(Note: More detail added at
National Delegate Convention
The net result is that the Montana GOP may have won a battle and
lost a war. Please stick with me while I explain.
First, let me get some facts and conditions on the record.
1) The Delegate Convention was all about selecting
delegates to support presidential candidates at the National GOP
nomination convention in Tampa, Florida, this coming
August. There are only two candidates left in this race,
former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman
2) The credentialed delegates to the Montana Convention
were divided generally into two camps, those supporting Mitt
Romney (delegates spoken of here as the GOP "Old Guard"), and
those supporting Ron Paul.
3) The delegates supporting Ron Paul had about 47% of the
voting strength at the convention.
4) The important part of the process was the election of
20 "at-large" (not alternate) delegates to Tampa.
5) The state GOP Nomination Committee received 70
applications for nomination as Tampa delegates, and selected 20
of those. According to GOP rules, nominations were also
open from the floor of the convention.
6) The state Chairman of the GOP, Will Deschamps, had promised that the
Nominations Committee would make nominations at the Convention
of presidential candidate supporters in proportion to how the
two candidates fared in the Montana Primary Election.
this has become an unnecessary point of controversy, I wish to
modify the language I used here. I had a phone
conversation with Will Deschamps about this. I don't
remember phone conversations verbatim. I have far too
many of them for that. I did come away from that
conversation with the clear understanding that the GOP
Nominations Committee would include on its slate of nominees
supporters of Ron Paul in proportion to how he fared in votes
against Romney in the Primary Election. Also, note that
many other people came to the same understanding separate from
my reports of my conversations with Will, whatever their
sources. I will make an additional correction on this
subject below.) Ron Paul won 17% of the total of
Primary votes cast for Romney and Paul. As a result, those
of us supporting Paul were told that the Nominations Committee
would nominate five Paul supporters to go to Tampa.
7) The state GOP Chairman appointed ONLY Old Guard GOP
personnel (Romney supporters) to the Nominations Committee.
8) The Nominations Committee actually put the names of
ZERO Paul supporters into nomination to be Tampa delegates at
the Convention. All 20 Nomination Committee nominees were
Romney supporters, including many so disinterested that about
half of them didn't even bother to show up at the convention to
introduce themselves to delegates or speak for themselves.
9) At the convention, the Old Guard imposed a process to
use ballots that had the nominees of the Nomination Committee
that was clearly skewed to favor the nominees of the Committee
(* see below for a description of the ballots and ballot rules
10) From the floor of the convention, 23 persons were
nominated, mostly Paul supporters.
11) The GOP Bylaws would have allowed the names of all
nominees to be printed alphabetically on the ballot, and such a
motion was offered, but the Old Guard prevailed in maintaining
the separation and enhanced status of the nominees nominated by
the Nomination Committee.
12) ZERO supporters of Congressman Paul were elected
through this unbalanced process to be delegates to Tampa.
So, what actually happened and what does it mean?
Political gurus explain that while the number of people
supporting a candidate is important, the energy of a candidate's
supporters is even more important. The Paul supporters
were highly energized, exactly the type of people the GOP
desperately needs to carry GOP candidates in important upcoming
GOP races. There was Zero organized effort in support of
Romney at the Convention. No Romney booth. No Romney
signs. No Romney stickers. However, there were two
Paul booths, and scores of Paul signs. The energy and
effort of the Paul supporters was high. The energy of the
Romney supporters was absent.
Had the Nominations Committee done what Chairman Deschamps
promised and put five Paul supporters on the Nomination
Committee slate, the Paul supporters would not have been
excited, but would have been satisfied. Had the Old
Guard-controlled GOP insiders printed the ballots in the fair
way that all other ballots are printed, in some randomized
order, the Paul supporters would have been satisfied, even if
However, the Old Guard leaned heavily on the scales in two
critical ways to force an outcome that deliberately and
completely shut out Paul supporters. Was this done
"legally"? Yes. What was done was within the GOP
Was the conduct by the Old Guard smart. Decidedly
not. In fact, it was stunningly shortsighted. Why?
In its greed and lust for power and control, the Old Guard was dishonest (NOTE: I retract any
reference to dishonesty, but continue to assert that Deschamps
failed to achieve what I believe he told me he would cause to
be done.) (Deschamps' failed promise that the
Nominations Committee would include Paul supporters on its
slate). This said to the most highly energized faction of
the Republican Party, "We don't want you. We have the
power to shut you out, and we do." Whether or not this was
intended is immaterial. In politics, perception is
reality. This is how the Paul supporters invariably
perceived the heavy-handed Old Guard sweep of all delegates.
