The Big Lie about the RNC

Thanks to recording options I have been able to follow the Republican National Convention on many different networks and all of them are perpetuating a big lie about Cleveland.

The report is that this convention is unprecedented for not including two past presidents from their own party, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. The implication is that the division at this convention is unprecedented and will lead to a loss in November.

Donald Trump may, indeed, not win in November. But if so, it will be more likely because of slanted, false, and sometimes incompetent, media coverage than a divided party.  Here are the facts.

The absence of the two Bush presidents is not new. Neither George W. Bush, nor George H.W. Bush were present at the last Republican National Convention in Tampa in 2012 when Mitt Romney was nominated.

Nor was either one present at the RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2008 when John McCain was nominated.

In some cases this false narrative is the result of sloppy homework. Maybe it is the result of faulty memories, they did show a movie about George W. Bush and dad at the 2012 Convention, and they allowed a satellite connected speech by George W. Bush in 2008 but the reality is this has less to do with Trump, Romney and McCain than it does about George W. Bush and his unpopular war in Iraq and the economic collapse during the last year of his presidency.

Such moments are not limited to Republicans. Former President Harry Truman was so upset over the likely nomination of John F. Kennedy that he resigned as a delegate to the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. And in 1972, former President Lyndon Johnson was nowhere to be seen at his own Party’s Convention in Miami Beach. Former President, Jimmy Carter, has been sometimes honored, sometimes marginalized at his Party’s Convention, depending on the polls.

In some cases this false Trump-Bush narrative is pure, deliberate, misinformation.

One network host was careful to select his words, saying, “For the first time in forty years there has not been a Bush at a Republican National Convention.”

He obviously knew full well that the story being repeated by pundits and fellow hosts, that the Bush presidents were absent for the first time, was false. Thus, he helped keep alive the idea of unprecedented exclusion and division without repeating the bogus facts. And the host could technically claim he had spoken the truth, without taking the time to correct his colleagues.

Americans have pretty much accepted the end of journalism in this country. We are now in an era that is not entirely unlike the Soviet Union during communism. Facts are open to change. Some thoughts or ideas are forbidden and never spoken aloud. Parents must have private conversations with their children about issues and must be careful even then. Media targets can be blindsided, without an opportunity to respond. And if all of this is happening to domestic events that are in full view, just imagine the misinformation about issues worldwide?

So, here you go, a gift of love to my tiny, well informed, WordPress audience. At least you shall know. George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush are not in Cleveland. But they were not in Tampa or St. Paul, Minnesota either. And that big voice vote brouhaha on the first day of the Convention? It has happened exactly the same for most of my lifetime.

Published by Doug Wead

Doug Wead is a New York Times bestselling author whose latest book, Game of Thorns, is about the Trump-Clinton 2016 election. He served as an adviser to two American presidents and was a special assistant to the president in the George H.W. Bush White House.

2 thoughts on “The Big Lie about the RNC

  1. Doug, the key difference with the 2016 voice-vote, with a scripted outcome that the-ayes-have-it and the rules are thus adopted…

    and the 2012 voice-vote, which ALSO had the scripted outcome that the-ayes-have-it and the rules are thus adopted…

    was that this year, there were actually enough states to force a roll-call-vote under rule#39, no question about it.

    Counts differ, but Mike Lee was saying a strict majority in eleven delegations, and that seems correct enough by my evidence. Back in 2012, thanks to credentials-challenges by the Mitt-backed Ginsberg-led estab types, the Ron Paul dels could only muster a plurality of six states to put his name into nomination, missing perhaps three additional pluralities. By contrast, the Manafor-led estab types in 2016 made almost no credentials-challenges whatsoever, and left the platform-committee mostly alone, concentrating on crushing the rules-committee and then railroading through the rules vote. Another big contrast: I’m not sure who was at the microphones in 2012 besides activists like Jeremy Blosser (remember Joan The Silencer from California putting the papers in his face?), but in 2016 the people at the microphones were a sitting federal senator and a former attorney general and a sitting state rep, just that I’m aware of.

    So although the outcome was the same, as in 2012, and indeed ended up putting the 2012 ayes-have-it outcome into concrete which will become steel-clad by the time the 2017 and 2018 ‘tweaks’ are pushed through the RNC via fraudulent newRuleTwelve… there were important differences. Chief difference being, in 2012 the grassroots dels could muster half a dozen pluralities, and in 2016 the grassroots dels could muster a full dozen pluralities.

    Question is, come 2020 will the grassroots be able to double again, and muster two dozen pluralities, enough to win the nomination? Or will the rules-changes defeat any hope of a grassroots-nominee in 2020? My personal prediction, is both things might happen: the 2020 nominee will be some estab-selected-coronee like George P. Bush R-TX or the equivalent, but simultaneously there will be rock-solid majorities among the delegations in two dozen states, which are intent on actually finally un-rigging the national party rules — not merely rolling back the bad changes of the past several cycles, but a ground-up rewrite to make them grassroots-optimal. Despite all his bluster (or perhaps this is the cause of all his bluster?), Trump was very complicit in letting the RNC estab rig the 2020 rules to put the party and all future nominees thereof under their iron-clad control.

    Trump’s still an anti-establishment candidate in most ways, but he is also now proven to be an anti-grassroots-activist candidate. Which goes back to our discussion of, where can Trump possibly get the grassroots-activists which ALREADY know how to organize a massive ground-game? Ron Paul 2012 veterans know how, but they also know that Trump supports newRuleTwelve, so why would they help him? Cruz 2016 and Rand 2016 veterans know how, but after Trump permitted his guy Manafort to team up with the RNC and kick sand in the faces of Morton Blackwell, Mike Lee, and Ken Cuccinelli, not just over newRuleTwelve but over every single rules-proposal whatsoever, why would *they* want to help Trump?

  2. I love this article, shared it on Facebook. I saw you live at an Amway function 30 years ago. I’d love to get copies of the recording’s “Let the Dogs Bark, the Caravan is Moving On” and “It’s Better to be a Live Dog than a Dead Lion.” Any idea where to find them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: