Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Jim Rich Cabal Is Defeated

By Greg L | 22 May 2010 | RPV, Virginia Politics | 37 Comments

Howie Lind was elected Chairman of the 10th Congressional District Committee at today’s convention in Warrenton.  As is often the case in the 10th District, things became rather interesting, but despite that the era of Jim Rich is now officially over.  The last hurrah of his cabal is over, with a minor tactical victory followed by a final strategic defeat.

Knowing personally the recent history of the 10th District, this was certain to be a great place to drag video equipment, and I set up well before the convention started expecting to either get some interesting footage, or at least to get the speeches by Congressman Wolf and other elected officials that might speak.  I’ve filmed at the Prince William County Convention this year, the 2009 RPV Convention, the Huffman Advance, was invited by Becky Stoeckel to film the 11th District Convention this year before it was canceled, and am also member of the RPV New Media Committee.  I was even a paid videographer for Dave Schmidt’s campaign, and have worked for a number of candidates attending today’s Convention.  I’m getting to be an old hand at this, and have pretty well established my credentials.

I was a little surprised when Anna Lee claimed I couldn’t film at this convention (saying the Call prohibited it), but dismissed her opinion as being non-authoritative and irrelevant.  I was rather shocked later on when right before the convention started I was approached by the Sergeant At Arms and told to pack up my equipment.  I advised the Sergeant at Arms that I wouldn’t do so, they got Jim Rich to tell me the same, and finally they went and got two Fauquier County Deputy Sheriffs to advise me that if I didn’t pack up, I would be arrested for trespassing.  Jim Rich would be the official complainant for such an arrest of a credentialed delegate peaceably violating no part of the Call or Rules.  My, this is awfully unusual.

When Delegate Tom Rust was nominated as temporary Chairman, I figured we could resolve this pretty quickly.  Tom has always seemed like an honorable man to me.  So when the opportunity presented itself, I stood up and offered a point of order that this decision was wrong and should be reversed.  Tom ruled me out of order.  Well, that was quite a shock.  So I motioned to overrule the decision of the Chair, as I couldn’t imagine the whole Convention could possibly agree with this.  This made no sense at all, and no one would explain the decision.

Rust then bypassed any discussion when considering the motion to overrule the Chair, as Roberts Rules of Order would require, and went straight to a vote, so no one ever got an explanation of why I was being barred from taping.  After an inconclusive voice vote, Division was called, and about three-quarters of the Convention stood up to reverse the ruling of the Chair.  Regardless, Rust determined that he was victorious in the motion despite plain visual evidence that he wasn’t, and Convention business proceeded.

Shades of 2006, anyone?  Does this make any sense at all on any level?

I am shocked and appalled that someone like Delegate Rust would behave this way.  Republicans are supposed to adhere to the principles they espouse.  Rust did not, and hasn’t explained himself at all, despite ample opportunity to do so.   He doesn’t have to answer to Jim Rich, and he doesn’t have to follow orders that run counter to one’s conscience in order to please anyone else. Why would he knowingly deviate from Roberts Rules and play games with a Convention vote like this?

During the more than two hour delay (strangely enough) in announcing the results of a vote tabluated by machine, I spoke with Tom Whitmore about what happened, and he had a fascinating take on it.  Seeing the Convention quite possibly spin out of control as happened in 2006, all over a pretty inconsequential vote over whether I could film Congressman Wolf speaking to a friendly crowd, it showed the Jim Rich folks they’d lose an actually consequential vote, and this probably would have prevented any efforts to disqualify delegates or play games with the rules.  Sure enough, the Chairman of the Credentials committee gave a pretty lengthly report whining about Unit Chairs following the rules and hinting at delegates that could potentially be disqualified, but didn’t try to do anything about her vague complaints.  I wouldn’t wonder much if there was some earnest desire to start trying to throw credentialed delegates out of the convention, but a realization that after seeing three-quarters of the convention object to such behavior they figured there was no way such an effort would have succeeded.  Maybe, just maybe, what was effectively a test vote showed revisiting 2006 upon today’s delegates would be a very unwise move.

So there weren’t any further fireworks, but plenty of people wondering what could possibly be going on.  In the end, Howie Lind was declared the winner of the election for 10th District Chairman.

