The following video might push your blood pressure up a few points.
Curly Haugland is member of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and was recently interviewed by CNBC. According to Mr. Haugland, the “Republican Party”—not the voters in the Republican primaries—will choose who will be the Republican nominee for President. If Trump wins 90% of the delegates in the primaries, he can still be denied the Republican nomination for President by the “Republican Party”.
When asked, “Then, why have the primaries?” The Mr. Haugland grinned and answered, “That’s a good question.”
The implication of Mr. Haugland’s interview is that the primary elections are nothing but a dog-and-pony show and have no real authority or power to determine who’ll be nominated for President. More, what’s the purpose and legality of all the financial contributions given to candidates during the primary elections, if the primaries are, themselves, meaningless? Are the primaries less about votes than about advertising?
Finally, if the “Republican Party” will select the “Republican” nominee for President, but voters in the Republican primaries have no real say in selecting that nominee, then it’s apparent that the “Republican Party” is something other than the voters in the Republican primaries. Thus, the “Republican Party” does not appear to include 99% of those who vote in the Republican primaries and mistakenly think of themselves as “Republicans”.
If the votes in the primaries don’t really count, the voters who think of themselves as members of the “Republican Party” are deluded. They are nothing but “house niggers” in the Republican “mansion”. They may live in the same mansion as the “Republican Party,” but they’re not really part of that “family”.
All of which leads me to wonder, who, pray tell, are the real members of the real “Republican Party”?
I can’t answer that question for sure, but I recall someone telling me about 20 years ago that the real “Republican Party” includes only those people who’ve been elected under the Republican Party banner and who are still serving in office. I don’t know that that description is accurate. But, if (as Mr. Haugland has implied) the voters in the Republican primaries are not really members of the “Republican Party,” that description sounds plausible.
If the real “Republican Party” consists only of those “Republicans” who are currently in office, there aren’t more than five or ten thousand “real” Republican Party members (from city dogcatcher on up to President) in the entire country.
If those “real Republican Party” incumbents are up for reelection this year, and if they disenfranchise the Republican primary voters’ choice for presidential nominee, I’d advise those Republican incumbents to start updating their resumes, because they won’t be reelected this November and will be looking for a new job.
I’d recommend to everyone who voted in the Republican primary that if your vote is ignored and you’re disenfranchised by the “real Republicans” in the “Republican Party,” then you shouldn’t vote for any “Republican” in the A.D. 2016 election or in the balance of your life. I don’t care if the “Republican” running for office is your parent, spouse, or child, don’t vote for ’em if the real “Republican Party” disenfranchises those who voted in this year’s “Republican” primaries.
Here’s the explosive CNBC video (a little over 4 minutes long) of the interview of Curly Haugland: