GAGOP State Committee Takes Up Resolutions

The Georgia Republican Party’s State Committee takes up the Resolutions proposed at the May State Convention today. As you recall, these Resolutions could not be voted on because a quroum no longer existed.

Robert Lee is live blogging the event so you can follow the play by play here.

An alternative has been offered by the folks pushing to switch Georgia to a caucus State. Apparently they now wish to form a Study committee to look at the issue.

As I type, a few of the less controversial Resolutions have passed, one has failed:

1:42p: WHAT?!? The resolution honoring Sue Everhart passed without discussion? High drama… Joking aside, we should be saying thank you to our previous Chairman who did a significant part to build this party.

1:44p: We honor the military in the Republican Party, and we oppose using foreign law in the interpretation and application of American law in American courts. Who. Knew.

1:48p: Our first disagreement. Someone brought up LEED certification in discussion of the forestry resolution. Most of the room is looking around and wondering what LEED certification is and how it helps us cut down trees faster.

1:52p: Someone brings up a good point. Resolutions should be used to speak to major, pressing issues of the Republican Party and not engage ourselves in a legislative debate…and calling to question brings up a question about how the vote went. First standing vote of the Committee. DRINK!

1:55p: Initial look is the resolution discouraging the use of LEED certification will fail. As the final count comes in…

1:58p: 48 aye, 95 nay. Resolution fails. Trees rejoice all across Georgia, and the GOP strengthens its street cred with Granolas everywhere. Now onto civil forfeiture, which has been flooding my inbox the past couple of days with the floor speeches that are about to be given.

We’ll have more updates when warranted.


Via Robert Lee here are the outcomes:

3:41p: Just as a quick update, if I’m not mistaken, resolutions break down as thus:

Honoring Sue Everhart – PASS
LEED Opposition – FAIL
Civil Forfeiture – TABLED
Nominating Conventions/Study Committee – FAILED
Common Core Opposition – PASSED
State Party Platform – FAILED
Honoring Military – PASS
American Law for Georgia Courts – PASS


  1. JeffHaffley says:

    Thanks to all the members for attending and especially to the Reform Republicans who voted to study reforms in the primary process.

    • FreedomFighter1776 says:

      Thanks for all you did to promote the GA Caucus resolution, Jeff! I’m sure this is an idea that will resurface in the future. Hopefully, next time it comes up folks will have had more time to process it thoroughly so they don’t dismiss it out of hand. A representative system is the “republican” way — high-information voters scrutinizing over the candidates and vetting them first to ensure they will stand for the integrity and small-government values the party claims in believes in — and including all regular voters in that process.

  2. Doug Deal says:

    I wasn’t prepared to speak, but some of the comments of the supports convinced me to say something.

    The “grass roots” are more than the people who show up to conventions. The elitist attitudes of some of the supporters of this measure, who somehow tried to justify it by claiming it was to help the “grass roots” was a bit ironic.

    • FreedomFighter1776 says:

      I’m sorry I didn’t get to be at the state committee to hear the remarks you’re referring to, Doug, but I would encourage you to re-examine the issue a little. The real “elitists” Georgia Republicans need to be concerned about are the Big Corporations and Big Special Interest elitists who really couldn’t care less about the Republican Party or its ideals, and just like to use its voters to advance their agenda whenever it’s convenient. They are the current elitists who behind closed doors are deciding who are nominee is by selecting that person and drowning out all other possible candidates with a barrage of Big Money and Big Media that manipulates the minds of low-information voters to busy to be paying much attention to what’s going on in the political scene.

      A caucus system allow regular “grassroots” voters to attend mass precinct meetings for free and personally select the people that they know and have personal relationships with as delegates to the county and state conventions—to represent their interests while examining all the candidates at a deeper level that most people have time to do. Fundamentally, it’s no different than what we do when we elect our state legislators to the capitol. If the delegate does something they don’t like, they have to explain themselves to these regular grassroots voters when they go back to community (they can’t hide behind a TV screen), and folks will not elect them as delegate next time around.

      Furthermore, any regular voter can run and get elected as a delegate, not just an “activist.” However, a caucus system would definitely provide a stronger incentive for more Republicans to be more active in the party because they would have a stronger say!

  3. Joseph says:


    Your comment regarding the substitute resolution is incorrect.

    I drafted and proposed the Substitute Text. As I stated in front of the Committee, I am currently NOT in support of a Nominating Convention.

    The purpose of my substitute language was to strike a balance between those who drafted the original resolution and those who are absolutely opposed to it. I had hoped the Committee would at least be willing to gather the facts about any potential change. The Committee could have (and it’s my belief they more than likely would have) reported back that there be NO recommended change.

    In my opinion, we should not be scared of the facts – regardless of which way they go. We need to do what’s best for the Party and it’s attempt to reduce the size and scope of Government interference in our lives. And we need to make educated and informed decisions, not based on hyperbole, anecdotes, and bad data.

    That being said – I certainly respect the will of the Committee and look forward to growing the Party in Southwest Georgia and working the Chairman on exciting plans to come!

    • rwlee2 says:

      Yes, Joseph is absolutely correct. This substitute had nothing to do with the idea of adopting the nominating convention specifically, but I certainly think in the context of what was being initially considered, it still cannot be kept separate from the debate that was had.

      I personally had trouble empowering a “study committee” to evaluate the facts as they saw them (after all, this committee would have likely been 14 or some odd folks) in place of where the proper debate should take place – in the general public. I even went as far as to say the State Committee as a whole is not the proper venue to center that debate. Joseph is right – bad information, anecdotal evidence, and rhetorical flourish cannot dominate this debate. As I’ve said, though, I think reasonably this is where it would have happened.

      Gus Makris also brought up a very valid point as well. Civic minded citizens across our communities may not be “active Republicans” but are nonetheless active citizens who often include their personal political philosophies within their venue of civic involvement. That’s not always the party, but nonetheless provides a strong foundation to understand these issues. Republicans in those venues should not be kept out of this process, and this study committee would have been severely limited in scope simply because they wouldn’t have the needed involvement.

      This debate will not end — and it shouldn’t. However, it must be organic and real in order to come to a genuinely solid conclusion about what reforms can be made.

      • Joseph says:

        Rob, I’m down with that. But good grief – did you have to rip me a new one with your empassioned speech before the committee? Haha, just kidding. I appreciate what you said.

      • FreedomFighter1776 says:

        relee2: Having a study committee examine the issue in depth would not in any way have prevented a debate from taking place in the general public. To the contrary, it would like have fueled a discussion amongst the general public. And when study committee released its findings to the general public, that would have given the general public more information to evaluate on the issue.

        You say the “study committee would have been severely limited in scope simply because they wouldn’t have the needed involvement.” Why would we assume this? Why wouldn’t a study committee have listened to input from these civic minded citizens you’re talking about? Why wouldn’t the larger state committee have listened to them before simply approving whatever the study committee recommended?

        All that rejecting the resolution did was prevent ANY debate on the issue before making a decision. The opponents to the resolution effectively did exactly what they are accusing the proponents of wanting to do—y’all voted to close down the discussion without giving the people a chance to weigh in.

    • FreedomFighter1776 says:

      Thanks for trying to strike a balance and facilitate a strong discussion on the subject, Joseph! I believe that as folks learn more about the idea of a caucus system in the future, they will see how the facts prove it to be the most effective, and most republican approach our state party can take to advance our values.

  4. Jane says:

    Doug did a good job. The last three speakers said everything I wanted to say. So I called The question. I do not think the votes was even close.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Thank you. I forgot half my main points, like the fact that while we are selling our candidates to ourselves, we won’t be selling them to general election voters and our nominee would not be tested for viability.

      Also, county conventions would become proxy fights for the campaigns, which would be a disaster.

      • FreedomFighter1776 says:

        Doug, do you realize that this is what is already going on? As things work right now, a bunch of “elitists” who have a ton of money sell a candidate to themselves, and then they pump tons of money into them before they are “tested for viability.” These Big Money elitists, for example, give hundreds of millions to a candidate like Mitt Romney, who averages 30% of the vote at primaries across the country, can only get over 50% of the vote at two Red states (Idaho and Virginia, which he loses in Nov.) and yet loses in the general election at every single Blue State he took in the primaries—including his home state! He gets walloped by the worst, most despised President in the history of the U.S. by nearly 5 million popular votes and 126 electoral votes!

        These Big Money elitists who manipulate the low-information voters with million-dollar TV spots have to be checked, and they can be when all candidates—no matter how much money they have raised so far—are given an equal platform to speak to all Republicans, especially those who have been the most involved, sacrificed the most for the party’s ideals, have the most skin in the game, and are willing to devote the most scrutiny to each one.

  5. Doug Grammer says:

    I am pleased with the results of the votes on the resolutions in most cases. I would like to see a platform, but we can live without it. I didn’t hear the debate, so I’m not sure what was said. Thank God the caucus resolution failed. It’s over and I don’t feel like debating why it should have been defeated after it already has been defeated. Leed resolution failed for the reason I thought it would. I thought the forfeiture resolution would have passed. We will see. Thank you Sue.

Comments are closed.