So although I’d hoped to bring you video of the speeches by Congressman Wolf, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Prince William County Chairman Corey Stewart, I have been censored by Delegate Tom Rust and cannot.  At least Jim Rich is no longer Chairman, so I don’t ever expect to see such atrocious behavior in the future.

UPDATE: NovaTownHall has more on this with their great blow-by-blow: “10th District Convention Kicks Off With Thuggishness

UPDATE 2: Weighted Vote Totals: Lind 713.25, Schmidt 478.75.  Now that is a mandate!

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Freedom said on 22 May 2010 at 2:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Surely they gave you reason, Greg….no?

  2. Tammy Beland said on 22 May 2010 at 3:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I read the Rules that came out of Randy Minchew’s Rules Committee and there was absolutely no prohibition on videotaping of the convention, live blogging, etc.

    Minchew told me afterwards that this topic was not even discussed in his Committee.

    I don’t get it

  3. Cathymac said on 22 May 2010 at 3:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    It makes no sense, esp since now the story is that the convention was NOT taped, and why.

  4. Tillie said on 22 May 2010 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rust is the ultimate pol. He’ll say and do anything for his future re-election; Although this time it might backfire. Not to be trusted.

  5. Dave Core said on 22 May 2010 at 4:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    So it was YOU who raised the issue. It seemed to me that your point of order made a lot of sense and was in-line with a more “open and transparent” party organization. I was slightly taken aback seeing all the people stand that the Chairman ruled AGAINST the motion but then giving the history … not really surprised. Glad someone knows Roberts Rules. Good for you, Greg. And a great day for Howie Lind and a new party organization.

  6. PartyIrregular said on 22 May 2010 at 5:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    The credentials committee report and opinion reflected the position of the credentials committee. The committee had to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing where units did not follow the rules/procedures. The committee strongly recommended that improvements be made to speed up the process and reduce conflicts.

    Every effort was made in Credentials to be totally fair and above board. The counting of the votes and the tallying was open, thorough, and transparent. The people in the credentials room bent over backwards to respond and accommodate inquiries even though in my mind they did not have to and should not have.

    On the topic of cameras, I wonder if proper media credentials would have solved the issue.

    I think that when you have pro or semi-pro videographers and videography, the bar is raised. My viewpoint would be ‘instead of allowing it because it wasn’t prohibited,’ would be ‘only allowing it if it was expressly not prohibited.’

    While I don’t have a problem with a trusted videographer, I’d have an issue with an amateur or unknown videographer with a Mohawk haircut.

  7. Cathymac said on 22 May 2010 at 5:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    What were the exact problems the Credentials committee had with rules and procedures from specifics units. The committee report sounded like there were problems with double initials on individual delegate applications? If that was the case - why was it discovered so late in the process? Just asking honest questions.

  8. Loudoun Outsider said on 22 May 2010 at 6:01 pm:
    Flag comment


    My first time posting on your site.

    I was at the convention today. He was not my candidate but I congratulate Mr. Lind on his victory.

    I do not object to videotaping the proceedings, but what happened to you may have been the result of a misunderundstanding based on events of which you were not aware.

    Both sides told their supporters dilatory tatics by the other candidate were possible. I cannot speak to why Jim Rich told you not to tape and called the deputies, but when you made your motion you were obviously upset. Those of us in the audience did not know what happened and I thought “here come the fireworks we were told were coming.” My belief is that most of us in the room thought this was the opening salvo of a series of motions rather than a sincere request to tape the proceedings. I grant you this issue should have discussed and resolved in advance.

    On Too Conservative there is a comment from one of Mr. Lind’s Navy buddies about what a decent fellow he is. He won. He should get his to govern. Lets all hope he does well.

    I understand you were upset and might not buy Jim Rich lunch anytime soon, but wouldn’t we be better off without comments like the “Jim Rich Cabal.”

    As to the credentials committee, whatever problems with the paperwork were found, the Chair and the committee made the right decision to overlook whatever minor problems were found and let everybody vote. Its done. To use a Clintonism, lets move on.

  9. PartyIrregular said on 22 May 2010 at 6:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Each unit has to comply by submitting their paperwork. Stuff like proper signatures, copy of the posted call, etc. This could be improved by providing a checklist, examples of how to fill out forms, correct sample forms, an actual form, etc. Some of the same issues before the credentials committee appear to happen over and over again. Some delegates were not on the forms and supposed to be, some delegates came to the credentials committee when they should have just gone to the correct county. There were many years of experience on that committee and a lot of collective wisdom on how to do things that would avoid problems. With this many delegates, there’s going to be some errors that can be reviewed and corrected by the committee, but the systemic stuff should be cleaned up and fixed for the next one. It appears that the historical tradition has been to throw the convention stuff together at the last minute, I’ll bet dollars to donuts the new Chairman will change that tradition.

  10. Cathymac said on 22 May 2010 at 6:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree with moving on, but if the problems that were mentioned with the paperwork were serious enough to announce to the entire convention - then perhaps clarifying what happened might avoid the same problems in the future.

    FWIW, I always expect the unexpected - this is politics - but I wasn’t anticipcating any devious tactics or underhandedness. I know people that worked on both campaigns and they are all high quality, experienced campaigners. I suspect there are people that are suspicious at every event, which is something we will have to work on. Party unity starts with trusting that no one is going to “cheat” the opponents, but let’s allow the democrats to rightfully hold the title of cheaters.

  11. PartyIrregular said on 22 May 2010 at 6:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Cabal is probably unnecessarily incendiary, but many people feel the word and definition reflects the spirit if not the letter of the past administration. The key word is not ‘cabal’, but ‘past.’

    Hopefully Chairman Howie has thoroughly learned how he does NOT want to be a Chairman.

    Let’s help him be the Chairman that Jim supporters thought Jim was, that Dave supporters thought Dave would be, and that Howie supporters know Howie is.

    Every faction has a significant interest in Howie being wildly successful. It would be insane for any faction claiming to be Republican to strive for the opposite.

    Furthermore, I would suggest that the degree of faction support will be a direct reflection upon the character of Dave and Jim. I think folks are going to be surprised one way or another.

  12. Brian Leeper said on 22 May 2010 at 6:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The committee had to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing where units did not follow the rules/procedures. The committee strongly recommended that improvements be made to speed up the process and reduce conflicts.”

    Then they should have provided me a standardized form to use for that information. What I got instead was an Excel spreadsheet, the width of which did not allow for me to print it without deleting some columns and reducing the font size–so that is what I did.

    In retrospect, I could have printed it in landscape mode and that would have allowed for me to leave more columns on there, but some guidance from the 10th as to what they wanted would have been useful. In the absence of more detailed instructions, I figured that name, address, phone number, unit, paid (yes/no), and delegate or alternate was sufficient information. The original Excel spreadsheet had many columns which did not appear to be needed for the purpose of delegate certification so I removed them to come up with something that I could print.

  13. Cathymac said on 22 May 2010 at 7:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Brian, You should have taken the print job to Becky Stoeckel (11th district chair) - or asked her for advice as to what columns were necessary for convention registration. She’s done this 100 times and owns a print shop in the City of Fairfax.

  14. Brian Leeper said on 22 May 2010 at 7:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    My certification was a single page (11 delegates). What would have really helped is a sample certification document that showed what it should look like and what information should have been on it…or an Excel spreadsheet template already formatted to print correctly on either letter or legal paper (preferably letter).

    I really don’t know that they had an issue with the certification I sent in.

    I do know that if it had been multiple pages, I would have set it so that it was printed with page numbers like “page x of x” so that it could more easily be verified whether any pages were missing.

  15. PartyIrregular said on 22 May 2010 at 7:25 pm:
    Flag comment


    Cathymac and Brian Leeper are both correct. Without clear instructions and procedures, folks end up doing things in a non-standard way.

    The largest room in the world is the room for improvement. Sounds like next time around, credentials will be much better.

    I would vote for rows being numbered, but that’s just me… or is it?

  16. Patty said on 22 May 2010 at 8:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Where were the #2 pencils? We had to share pencils.

  17. Greg L said on 22 May 2010 at 9:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Some unit chairmen were told they had to bring pencils for their delegations. Others were not. There’s a question as to whether using something other than a #2 pencil could invalidate a ballot. The ballots took over two hours to count, even though they were tabulated by machine.

    Makes you wonder a bit…

  18. Loudoun Insider said on 22 May 2010 at 9:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    More good reasons to scrap these ridiculous conventions!