Why is this important? The GOP has candidates running for
the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Governor, Attorney General,
Secretary of State, and other important races. Most of
these races will be won or lost by narrow margins. By
treating its most energized faction in such a disrespectful and
dismissive way, the Old Guard has certainly cost every one of
these candidates some percent of the pro-GOP election effort
available, and thereby some percent, even if small, of the
Most of these candidates simply cannot afford for the Old Guard
to thoughtlessly squander 1%, 3% or 5% of the candidates'
November vote. Any of these candidates who lose their
races in November by 1% or 3% have the GOP Old Guard to thank
for having been so shortsighted as to run off critical
Republican support in the Old Guard's lust for power and
The Montana Republican Old Guard had the opportunity to be
inclusive and to live their unity rhetoric within the
Party. Instead, it chose to play poorly-considered power
games. The real losers (more so than those energized,
Paul-supporting Republicans who sought inclusiveness and
fairness, but who were rebuffed) will be Montana Republican
candidates, especially those for major office. And, the
people of Montana may lose. This is why the overall
conduct of the Montana GOP Old Guard was stunningly shortsighted
and far worse than simply inept.
One may hope that the major Montana Republican candidates will
be successful in November. But, if they are to win their
elections, they must now do so without the active involvement of
a whole lot of Paul-supporting of Republicans who have been most
highly energized among the GOP, until they were so summarily
excluded by the entrenched Montana Republican Old Guard.
To win, these major candidates will need rely solely on the
active support of those whose nominees at the convention
demonstrated their level of commitment when roughly half of them
couldn't even be bothered to show up to introduce themselves.
Let me be clear about one point. Although a few of the
rejected, Paul-supporting people will now vote for third party
candidates or stay home on election day, the majority will go to
the polls and probably cast votes for Republican candidates in
November. However, they will almost certainly not work
with candidates putting up signs, stuffing mailers, making phone
calls and all the other myriad of volunteer things essential to
a winning campaign. It is the loss of these highly
energized Republicans, people who could have been kept at the
oars of the Republican ship, that will make winning the November
election incrementally more difficult for many Montana
This is why the Montana GOP Old Guard may have commanded a petty
win of a single battle, but may well have lost a war. Best
of luck to the affected candidates.
Note to candidates (Rehberg, Daines, Hill, Fox, Johnson, Welch,
Skees and others): If five (or even all 20) of the Montana
delegates to Tampa had been Paul supporters, it would have made
no difference in the outcome of the national GOP convention in
Tampa. None. So, the divisive, destructive and
expensive (to you) antics of the Montana Republican Old Guard
was done for no valid strategic reason. The MT GOP
Nominations Committee was comprised of Will Deschamps, Debby
Barrett, Jean Johnson, Jon Bennion, and Cory Swanson (according
Reported and submitted by:
Montana House of Representatives District 99
* The ballots. Printed on what was designated as the
"front side" of a standard sheet of paper was a large black
border box that took up much of the front page. Printed
center-justified inside this box was the list of 20
Romney-supporting nominees recommended by the Nominating
Committee. In the upper left corner of this large box was
a small check box a state convention delegate could check in
order to vote for the entire slate of Romney-supporting,
would-be Tampa delegates offered by the Nominating
Committee. One check mark would cause a vote for 20
In a similar 2008 contest a similar ballot was used where those
nominees nominated from the floor of the convention were printed
on the designated "back side" of the ballot. There were
complaints about that unfairness then.
Ostensibly to correct complaints of unfairness in 2008, the 2012
ballot had the 20 names of the Nominating Committee nominations
printed AGAIN on the back side of the ballot, on the top half of
the paper. On this designated back side, the nominees'
names were left-justified, with a short underscore to the left
of each name that could be checked to vote for the Nominating
Committee nominees individually.
On the bottom of the back side, the last space on the ballot,
were printed the names of the 23 nominees nominated from the
floor of the convention (mostly Paul-supporting nominees).
These were also left-justified, with a short underscore to the
left of each name so the nominees could be voted individually.
There was no way offered on the ballot for state convention
delegates to vote for a full slate of Paul nominees with one
check mark, as was done with the Nominations Committee's
Romney-exclusive slate on the front of the ballot.
