Anyway, here’s to hoping that CCR quietly accepts our arguments and stops Megan from picking more self-destructive fights.

I agree with this. As long as we don’t see “Triton College Republicans” try more party-damaging stunts like tabling near us on Admit Day and driving away lots of conservatives who don’t want to get involved in infighting, you’re right about the lack of actionable relevance. (I am perfectly fine with them continuing to exist and competing with us. As Republicans, we should all know that many types of competition are very healthy. But their lack of a response to our constitutional arguments means that, in isolated cases like Admit Day where competition is not in the party’s interest, they yield to us. Period. If this arrangement is unacceptable to them, our arguments still have actionable relevance.)

I will grant that, as wronged as we feel, far, far worse things have happened in American politics. The 1876 presidential election comes to mind. Life went on then. Samuel Tilden remained loyal to the United States. Life will also go on now. And we will remain loyal to the Republican Party.

I don’t think it’s just an assumption that the delegates knew what they were voting on, anyone on the floor who was unsure could have asked for an explanation of the situation, and did not. From that, I’m inferring that they did not need the explanation, meaning that they were informed. As for your constitutional arguments, since the convention is already over, I don’t know how useful they are except for in their use in your continuing struggle to bring the CRs at UCSD to a satisfactory agreement on how you will continue, either together or appart.

It’s late to re-hash all of these arguments that no longer hold any actionable relevance, as far as I can see. It’s really time for everyone who still feels harmed, victimized or left out to find a way to work with the rest of CCR as we all move forward.

And I do challenge the assumption that people knew what they were voting on, because there hasn’t been a single counter to my constitutional arguments. There isn’t one that I can think of, but no one has even attempted to give me an argument to counter mine, and instead I wasn’t allowed to give mine to the delegates.

When you think an action is right, you are capable of explaining why. Especially when given three weeks to do so. “It is right because I say it is” is not an explanation, particularly when there’s a plausible conflict of interest. Something that actually countered UCSD Argument #4 would have been.

I was there, I don’t remember Inez asking to speak, only Marshall speaking on behalf of UCSD (since he was actually a delegate), and don’t know of any promise having been made to her.

What political risk are you talking about? It wouldn’t have been a risk for Revolutionize, and anyway, it wasn’t their call it was CCR’s. Every delegate was given a chance to vote on CCR’s decision and Inez’s club lost. What was uninformed about the vote? Don’t belittle CRs by saying they didn’t know what they were voting on.

It’s over.

An informed vote of the entire state organization?

As Inez points out, Revolutionize CCR’s dishonor (in refusing to even let her speak, after promising otherwise!) is inexcusable precisely because they had the election locked up. If they didn’t, it could at least be defended as politics as usual, even if it still, in isolation, would unambiguously have been wrong. (Don’t agree? Then present a counter to UCSD Argument #4 under the link Inez provided.) But since they would have won regardless, they’ve proven they’re currently incapable of taking even a trivial political risk to do the right thing.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about our criticisms being “serious, but… unjustified”, and as the proprietor of this blog you have every right to voice said opinion on your front page. As a Republican in 2009, however, I imagine you see yourself as someone who prefers to support the competent and right side over the wrong and currently more powerful side in a conflict. It may not be clear to you now (even privately) whether or not the UCSD situation fits this description. But I suspect it will become more clear in the future, and when it does, you may want to think about what you’re trying to do with your blogging and reevaluate your expressed opinion.

http://gop.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=18:constitutional-legitimacy-by-inez-feltscher&Itemid=20&layout=default