leo of Sacramento, Tim O’Reilly’s bylaw change did not make it. The rules committee made wholesale modifications to “satisfy” to revolting masses, but kept the general effect the same.

    The only thing Aaron gets wrong is that they passed. Not all of them did. Gutted and amended proposal #12 did pass. If you do not make it to the top two but are still the top Republican vote-getter, you can be a delegate AS LONG AS YOUR NAME WAS ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT. This was the change Luis made. He kept (or restored) the top Republican vote-getters as eligible to be delegates in Proposal #12.

    Tim outright deleted the entire status of top Republican vote-getters. If you didn’t make it to the top two, you would not be a delegate. Write-in candidates were affected but so were third-place finishers. The Gut and Amend change was a smaller change (fewer people affected) than proposed so according to Robert’s rules, it could be made and voted on. That passed. Luis knows his Robert’s.

    Gutted and Amended proposal #11 did not pass. It was postponed. So until it is taken up and passed by two-thirds, the old rules are still in place. Top Republican vote-getters (from the amended Proposal #12) will still get two delegates if they exceed Republican registration, an appropriate reward for their efforts in carrying the Republican banner in deep blue districts. If they are so fortunate to achieve or break the 30% vote threshold, they will get one more. I was assured on the floor by the Chairman of the Rules Committee that that instance has never happened. My reply is that it is still mathematically possible.

    There was major confusion about the effect of the Gutted and Amended Proposal #11. It had to pass by 2/3rds as our amendment procedures specify that in the bylaws, so just passing the Rules report would not put it in the bylaws. The fight over the following text from Proposal #11 was what was confusing for delegates:

    (e) Delegate appointments in Sections 2.01.01(B)(6) and (7) shall only be awarded to nominees who appear on the ballot in a general election, or in the final vote of a special election.

    Many understood that delegates were being lost because of the inclusion of (B)(6) in the language. Top Republican vote-getters who don’t make the top two would be ineligible to appoint delegates even if they exceeded Republican registration in their districts by 5%. Confusion was created on the floor among delegates when the Chairman of the Rules committee refused to acknowledge that third-place finishers who exceeded 5% of the registration in their district would be ineligible to appoint two delegates. His focus was on the graduated levels at 30% and above. Whether this was intentional or he too misunderstood the impact of sub paragraph e, I don’t know.

    When it was clear to me that this created confusion (who are you going to believe, you lying eyes of what you can read on the screen, or the chairman) among the delegates, I moved to table the proposal. The Convention Chairwoman consulted with her parliamentarian and then asked me if I’d like to change my motion to postpone. They are interchangeable and many get them mixed up. I admit to being frustrated and I just wanted to move to a vote.

    However, upon consultation with the Chairwoman and the Parliamentarian, I agreed to change my motion to postpone, withdrew my request to table and moved to postpone. It received a second and we voted after debate—two for and two against. The Chairman of the Rules Committee and I debated again. And Samantha Sobarzo from Riverside County gave the speech of the day. I wish I could have given my time to her. She was fabulous. More confusion ensued as the other side tried to recover.

    The convention voted to postpone the gutted and amended Proposal #11. Luis made a brilliant move, attempting to achieve the same effect (although not as drastic) of removing grassroots delegates from the Party and putting the Establishment firmly in charge, (some say Legislators). But the delegates who understood knew this was the path to perdition, not only for conservatives (grassroots) but for Republicans in California.

    If stuff like this made us stronger, we could actually block a state budget, but we can’t. We have no voice in Sacramento. The Democrats do not have to listen to us and as the Legislative vote on ACA 5 demonstrated, not a single Republican legislator voted against it, and that was used as the reason the convention should remain neutral.

    So much for the big tent and moderation. If it worked we Republicans could effect change in California and the Democrat Presidential Candidate would quit winning the popular vote while losing the electoral college.

    Yes, the move was brilliant if all that is necessary is to get your way with the bylaws. But had it passed, it would have been one more disaster to add to the legions of disasters that have been made since we elected the “girly man” to the governorship the second time around.

  4. Thank you for the explanation, blow-by-blow. Should be equally funny to hear what our group will say about it come our June 11th meeting.
    Repubs in Sacto, standing against/for things………………interesting.

    We HAVE no voice in Sacramento, because it seems/appears, no one cares enough to RUN for Legislature seats when they become open. Prop 1….was it true the Party negated a vote, which ‘perhaps could’ have helped it to pass? No brainer if you were to ask me; anything Gavin is FOR, you vote NO or AGAINST. It’s that simple. Instead, due to a lack of leadership, Patterson choice silence.

    We have a very TIGHT Senate race and a very small margin for error, in the House….to date, still no endorsement of either Bisch nor Garvey from our party. Again, why?
    Right now, all you hear about is TRUMP and CALI helping him to win….win what?
    Trump is looking like a winner, regardless of what Californian’s do. That calculation is already made and has no impact to the results. Oh sure, MAYBE you get some traction for local races. As was said on the news: Republicans can make good gains for school boards and the like.
    Really? So, do you honestly believe, running for Hall Monitor is a good thing to move you up the scales?? (scoffs)

    Patterson is NOT the leader we need, and should be dumped. Perhaps, national level politics will help with this endeavor.

    For me?? I’m still on track to DO, what I said I will DO.

  5. G. Rick Marshall:

    There is one recipe for proven success: MAGA and America First.

    You can type and talk all day about strategy and what is wrong in California, but the fact remains that the people of California want America First policies and so far the Republican organizations in California have not embraced MAGA. What does that tell you?

    Bribery, corruption, coercion, fear, media smearing, and “influencers”(bloggers too) not supporting Trump is how they keep America First candidates out of the arena and paint a narrative that Californians are all Democrat voters. There are more of us than them and they know it. California was never blue and many are waking up to that myth.

    I hope Lynyrd can straighten this all out for you Rick when he gets into the governor’s mansion.

  6. The real story of the Convention is we now have more proxies attending than delegates!

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>