  19. Greg L said on 22 May 2010 at 9:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    I might as well just give this to you straight, as I couldn’t make something like this up. Jim Rich responds on TC:

    The video tape tempest in a tea pot indicates that some have a jaundiced view of convention activities and the central purpose thereof. The convention is not all about video tapers and efforts to market blogs or other outlets, it is about the candidates and providing a user friendly election for delegates who have been patriotic enough to take time out of their lives to participate. No need for video tapers to attempt to upstage this. The 10th District Committee has a long standing policy (by record vote of the Committee) against video taping 10th District official meetings without permission. The Committee’s reasoning was as follows: with technology available today, tapes can be altered and edited in a fraudulent and distorted manner that does not reflect the actual proceedings and could provide an opportunity to embarrass delegates or hold them up for ridicule. Videotaping could have a chilling effect on discussion. Consequently, delegates or committee members could be intimidated. Some view cameras everywhere as a big brother type of thing and they don’t like it. Delegates and committee members should have the right to know in advance that their images could be used without their permission. In any event, if the video tapers had bothered to contact Committee officials in advance and to ask for permission, it might have been given if assurances were made about editing and the Chair had been given time to consult with the Committee about an exception to the no video taping policy already on the books. But this was not done and they just showed up. In any event I would like to thank everyone who participated, especially the volunteers who worked the long hours that made for a user friendly and smooth running convention. You are the real news makers. And we thank you very much. Jim Rich

  20. Linda B said on 22 May 2010 at 10:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, apparently the weighting of the votes takes a fair amount of time … each county’s vote count gets weighted based on their R vs. D results from the previous election. And from what (little) I understand, it isn’t just a straight weighting but something fairly complicated that can’t be determined until the number of ballots from each county is known on site.

  21. Greg L said on 22 May 2010 at 11:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve been in the trenches on this at past conventions, and the usual process is to enter the raw vote totals in a spreadsheet and have it calculate the weighted totals. As long as there are not disputed ballots or irregularities, this process can take all of five minutes to do the data entry for the relatively few units in the District.

    My understanding is that 57 ballots were not initially tabulated by the automated system and the majority of the time was spent in determining how to handle these ballots. There may have been questions about overvotes or undervotes in some units, but I didn’t hear that was the case. It may have happened, and I understand those take some time.

    I actually wrote convention management software in the past in PWC that allowed the credentials report to be completed within ten seconds of the last check-in exception to be handled. I know a little about automating conventions, having been there and done that.

    Two hours to deal with a relative handful of ballots that couldn’t be optically scanned doesn’t make sense to me. Delays where the causes and resolutions of those problems are not transparent potentially harms the integrity of the process and while we trust that the elections committee will act fairly on our behalf, given the not-too-distant history here such instances are troubling. At the very least not knowing what problems we encountered we have no opportunity to improve the process in the future and will likely revisit the same problems again and revisit all this frustration, doubt and uncertainty.

    I’d like to avoid that, and all the questions that can potentially arise as a result.

  22. Linda B said on 22 May 2010 at 11:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, assuming the counting was handled with the same crackerjack level of organization and order as the explanation of the balloting and the balloting itself, we can all sleep easy tonight. Or not.

  23. Cathymac said on 23 May 2010 at 6:23 am:
    Flag comment

    Was the money used for the “voting machine” worth it? I suspect the votes could have been hand counted and weighted in 2 hours, or even 1 hour if you had one set of vote counters for each county and 2 for FFX and Loudoun.

    Perhaps I am naive!

  24. PartyIrregular said on 23 May 2010 at 6:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg L,

    This of all things, should not make you wonder.

    There were independent observers, party observers, candidate specific observers, most of the credentials committee, and a chairman concerned with making sure nobody screwed with the process or the credentials committee.

    There were not enough pencils. It was a screwup, a dropped ball. There was no conspiracy. Folks from Faquier sent out someone to get mechanical pencils for their delegation — you’d think they would have had ahead of time if it was a real conspiracy. (or that’s what they want you to believe ;)

    Not everyone is familiar with this connect the line, everybody should be know by now that #2 pencils seem to work best with scanning machines. This was a winky ballot to me, it wasn’t clear, but unless you’re willing to crawl into everyone’s lap voting, you can’t control what the individuals are wont to do. (And if you were that kind of person, you would not be welcome in my party.)