Then there were the instructions. The instructions from
the conference chairman AND printed on the ballot declared that
if a person checked the full slate box on the front and ANY
candidate or candidates on the back, the ballot would not be
considered a spoiled and invalid ballot because of more than 20
votes, BUT it would construed simply as a vote for the entire
Nominating Committee's slate on the front. Conversely, it
was declared, that if a person mistakenly voted for more then 20
nominees on the back of the ballot (without a slate-check on the
front), the ballot would be considered spoiled and
invalid. There was a bitterly-fought but successful motion
(opposed mostly by Romney supporters) to make the back side of
the ballot the default side, rather than the front, if there
were marks on both front and back.
A motion to print all nominees (both Nominating Committee and
floor) in one alphabetized list, a motion made and supported by
Paul supporters, was defeated by Romney supporters.
Because of the way it was printed, and the instructions
for voting, the ballot was clearly rigged to favor the nominees
(all Romney supporters) of the Nominations Committee.
On 6/17/12, Montana Republican Chairman Will Deschamps responded
to my After-action Report (above) by saying:
"Please remove me
from your e mail list. You have blatantly lied and you and I
will never speak again."
I think Will means he thinks I lied about his
promise to me that a number of Ron Paul supporters would
be included on the slate proposed by the Nominations
Committee proportional to how Paul and Romney fared in
the Primary Election. But I'm not sure. Will's
email is unclear on that point.
So, on 6/17/12 I responded to Will with this email, the
subject of which was"
SUBJECT: "Just suppose I lied ....."
It's easy to dismiss my report because of a challenge to your
honor, but that still leaves in question the competence of those
who conceived and drove the shutout of Ron Paul delegates.
Just suppose I lied, that I'm a trouble-causing (pejorative
deleted) for doing that (although we both know that's not
so). Let's get that off the table so more relevant
discussion may occur. (BTW, I hear that you actually asked
the Nominations Committee to put five Paul supporters on its
slate [thank you], but that the Committee rejected your
suggestion.) So, just suppose I lied.
That still leaves the elephant in the room that needs
recognition and discussion. That still leaves the question
of the political competence of the GOP insiders who so
deliberately set out to shun a Republican constituency
sufficiently energized to account for 47% of the voting strength
at the convention, in a year when the GOP desperately needs
every soldier it can get (especially the energized ones) to get
its major (and minor) candidates elected in what are quite
likely be very narrow races.
How is it that those who engineered this deliberate shut-out
should not be sent packing by the rest of the GOP for so
frivolously squandering Republican resources that could well
make the difference between winning and losing in
November? How does it aid the "unity" that party leaders
so desperately seek (or so they say anyway) to so deliberately
manage this shut-out and spurn this significant group?
These are questions the GOP establishment will have to answer,
if not from me then from others such as Denny, Steve, Rick and
more. You can't duck and dismiss these questions by just
saying that I lied. The carefully-engineered shut-out is
now a matter of a video record that will soon be on YouTube for
everyone to view. Whether it was deliberate or accidental,
it was avoidable for anyone with a modicum of political sense.
Try this. Romney got 83% of the Primary vote between
Romney and Paul, yet Paul supporters delivered 47% of the voting
strength to the convention. How can anyone with political
savvy not see that these numbers tell something very important,
especially to Republican candidates in Montana who actually hope
to get elected? To so deliberately spurn the Paul
supporters with such an obviously engineered shut-out must meet
anyone's definition of a very bad call (to use the mildest of
My frustration is this: That those who will pay the price
for this terrible judgement will be the major GOP candidates in
Montana, and the citizens of Montana who may be saddled with the
likes of Tester and Bullock only because of the arrogance of a
few GOP insiders who insisted on taking all the marbles for
Finally, it may be attractive to try to dodge these questions
and issues with a "shoot the messenger" approach. Sorry,
that won't work. The genie is out of the bottle. I
didn't create this controversy - the GOP insiders did with their
poorly-conceived rejection of the 47% Paul contingent. I
only report what happened and point out the likely fallout.
Whether or not you respond to this, these are things you really
should be thinking about.
I have had NO response from Will to this email. I suspect
he may be part of the head-in-the-sand, circle-the-wagons crowd.
After thinking about this, I have the following additional to
Imagine that Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch (a
lifetime Democrat) prepares an odd ballot for the November
First, imagine that
Linda puts a check box at the top of the front page of the
ballot that, if checked, would be deemed to cause the voter to
commit his or her votes to every Democrat on the ballot, without
any further checks.
Second. As a part
of this imagination, also imagine that there is no similar check
box to allow the voter to vote for all Republican candidates
with one simple check, but that to vote for Republican
candidates the voter must search them out and vote for them
Third, imagine that for
every occurrence of a Republican on the ballot, McCulloch put
the competing Democrat on the ballot five times.
Fourth, imagine that the
name of every Republican on this ballot is printed in a smaller
type size than the Democrat candidate.
Fifth, imagine Linda
arguing that she and her staff had put a LOT of hard work into
formatting the ballot, so it should be accepted just because of
the expended effort.
Now that this situation is fully imagined, here is a
question. Would Republicans accept this arrangement?
Suppose further that the Republicans made a complaint about the
inequity of the ballot. In response, McCulloch agrees to
compromise by listing Democrat candidates only twice on the
ballot for each Republican. Having made that generous
concession, she asks Republicans to accept the revised ballot
(still including front page top check box to vote for all
Democrats with one check, and a smaller type size for Republican
Will Republicans accept this ballot now?
Republican leaders expected supporters of presidential candidate
Congressman Ron Paul to swallow exactly that arrangement at the
recent Republican Delegate Convention. That is, Republican
leaders expected Paul supporters to accept a skewed system that
they would (and should) never tolerate if it were applied to
them. In support of their scheme, establishment
Republicans argued that they'd put a lot of work into coming up
with the preferred list, so the unequal scheme ought to be
accepted (and considered "fair") just because of the time they'd
invested in coming up with the list of preferred candidates
(right - makes no sense).
Is it time to suggest to the Secretary of State that she adopt
for the General Election exactly the same system that the
establishment Republicans deemed "fair" for their own Delegate
Convention? Wouldn't that be interesting?
One might hope that this thought experiment will open the eyes
of some people about how very improper the balloting process was
at the recent Montana Republican Delegate Convention.
However, it is presumed that the ringleaders and supporters of
this scheme will simply circle their wagons, make excuses, and
hope the story of their shenanigans will fade away.
Those with a sense of fair play that outweighs misplaced loyalty
to the perpetrators will admit that the process was improper,
designed to obtain a predetermined outcome, and will ask what
might possibly be done at this point to right this considerable
wrong (waiting for contact from Will, but not holding my
One more short thought experiment may be illustrative.
Suppose in the scenario imagined above, McCulloch were to
identify a theoretical neutral party from out-of-state to assure
all that fairness would be observed throughout the
process. To aid in administering this neutrality, suppose
McCulloch provided the theoretically neutral observer with
office space in her suite of offices. Finally, imagine
that leading Democrat strategists were seen going repeatedly
into the observers office for conversation with the observer.
Would Republicans perceive from those visitations that the
theoretically neutral observer was not actually neutral, and
that he was actually collaborating with Democrats to obtain the
outcome desired by Democrats? Remember that in politics
perception IS reality.
During the Republican Delegate Convention, Mitt Romney Montana
leaders Mark Baker and Scott Reichner were seen to repeatedly go
to the Parliamentarian imported from Texas and engage him in
head-to-head collaboration. It is entirely unknown what
they discussed, but the appearance to the audience was that they
were collaborating to achieve the outcome desired by Baker and
Reichner, or at least that Baker and Reichner were lobbying the
Parliamentarian aggressively for something. It is NOT
alleged that anything improper was actually done, but this
repeated collaboration clearly created the perception of
collusion in the minds of many members of the audience.
Republicans will understand that not only is it necessary to
avoid actual impropriety, but also to avoid the appearance of
impropriety. In their zeal to obtain election of a
complete slate of Romney supporters, Baker and Reichner forgot
to avoid the appearance of improper conduct inherent in their
several visits with the Parliamentarian imported from Texas.
End of thought experiment.
For anyone really interested in a fairness standard, there is
one that, although it may not apply directly, may be used as a
gauge to measure the propriety of the way the ballots were
prepared for the recent Republican Delegate Convention. It
is in Montana law (bold added):
13-12-202. Ballot form and uniformity.
(1) The secretary of state shall adopt statewide uniform rules
that prescribe the ballot form for each type of ballot used in
this state. The rules must conform to the provisions of this
title unless the voting system used clearly requires otherwise.
At a minimum, the rules must address:
(a) the manner in which each type of
ballot may be corrected under 13-12-204;
(b) what provisions must be made on the
ballot for write-in candidates;
(c) the size and content of stubs on
paper ballots, except as provided in 13-19-106(1);
(d) how unvoted ballots must be
(e) how the number of individuals
voting and the number of ballots cast must be recorded; and
(f) the order and arrangement of voting
names of all candidates to appear on the ballots must be in
the same font size and style.
