| Republicans Re-Elect Benkiser State Chair |
|
|
|
| by Will Lutz | Sat, Jun 14, 2008, 10:56 AM |
 Delegates to the Republican Party of Texas state convention re-elected Tina Benkiser as state party chairman. Benkiser's opponent Paul Perry received the endorsement of three senate districts, and as such, was allowed to stage a floor fight. Benkiser received 3,884.53 votes, compared with 1,783.1 votes for Perry. It is a two-year term. There are a lot of things that can be said about Tina Benkiser. Like every elected official, there are people who sing her praises and people who criticize her. That said, Benkiser is not a mouthpiece for leadership. Sure, she doesn't directly attack the party's elected officials (nor should anyone expect her to). But she has been a lot more independent of them than her predecessor, Susan Weddington.
On several occasions, Benkiser has taken the grassroots concerns to the leadership and spoken out on the behalf of the base of the party, which is more than I can say of her predecessor. Here are a few examples where Benkiser has taken a public stand on key conservative issues that differ from the stands taken from the party's leadership:
* Gambling -- when leadership was thinking of using expanding gambling to pay for school finance, Benkiser spoke out about the party's opposition to gambling. * HPV -- When Gov. Rick Perry tried to do an "opt out" mandate, requiring sixth-grade public school girls to get a vaccine from the sexually-transmitted Human Papiloma Virus (HPV), Benkiser expressed her opposition immediately (as did GOP legislators). * Eminent domain -- Benkiser did a statewide media tour highlighting the party's support for property rights and the need for more action on this issue. (Perry vetoed a bill in 2007 that would have given land owners more rights in the condemnation process.) I sympathize with some of the concerns raised by the people who are disagree with Benkiser. The party leadership since the late 1990s has been heavy-handed in some instances, and I can understand where they are coming from on some of their concerns. But I felt it needed to be said that -- despite criticism from some in the party accusing her of being a mouthpiece -- Benkiser has, in fact, stood up to the elected officials on at least three key issues.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (5)
...
written by Ken Dickson This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , June 15, 2008 as a delegate to the Repub convention, I can say that I have not always supported her on each issue, but we have grown during her administration & she has listened. Her opponant was a "Ron Paulite", not a grass-roots oriented guy...many of us would have considered opposition if it was a ligitimate opposition to what you consider to be "heavy-handiness" of the past! We in the Republican camp want to win in November & Tina has been fair in most cases, but supports the Republican agenda for the future & we don't need to follow a dead-end leadership that just will not help McCain in the fall. After all, Ron Paul has said he will not campaign nor support McCain, not exactly a group we can follow to victory!!
...
written by withheld , June 16, 2008 I disagree with Ken Dickson above. Here's why: You don't get more grass-roots than the Ron Paulers. Most of them have supported the Republican party for longer than many of the current Republicans we see that comprise the party today. I myself am a Ron Pauler. I grew up in a family that has consistently supported Republicans for over three generations. My family has lived in Texas for seven generations. Most of the current entrenched Republicans I met at the convention were brought into the party because of their positions of abortion. They make up the "Religious Right." They vote as a bloc, voting as their leadership directs them to vote, without actually considering the character of the individual candidates, what they stand for, etc. They moved from the Democratic Party when the party grew too socially liberal for them. Here's why I don't support Tina: You can sum it up in two words: Nueces County. Most don't really know what went down in Nueces County and really didn't care as they case their vote this weekend. Remember: they vote as a bloc, as directed by their leadership, who, in turn is directed by the state leadership, who, in turn is directed by Tina. Those voting only knew the issue involved Ron Paul supporters and were glad to hear they got suppressed. It's a shame they failed to make themselves aware of the details. Did you know that there were 35 delegates sitting on our convention floor who FAILED TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY? Yes, that's right. The records of who voted in the primary are public. It's easy to verify. Our credentials committee, chaired by Rene Diaz, allowed 35 delegates from Nueces County to be seated, even though they didn't vote in the primary. Not only that, 165 Nueces delegates to the county convention never attended their precinct convention. They never applied to be at large delegates, either. Their names were simply added to the role because of the influence and power they have in the county. When the county convention started, many of the delegates noticed the extra participants in their precincts who had not been at their precinct convention. They made motions for points of inquiry and points of order to find out why the extra delegates were seated. These motions went unaddressed. repeatedly. The convention chair deliberately ignored these motions. As the situation became clear to those concerned over what was happening, they chose to have a rump convention, which is an option available per Robert's Rules when the rules in the main convention are being subverted. Later, the Nueces chairman failed to provide the minutes of the main convention for review, which is against election code. The minutes are public record. The delegates requesting them had to sue the county GOP to get them to hand them over. The delegates won the suit but only after the deadline to file credentials appeals to the state convention credentials committee had passed. Tina Benkiser backed up the county GOP all along the way, knowing full well that they violated the law. This is an example of the corruption in our party, led by Benkiser. In this case we saw the poop rolling *uphill*, and as it did it got stinkier. If only our convention delegates had the whole story I believe they may have voted differently.
...
written by withheld , June 16, 2008 I disagree with Ken Dickson above. Here's why: You don't get more grass-roots than the Ron Paulers. Most of them have supported the Republican party for longer than many of the current Republicans we see that comprise the party today. I myself am a Ron Pauler. I grew up in a family that has consistently supported Republicans for over three generations. My family has lived in Texas for seven generations. Most of the current entrenched Republicans I met at the convention were brought into the party because of their positions of abortion. They make up the "Religious Right." They vote as a bloc, voting as their leadership directs them to vote, without actually considering the character of the individual candidates, what they stand for, etc. They moved from the Democratic Party when the party grew too socially liberal for them. Here's why I don't support Tina: You can sum it up in two words: Nueces County. Most don't really know what went down in Nueces County and really didn't care as they case their vote this weekend. Remember: they vote as a bloc, as directed by their leadership, who, in turn is directed by the state leadership, who, in turn is directed by Tina. Those voting only knew the issue involved Ron Paul supporters and were glad to hear they got suppressed. It's a shame they failed to make themselves aware of the details. Did you know that there were 35 delegates sitting on our convention floor who FAILED TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY? Yes, that's right. The records of who voted in the primary are public. It's easy to verify. Our credentials committee, chaired by Rene Diaz, allowed 35 delegates from Nueces County to be seated, even though they didn't vote in the primary. Not only that, 165 Nueces delegates to the county convention never attended their precinct convention. They never applied to be at large delegates, either. Their names were simply added to the role because of the influence and power they have in the county. When the county convention started, many of the delegates noticed the extra participants in their precincts who had not been at their precinct convention. They made motions for points of inquiry and points of order to find out why the extra delegates were seated. These motions went unaddressed. repeatedly. The convention chair deliberately ignored these motions. As the situation became clear to those concerned over what was happening, they chose to have a rump convention, which is an option available per Robert's Rules when the rules in the main convention are being subverted. Later, the Nueces chairman failed to provide the minutes of the main convention for review, which is against election code. The minutes are public record. The delegates requesting them had to sue the county GOP to get them to hand them over. The delegates won the suit but only after the deadline to file credentials appeals to the state convention credentials committee had passed. Tina Benkiser backed up the county GOP all along the way, knowing full well that they violated the law. This is an example of the corruption in our party, led by Benkiser. In this case we saw the poop rolling *uphill*, and as it did it got stinkier. If only our convention delegates had the whole story I believe they may have voted differently.
...
written by withheld , June 16, 2008 Back to Ken's post... He mentions that Ron Paul refuses to endorse McCain. This is true. However, the fact that Paul won't endorse McCain has no bearing on what his supporters will do. As I mentioned earlier, these are people who consistently support Republican candidates and, in most cases, have done so for decades. Do you really think they're going to stop supporting the Republican candidate now, just because their first choice was not nominated?? I met several conventiongoers who supported Huckabee and were not pleased with McCain as the presidential candidate. If fact, the number of delegates not happy with McCain as the candidate versus those who were enthusiastic McCain supporters was far greater. Most supported McCain reluctantly. Why single out the Paulers? I'm my precinct's chairperson, and I will have to deliver Republicans in my precinct to the polls. I will encourage them to vote McCain. I'll offer them McCain signs. But I expect to encounter many who simply won't hold their nose for him. That's their prerogative. I'll remind them that the state Republican candidates desperately still need their support this election and that they can leave the presidential slop empty if that's what their conscience dictates. But Republicans need every vote they can get, including those who won't support McCain -- and including the Ron Paulers. The GOP needs to stop looking a gifthorse in the mouth and welcome the new blood Paul has brought to the party with open arms. One of the best slogans that came out of the Paul campaign was "Dr Paul Cured My Apathy". The GOP seems to fail to recognize that Paul energized many disenchanted voters. Underhanded tactics and endorsing corrupt convention practices only drive this desperately needed energy back to apathy -- or worse, to the other parties. Go to http://fairconvention.org to read for yourself about the disenfranchisement of the Nueces County convention delegates, including disturbing audio from the convention.
...
written by Ian Perry , June 17, 2008 "Her opponant was a "Ron Paulite", not a grass-roots oriented guy.." This is simply untrue, and you might want to research your assertions more before you make them. My father has been a judge as a Republican, campaigned for Ronald Reagan when he first ran, and has been a delegate to many Republican conventions, and supported Tom Pauken in his bid for Chair of the State Republican party back in the 1990's. In this election, my dad was supported by grassroots Republican Tim Lambert, who voted for Huckabee, not Ron Paul. Besides this point, how is being a Paul supporter something other than grassroots? Ron Paul certainly has more claim to be a "grassroots Republican" than Newt Gingrich-- who delivered an amazing speech on the convention floor ....only a few weeks after having appeared in a global warming commerical with Nancy Pelosi. Ron Paul certainly has more claim to being a "grassroots Republican" than Rick Perry who wants to Bulldoze the houses of many Texans just like me (and possibly including me!) in order to make room for his superhighway. You talk about winning in November, but let's face the truth, it's not Ron Paul, but the clique of George Bush (a man my father voted for twice), that cost the GOP in 2006 and is costing the GOP in November (whether or not they get the famously grassroots conservative McCain in office or not). Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