    The ballots did not take 2 hours to count, it took over 2 hours to count AND satisfy every query/inquiry and question. The boxes were under constant monitoring from the moment they arrived to the room. The machine and the actual counting process were professionally controlled. There were no irregularities in the process because there was simply no room for them to occur. This processing and counting was 100% legitimate, I and others watched and confirmed every step. The spreadsheet for weighting was confirmed by the candidates independently. Chairman Howie was fully and fairly elected and to imply that the process was suspect (and hence would make you wonder) would only occur until you were aware of what was happening there by any of the numerous observers/participants.

    Your understanding of the 57 ballots is entirely incorrect. All save one were clearly marked and unanimously verified as to which candidate by two sets of credentials/tellers. The one that wasn’t was set aside to be re-examined if it made a difference. The 57 got bounced from the machine for various reasons, most common being over marked (like we reportedly do with Jim Rich’s likeness ;)), some had hole punches in the actual ballot, some were done in pen, some had a different interpretation of a straight line, etc. But all save one were clear to everyone in the process as to who was being voted for.

    As a longtime poll watcher, I can tell you that just like Schrödingers cat, the process is affected by the observation. And that’s not a bad thing. It’s kinda like what you were trying to do with the camera. If people being watched and recorded, they are less likely to do anything iffy. But by the same token, if their behavior is being affected by the camera in that fashion, why wouldn’t it affect behavior in other ways? (stifling debate, preventing candor, intimidating those with glib-impairment, etc.)

    I think that Chairman Howie’s first chore will be to analyze this convention, figure out what went wrong, get with the folks who set this one up, get their suggestions, and get ready for the next convention. It will have to be better then this and the ones in the past. Howie sure raises a heck of a lot of bars with his election.

    When all is said and done, the purpose of the convention is to express the will of the delegates of the local units. It is not an exact science, irregularities and aberrations occur. It is the assumption that the weirdness will balance out. You might have one or two whacked out units, but not all of them, you might have one or two whacked out characters, but not all of them. It should be clear to all, that despite the normal convention fun that we have come to endure, it is pretty clear that the 10th district has expressed its will with Chairman Howie — Just as it had with Chairman Jim for these o’ so many years.

    BTW, Jim’s comments seem pretty straight, what would you make up differently?

    Loudoun Insider, As for doing away with conventions, what would you do instead? Perhaps a ruling elite kind of like what Benevolent Father (PBUH) is promising? Or that canvassing system that worked so well for BF against Hilary?

    Color me old-fashioned, but I kinda think the name of our party means more than just that.

  25. PartyIrregular said on 23 May 2010 at 7:00 am:
    Flag comment

    The professional vote counting was worth it in my mind — based upon how long it’s taken in the past, and how many counts and recounts would have to have taken place to satisfy the stakeholders in the room.

    I think it probably would have been worth the extra cost of setting up touch screens. This would have been faster, only as much as people trusted the system.

    It’s always a people issue.

  26. NoVA Scout said on 23 May 2010 at 7:02 am:
    Flag comment

    If Jim Rich was indeed running a “cabal,” I thought the membership was pretty impressive. I’d sure like to have folks like Frank Wolf, Joe May and Randy Minchew in my cabal, when I get around to organizing one.

  27. J. Tyler Ballance said on 23 May 2010 at 7:41 am:
    Flag comment

    History teaches us that open access is always the best approach, and those who most vigorously fight to close the doors on the Press, are deserving of the most intense scrutiny.

  28. PartyIrregular said on 23 May 2010 at 9:01 am:
    Flag comment

    When you’ve been outmaneuvered for 20 years, it makes you feel better to have opposed the Moriarity of politics.

    I wonder if Chairman Howie has to expend an equivalent effort smacking down kooks for 20 years, he might end up with a just as impressive cabal reputation.

    Chairman Jim may have not had a MiniMe constantly at his side, but his accomplishments were impressive, and though his methods were pretty much universally hated, he does have a fairly decent electoral track record with the elected Republicans in the 10th — Not ideal, not perfect, but fairly decent considering the tools at his disposal.

