1000 x 90

LETTERS / Fallen from the Grace of ‘Gentle’ Lady from North Carolina

 Dear Editor,

As one of her chastised “dissenters”, I believe Congresswoman Foxx used her position to abuse parliamentary rules at the GOP Convention.   Unavoidably, this resulted in an atmosphere of intimidation.   Why did she do it? This is a question only she can answer.  If she didn’t support the Resolutions or Nomination for Officer to come from the floor, then she, like any other delegate, had the opportunity to speak from the floor for four minutes, according to the rules.  However, Congresswoman Foxx said she was at the precinct meetings, taking place on the floor of the Convention, to address “dissension in the ranks”.  Mrs. Foxx, Conventions are all about dissensions and the resolutions of dissensions, as anyone who has watched national-level party conventions on TV would readily understand.  She was of the opinion that “dissension” equates to dividing the Party.  If dissensions cannot be expressed at the Convention they cannot be expressed anywhere. 

Congresswoman Foxx started with the message found in Matthew 18.  [“If your

brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.  If he listens to you, you have gained a brother.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”]

I didn’t get the equation between offering Resolutions and a Nomination from the floor, as part of a sanctioned process, with “sinning against your brother”.  Victoria Smith had not sinned against Casey Miller nor had Casey Miller sinned against Victoria Smith. 

And, simultaneously, she added the message from Matthew 7, [“Why do

you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”].

Again, no connection.  Casey Miller didn’t say anything negative about Victoria Smith or any other individual.  (Likewise, the four Resolutions were not about individuals.)  Casey presented his biography and had a very short speech about why he was the better choice for vice chair.  The most charitable interpretation of what the Congresswoman did is that she rushed to judgment before Casey spoke, expecting the worst and without giving Casey the credit for being a responsible candidate.

Most are unaware that Chairwoman Anne Marie Yates had also been a “dissenter” before her election.  Anne Marie was one of a small group of “dissenters” who met to strategize a challenge to the expected Nominating Committee slate, and primarily a challenge to Victoria Smith for Chairwoman.  At this ‘strategic meeting’ Anne Marie said that the GOP Nominating Committee had contacted her to ask that she meet with them.  Furthermore, at the ‘strategic meeting’ Anne Marie stated that she would not serve with Victoria Smith either as chairwoman or as vice chairwoman. 

At her later meeting with the Nominating Committee Anne Marie struck a deal; to wit, Anne Marie would be Chairwoman and Victoria Smith would be Vice-Chairwoman.  Obviously, Anne Marie’s ethical system is consistent with the oft-quoted saying, “Promises and Pie-crust are made to be broken.” 

Why should Casey Miller not be afforded the opportunity to seek an officer position without being chastised, called a “dissenter” and called “divisive”?   Tommy Adams said, “any rural conservatives are more than welcome to join the party, to be candidates and offer constructive involvement”.   It appears that the division was already present.  The non-divisive statement would be, “anyone is more than welcome to join the party, to be candidates and become involved”.   Casey Miller was not given a chance from the git-go.

The mantra at the convention was, “We should not show our hand to the Democrats”; referring to the reason why the Resolutions should not be passed.  I don’t buy that reason.  Not one of the resolutions was so detailed as to give any secret plan to the Democrats.  The Resolutions were about local issues previously supported by local elected officials.  Tommy Adams, the outgoing Vice-Chairman asked, “Why do we need to pass the ETJ Resolution when we have something in the works already?”  Mr. Adams, the answer is because we want to stand with our elected officials. 

The GOP Executive Committee had been ready to cast Representative Jonathan Jordan out if he didn’t sign on to abolish the ETJ.  Then Jordan signs on days before the Convention and Congresswoman Foxx advocates: “Don’t do this.”

By the way, Jeff Templeton, Anne Marie Yates’ brother, took credit for a Resolution that Nate Di Cola had submitted, and without even acknowledging Nate, stated that–as the author–he now wanted it voted down.  He further said, “Virginia is right”.  (Congresswoman Foxx had claimed the Resolutions in question to be “divisive”.)

The other mantra at the so-called Convention was, “We need to work behind the scenes.”  I don’t advocate working behind the scenes at a Convention.  This is not what Conventions are all about.  I am a Republican who believes in taking open stands.  How are the rank-and-file to know that the GOP is working for them if the rank-and-file are not told even at the Convention what the Party stands for?  Precisely, when are the rank-and-file told anything?  No need to inform the rank-and-file about anything, ever? 

To Senator Dan Soucek and Representative Jonathan Jordan: how does it feel under the bus?  It’s OK for you to stick your necks out; but we the GOP in Convention can’t stick ours out. 

Aborting the resolution calling for voting rights in town elections or abolition of ETJs reminds me of the GOP Executive Committee’s lack of support for the Marriage Amendment.  Like the Marriage Amendment, it is now expected, that the abolition of ETJs will come to a vote of the people.  Now that the GOP has voted to not support the abolition of ETJs, who will fund the advertising campaign to get the vote out?  Will it be like the Marriage Amendment, funded by “dissenters”, those who thought the GOP should openly support the Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?

Senator  Soucek, remember your Marriage Amendment? Did you feel the same way back then?  Sort of flattened under the bus by the Watauga GOP?

The other mantra was, “these Resolutions are divisive”.  Are local issues Resolutions the only “divisive resolutions”?  Congresswoman Foxx said, in reference to the Resolutions from the floor, “Don’t do this, we need all the votes we can get.”  My word Mrs. Foxx, this comes from the gentle lady from North Carolina?  Don’t you see Mrs. Foxx how you are taking your rural base—the little sheep on the rural hillsides—for granted because you feel that they have nowhere to go?  Don’t you realize Ms. Foxx that “nowhere” is also “somewhere”?  Voting stats shows an under vote.  So there is an alternative.

Dear ladies and gentlemen of the GOP inner sanctum, I now close with this:  “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.”

This sums up what happened at that so-called Convention.

Deborah Greene

P.S. See these links: