SD 18 Delegates and Alternates:

This is to let you know that I will be running to serve SD 18 on the State Nominations Committee at the 2024 RPT State Convention.

The main purpose of the State Nominations Committee is to play a role in the choosing of our State Chair and Vice Chair.  The way the process works is that we and every other SD will pick via majority vote our nomination for Chair and Vice Chair on Friday morning.  The State Nominations Committee then meets on Friday to vote until one candidate for each role gets a majority of SD votes.  That candidate is then placed in nomination at the general assembly Friday afternoon.  Any candidate with 3 or more SD nominations that does not get the nomination can be nominated until we get a Chair and a Vice Chair elected by majority by the general assembly.
 
It is important to note that the State Nominations Committee representative is obligated to vote for the choice of the SD caucus on the first round.  But it is unlikely, given the number of candidates, that any candidate will get a majority of the SD nominations on the first round.  If the race goes into multiple rounds, the State Nominations Committee representative is free to vote for the candidate he or she thinks best.
 
Electing a State Nominations Committee person is like electing delegates to National in years where there is a closely contested presidential election.  It is like choosing a presidential elector in the olden days,  The point is that the SD representative has discretion.
 
Given that our rep will have discretion, I figured you need to know my approach to voting for leadership so that you can see if our visions align.
 
The most important thing I think you will want to know about me is my vision for the mission and role of the RPT and its leadership.  It is that vision that will inform my priority when deciding how to cast votes for leadership in multiple rounds.
 
My vision for the RPT is that our top purpose is to implement into law and policy the platform, priorities, and principles of the RPT.  As important as winning general elections is, that is merely a means to the end of conservative policy implementation.
 
I view the leadership selection through two filters.  First, how committed to conservative policy implementation is the leader vs. where they are on the more traditional emphasis on merely winning elections.  To a certain extent, the candidates are more on a continuum between focus on playing in the legislature and holding GOP election officials accountable and focus on the infrastructure and fundraising for support of nominees in the general election.
 
The second filter is the eternal battle between the grassroots and whatever you want to call the establishment – the swamp, the special interests, etc. over control of the attention and actions of our elected officials and the party, itself.
 
When you combine those filters, I am solidly on the side that seeks emphasis on the party playing a dominant role in the legislature and holding elected officials who do not implement our priorities and platform.  I believe that if we as a party abandon our commitment to impact on the legislature and elected official accountability, we turn the party into cheerleaders for incumbents and foot soldiers in a crony army.  In other words, if we do not focus on accountability, the grassroots loses to the swamp.
 
So, I will be looking for leaders who can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I want leaders who put policy implementation first, but can manage the blocking and tackling of winning general elections.
 
I realize that when we talk about fundraising as a weapon in the leadership races, that there is a tradeoff that inevitably comes when RPT leadership holds the minions in the legislature of the swamp accountable, the swamp money men may cut off the RPT.

I have noticed that those who play the game for power do not play nice.  I also know that it takes incredible courage, commitment, and grit to hold elected officials accountable.  I think that those who think that if they are just nicer to the people from whom we are seeking to take power, that it will go smoother, are probably mistaken.  I certainly believe in talking to everyone and being cordial, but it takes grit to actually make accountability happen.
 
One important question that I think worth asking is whether you think Speaker Dade Phelan being on the ropes in his speakership and his seat is a good thing or not.
 
Of course, in my assessment, I overlay commitment to vision with ability to implement based on life experience, resume, and record of accomplishment.
 
If you think it good, then you must acknowledge the grit and determination it took on the part of Matt Rinaldi and the majority of the SREC to make that good result possible.  And if you liked that result, you should look for someone with the vision, commitment, and grit to continue down that path.
 
OK.  Now that you know my vision and evaluation criteria, how will I apply that in my votes if elected.  My Chair candidates in order of preference are Abraham George, a tie between Mike Garcia and Weston Martinez, Ben Armenta, Dana Myers, and my least favorite, Matt Mackowiak.
 
I will not take up more of your time in the resume reasons why I make these priorities.  I will tell you that my reason for putting the capable Dana Myers as low as I do on the list is that I fear that she is more focused on the mechanics of winning general elections than impacting the legislature.
 
I put Abraham George at the top of my list because he has said, “Our goal is to turn our priorities and platform into law.”  Perfectly stated.  George also has the resume and record of success that show he can get the job done.  He has built businesses, served on SREC, lobbied for issues at the legislature, served as chair of Collin County, raising $700K in the process, and run for state rep against a Paxton impeacher.
 
I abhor the skulking tabloid attacks on Abraham and his family.  I get a sense of déjà vu from the Paxton impeachment and the attacks on Trump when I see these.  I think you, the grassroots delegates to the RPT convention are not easily deceived by late-breaking accusations that violate TEC law and will - given enough time – as it was with Paxton - prove to be untrue or irrelevant.
 
I believe that the attacks on George come from the same establishment sources that attacked Paxton and Trump.  In my view, they tell us who the establishment really fears will effectively continue the inroads the grassroots are making in achieving advance in the Texas House and policy implementation.

They come from the same proxy war between the swamp donors (embodied by TLR and ART) and the big donors to grassroots challengers (embodied by the Dunns and the Wilks).  We saw that proxy war play out with the distraction of trying to get grassroots Texans to care about gotcha racial politics and virtue signaling played out in the “Nazi” accusations in the campaigns.  (You may or may not know that when I ran for State Rep in HD 17 this cycle, the opening salvo by my TLR/ART-backed incumbent opponent was the headline, “Stan Gerdes Statement on Tom Glass and Neo-Nazis.”  The "link" was that I had accepted about 10% of my funding in 2022 from a Dunn/Wilks PAC.  Trust me.  NO ONE on my district cared about such inside baseball, lefty distractions.  But the same folks pushing that line in the primaries against grassroots challengers are backing the more establishment candidates for leadership.)
 
If you want to more about my resume and views, you can see my State Rep campaign page, which is still up (www.tomglass.org ).
 
I look forward to continuing the discussion about the future of the RPT later this week and working with you . . .
 
Toward liberty,
 
Tom Glass
832-472-4726
www.txce.org
www.tomglass.org