  29. Loudoun Outsider said on 23 May 2010 at 9:03 am:
    Flag comment


    80% of the time taken to count the ballots was because there was one machine and the ballots had to be fed by unit — one ballot at a time. The machine being used was not like a mutli-copy feeder xerox.

  30. Greg L said on 23 May 2010 at 12:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    In regards to Rich’s “defense”, the only ones on the Committee who were apparently aware of this rule were Anna Lee and Jim Rich. Anna Lee incongruously claimed there was a prohibition in the Call, which was, to put it mildly, inaccurate. I checked with my representative to the 10th, and that person indicated filming was OK. Strange to have a “policy” enforced that no one is aware of, even people who supposedly approved of that policy.

    As for whether I posed some sort of danger, that assertion is utterly laughable. I get invited to do this at just about every opportunity, even for conventions outside of the district in which I reside. Folks have seen my work, I have a clear record, and when the tape shows potential problems that might not be suitable for public viewing, I’ve privately provided raw footage to the Committee, as happened with a convention in the 51st District a few years back when I provided raw footage to the 11th District Committee at their request.

    If there were actually valid reasons for that decision, you would think that Tom Rust would have allowed discussion during the motion to overrule the Chair as Roberts Rules requires. Instead, he allowed no discussion at all. That left a huge number of folks wondering why this was happening and only hours after the convention closed do we get an attempt to rationalize this behavior with arguments that can’t possibly stand up to a close inspection.

    We haven’t gotten the real story behind why Jim Rich and his lap dog Tom Rust acted they way they did. Someday the truth might come out, and usually it does if you can afford to be patient.

  31. James Young said on 23 May 2010 at 6:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m certainly appalled by this. As I understand it, Republican conventions are public events, and as public events, are and should be open to recording by whatever means are available. I would raise this issue with RPV. It appears to be one last outrage by the Jim Rich Cabal.

    And yes, “Loudoun Outsider,” that is an appropriate phrase, reflecting the truth of his behavior over many years.

  32. Loudoun Outsider said on 24 May 2010 at 7:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Young,

    Pardon my ignorance, but what has Jim Rich done to provoke such rath?
    The District Commitee exists under the party plan to elect or re-elect a Republican member of Congress. The District Chairman is not in a chain of command over the unit chairman. Howie Lind cannot give orders or dictate policy to any of the unit chairman. His power to influence the units collectively will stem from his leadership ability and ability to persuade–not the Party Plan.

    Frank Wolf was elected in 1980. He is outstanding member of Congress who has easily been re-elected. It would appear the District Chairman has served him well.

    I know there are folks with strong feelings about Jim Rich? Please tell me why?

    My final comment on the taping issue. This was an unfortunate incident and if Greg L. has the ability to professionally videotape our events, great. I hope the District Committee will revisit the issue. Everybody should know the rules in advance. Unless you are going to ban cellphones, lots of folks will be recording meetings and conventions ect. To avoid problems, it would be best to have an official videographer.

  33. The Griffin with Socks said on 24 May 2010 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Let’s make the issues very clear and factually correct. First, the Convention is not a public event (as stated open to the public) but is considered a private event in which the 10th District reserves the right to its own rules, beliefs and the right to refuse entry to anyone they choose along with the ability to maintain control and ownership of the event as a private organization. The Party rents the facility and dictates the rules of the event. If this was not as stated, then we would have to allow in people that we collective would not want nor would we be able to restrict the event to our party. Legally, this is a private event within our control. With that being said, the rules that govern the event are of our own making. There are no public laws or open laws to the event. We can require registration, we can admit or not admit anyone we choose, and we can control the actions within the event, including hiring of the police to support our convention. They were not there because this event was public; they were there because the Republican Party paid them to be there.
    The 10th District has never allowed videotaping in the 20 years under Chairman Rich. There have been many past incidents in which “videotapers” have been asked to stop or asked to leave. This was especially apparent after the 2006 convention, at the Plains office, during a Meeting immediately following the 2006 convention. This rule has never been hidden.
    Whether the rule is listed in the Call is beside the point. There are many rules that are not listed in the call. No alcohol, no guns, no inflammatory shirts or signs, proper dress, no signs on the wall, no cursing, no throwing things, no pushing, no heckling and no hidden democrats. The list can go on, but the excuse that a rule or all the rules are not listed in the Call is no any excuse at all. If the rule is considered an important one, then they can get it (yes/no to taping) added in the Call for next time. Creating a disturbance is neither the proper nor the Republican way. Asking for the vote was the right thing to do, however the protest actions before hand made Greg L. 100% culpable. It was actually embarrassing. It does not matter whether we agree with the rule, we must maintain a civilized method for following the rules and changing them. Because we don’t agree with all the laws of the land does not mean we have the right to ignore them or refuse to follow them.
    There are certain behavior rules that have to be left to be monitored and decided by the Chairman, we cannot review all and issue a list before hand, the convention would be longer then it was already. Mr. Greg should had at least checked if he was allowed to do something (in this case video tape and stand in an unauthorized area) outside the planned actions of the convention (sit in the county designated areas, listen and vote).
    Mr. Greg never talked to Tom Rust nor Anna, nor were they consulted on the situation. Lind or Schmidt had nothing to do with the incident or the other incidents that you probably did not notice, but some of us did. The statement that the candidates controlled or ordered is strictly false. When Greg L. refused to leave the unauthorized area and put away his camera, he was given an audience with Chairman Rich to discuss the issue. Greg L. stated he was with some organization “R?D NEW DEAL”, that Chairman Rich did not recognize. Chairman Rich listened to his argument and then explained to him that there was no videotaping for anyone. At this point, Mr. Greg should have exited the unauthorized area and returned to his designated seat (they were marked by Voting Areas/Counties). He then could have asked for a ruling in the proper and professional method instead of being a Maverick and throwing a tantrum, screaming and refusing the security and the Law enforcement, an action that reminds me of PETA.
    Only time will tell if Chairman Lind will be able to fix the internal cancer we have in the party, we can’t get along within, no wonder we can’t win on the outside. The incorrect statements and responses in this blog show that we have a long way to go before we stand together.

  34. Greg L said on 24 May 2010 at 10:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Hilarious. I complied with the direction of the Sheriff’s deputies and made a parlimentary motion to have the convention rescind the decision. Tom Rust then failed to follow Robert’s Rules when handling that motion (not allowing discussion on a motion to overrule the chair, and declaring himself the winner of a division vote he failed to tabluate). Shades of the abuses of 2006 all over again.

    The only reason there’s been any discussion at all about this is because Tom Rust failed in his responsibility to act as an impartial chair and properly apply the rules of the convention to the proceedings.

    I’ve been told by Jim Rich’s folks that there was an “official” video record of the convention that was filmed from the control booth in the back of the auditorium. How about you post video of what happened and let people decide for themselves whether my actions were appropriate or not? If I’m really as irresponsible a person as you claim me to be, how about you show people the evidence you folks supposedly have?

    I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya. Show people the truth. Let them decide.

  35. James Young said on 24 May 2010 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Fair question, “Loudoun Outsider.” Though it’s “wrath,” not “rath” (David Rath is a friend of mine from college, and he might take umbrage at the misspelling).

    1. Jim Rich lied about Pat McSweeney in an effort to oust him as State Party Chairman in early 1994. I was there, and witnessed it. I had also witnessed some of the incidents about which Rich was lying.

    2. Rich controlled the rules of prior 10th District Conventions in a way as to perpetuate his own power. My favorite example is his usual practice of setting a deadline for registering to run as a candidate for Chairman before the Call for the convention was even issued!

    3. Rich supported a cabal within the Young Republican Federation of Virginia which conducted a state convention with illegal delegates (underage high school students) to perpetuate its own power.

    And “Griffin with Socks,” you know not of what you speak or, to the extent that you do, you are simply reflecting the Rich view of “my way, and at all costs, nothing to demonstrate my imperious little machinations.” That having been said, Article VIII, Section M, of the State Party Plan specifically provides that “Every Mass Meeting, Party Canvass, or Convention shall be held in a building appropriate for public use and shall be open to the public.”

    Would have love to have seen his reaction if it had been Fox News, rather than Greg, who showed up to take the even.

    I wonder if they would have been thrown out?

  36. Loudoun Outsider said on 24 May 2010 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Young,

    Thanks for the spelling correction– wrath not rath. Shows I should never post before having my first cup of coffee.

  37. Cathymac said on 25 May 2010 at 4:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    If this was a closed event, why were guests allowed in?

Comments are closed.

Views: 2263