(3) Notwithstanding 13-19-106(1), when
the stubs are detached, it must be impossible to distinguish any
one of the ballots from another ballot for the same office or
ballots must contain the name of each candidate whose
nomination is certified under law for an office and no other
names, except that the names of candidates for
president and vice president of the United States must appear on
the ballot as provided in 13-25-101(2).
Also, transcribed from video of the convention floor, in an
interchange between David Hart and Chairman Will Deschamps:
HART: David Hart from Flathead County. Just a quick
question for clarification for my own sake. I seem to
recall that in 2008 when this process was taking place that the
nominees were nominated from the floor. When the final
ballot was presented to the body the nominees from the floor
were on the back side of the ballot. I'm just inquiring
what your plans are for this convention.
DESCHAMPS: You will see the ballot when you see the
ballot, but we're going to try to be as fair as we can. We
don't want those sorts of concerns people had four years ago,
and I'm … I'm acutely aware of those concerns.
Recent posts on the Internet about this:
David Johnson of Manhattan Montana
Jeff Whiteside of Missoula, Montana
From a Forbes commentary piece:
"Booting the Paul people from
the GOP might gratify
it’s not possible to expel them without performing a full
libertarianectomy — and any Republican who’s willing even to
risk that outcome just isn’t serious about winning elections (to
say nothing of any fealty to Reagan Republicanism)."
Just the beginning. There will be more.
Posted July 5th, 2012
Another attempt to clarify the outcome
of the Montana GOP Nomination Convention
Probably for reasons of pride and control, the
establishment Republicans, without thinking through the
consequences, may have thrown the major Montana GOP candidates
under the political bus.
I have encountered a number of friends and acquaintances who just
don't grasp the reasons for and consequences of the 2012 Montana
Republican National Delegate Nominating Convention in Missoula.
This is another attempt to explain the convention and its
consequences. As I explain below, my intent is to promote
the very best election chances for Denny Rehberg, Steve Daines,
Rick Hill, Tim Fox, Brad Johnson, Sandy Welch and Derek
Skees. So they will understand this too, I encourage you
to forward this to those candidates.
First, it is essential to understand the psychology and
attitude of the Ron Paul supporters attending the
convention. These people, who comprised about 47% of the
voting strength of the convention have been, up until the
convention, the most energized Republicans in Montana. They
have been energized by Congressman Ron Paul's message.
THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. These people known by the
label of "Ron Paul supporters" are less energized by the man than
they are by his message of individual liberty and constitutional
government. Most of these delegates to the convention had
pretty much given up hope that Ron Paul could or would become the
Republican nominee for President. Yet they continued to
pursue the dream and ideals of individual liberty and
constitutional (limited) government.
So, to focus this explanation, let's re-name these delegates from
"Ron Paul delegates" to "liberty-minded delegates (or "liberty
delegates" for short)." This will help the reader to
understand the outcome of the convention. The liberty
delegates had a common dream of taking their message of liberty to
the national level, including to the Platform Convention in Tampa.
No honest person will deny that the process and ballot of the
Montana GOP convention was engineered to elect ALL Romney
delegates to Tampa, to entirely shut out the liberty
delegates. The process was not fair or inclusive (see
For want of a better term to identify those who engineered,
allowed or supported this unfair process, I will refer to them as
Some will argue that everything done at the convention was done by
the rules, and that the liberty delegates had the democratic (bad
word) opportunity to make and support motions to correct the
process, and simply failed. That argument is both correct
and wrong. It is wrong because it is an attempt to divert
the discussion from an important point that must be recognized to
actually understand the impact of the convention outcome.
In politics it is admitted that "perception is reality."
Anyone who truly wishes to understand the convention impact must
be open to hear how the power play by the Republican establishment
struck the liberty delegates. What the liberty delegates
PERCEIVED from the engineered shutout was that the Montana
Republican establishment opposes the liberty delegates' ideals
individual liberty and constitutional government.
This is important, so please tolerate my reiteration of this
point. What the liberty delegates PERCEIVED from the
engineered shutout was that the Montana Republican establishment
opposes the liberty delegates' ideals individual liberty and
Whether this was intended or unintended, correct or incorrect,
right or wrong, it is a crystal clear summary of how the liberty
delegates PERCEIVED the engineered shutout of themselves and their
ideals. It is the reality.
Some say, hey, "They should just get over it." Saying that
simply won't make it so. They won't.
Others say, "We don't need them anyway. Good riddance."
This gets me to an explanation of why the engineered shutout was
such a colossal tactical blunder.
First, understand that if five, ten, or all twenty elected Montana
delegates had been liberty delegates, it would make ZERO
difference in the outcome in Tampa. That is, the engineered
shutout was done for no tactical benefit.
Second, it is helpful for the reader to understand the perception
by the liberty delegates of the difference between "At-large"
delegate slots and "Alternate" delegate slots. Almost
universally, the liberty delegates are not wealthy. Faced
with the $3,500 cost of attending the Tampa convention, they would
have begged, borrowed and broken open every piggy bank to afford
the trip as an at-large delegate. They would NOT have made
that sacrifice to be an alternate - to just go to Tampa to party,
watch, and sit powerless on the sidelines. Whether the
reader agrees or not, and whether the reader likes it or not, the
liberty delegates had no desire to be elected as Alternates.
Third, don't forget that the liberty delegates were so energized
that they worked hard enough, and long enough, to deliver 47% of
the voting strength of the convention. That is, they are (or
were) clearly the most energized subset of Montana's GOP.
Having been back-handed in the face (how they perceived it) by the
Republican establishment in rejection of their ideals of
individual liberty and constitutional government (how they
perceived it), these people are now VERY demoralized. Their
enthusiasm for the GOP is gone.
That is the important point, NOT whether they will show up at the
polls this November. They will go to the polls, although
about 1/4 of them I believe will vote for third-party
candidates. Hey, don't blame me. These people were
rejected by the Republican establishment, not me. The
remaining 3/4 of them will cast ballots, and for Republican
candidates, although many will hold their noses when they do.
Whether or not or how they vote is not important. They are
numerically a small group.
The elephant in the room is this. Having been so
thoroughly demoralized and rejected by the establishment
Republicans, they will fail to volunteer their unique and
considerable energies to aiding the seven major Montana GOP
candidates, Denny Rehberg, Steve Daines, Rick Hill, Tim Fox, Brad
Johnson, Sandy Welch, and Derek Skees. And, their many
circles of influence will encompass a LOT of Montana voters.
The absence of the enthusiastic support of the energized liberty
delegates and the ripple effect through all of their friends and
associates will cost these major candidates some percentage of the
General Election vote. Given the likely close races all of
these major candidates face, they simply cannot afford to have had
the thoughtless establishment Republicans flush percentages of
vote down the drain, especially for no tactical benefit.
So, the liberty delegates and their ideals were rejected by
establishment Republicans, for no benefit, and at considerable
downstream expense to Montana's major GOP candidates.
Probably for reasons of pride and control, the establishment
Republicans, without thinking through the consequences, may have
thrown the major GOP candidates under the political bus.
THAT, is the final result of the Montana Republican Nomination
A mistake was made, a serious tactical mistake.
Is there any possibility of recovering from this mistake?
Yes, but the practical doability of a recovery recedes each day
that the establishment Republicans continue to circle their wagons
in response to this fiasco.
In historic classical terms, when one person injures another,
there are three steps to fixing that mistake. Those injured
are primarily the liberty delegates to the convention, and their
friends and associates, and secondarily the seven major Montana
GOP candidates. These recovery steps are much the same in
all major religions, and other moral structures. A person or
persons injuring another must:
1) Admit clearly that the person made a mistake;
2) Apologize for the injury delivered (a serious apology,
not some whiney 10% apology, delivered to the injured party or
3) Make an absolute best effort at restitution.
To do this will require the Montana Republican establishment to
swallow some pride. It remains to be seen whether pride is
more important to the establishment Republicans than the success
of the seven major candidates this November.
I predict that the establishment Republicans will choose to
tighten the circle of their wagons, make excuses, or at very best,
attempt some half-hearted atonement for their poor and
However, and for the record, I would dearly love to be proven
wrong. I would FAR prefer those who made the mistake
to fix their mistake. I would FAR prefer to see the
establishment genuinely reach out to the liberty-minded
Republicans of Montana - to actually BE inclusive and walk the
walk of the "Big Tent." I would FAR prefer to see the seven
major candidates sail to victory this November with the energized
and enthusiastic help of the liberty-minded Republicans of
I dread the alternative, but I'm not holding my breath expecting
any serious effort of establishment Republicans to correct the
huge error made at the convention.
I hope this helps clarify this picture for some who have not
Republican Convention Delegate
Republican Candidate, House District 99
P.S., If I were any of the seven major candidates, I'd rally the
others to take the establishment Republicans to the woodshed over
correcting this dreadful mistake.
Also see the Massachusetts GOP experience:
More coming soon - check back.