In one of the most hideous displays of gaslighting, an “open letter” was sent to the Illinois Republican Party’s governing board, the 17 members of the state central committee (SCC) asking the SCC to have another “No Confidence” vote in the leadership in Illinois Republican Chairman Don Tracy.

While the members of the SCC elected Chairman Tracy to a full four-year term nearly a year ago after the Republican primary and the SCC elections at county conventions across Illinois, the performance of the Republican ticket in nearly all high-profile races made many Republicans demand a change in the chairman, similar to firing a head football coach at the conclusion of a very disappointing season.

Unfortunately, a bad election cycle does not merit removal of the chairman unless the SCC, based on a weighted vote determined by the number of Republican primary ballots cast within their respective congressional districts in the June 2022 primary, holds a “No Confidence” vote. Like the British Parliament, where parliamentary elections must take place no more than 5 years apart, the Illinois Republican Party must wait 4 years (until 2026), unless a “No Confidence” vote results in the removal of the chairman and require electing a new chairman by the 17 members of the SCC.

As publicized elsewhere, at the April meeting of the SCC, a “No Confidence” vote was called on Chairman Tracy’s leadership, and behind closed doors, the roll call vote was taken, and multiple media sources reported six SCC members voted “No Confidence” in Chairman Tracy’s leadership.

• IL-03: Jeanne Ives
• IL-05: Aaron Del Mar (includes Lake County portion of Fox River Grove and Lake and Cook counties portions of Barrington Hills)
• IL-08: Dean White (includes northern Kane County, including portions of villages of Algonquin and Huntley)
• IL-09: Joan LaSonde (includes Algonquin Township in McHenry County)
• IL-15: Jason Plummer
• IL-17: Chad Weaver

While six out of 17 SCC members voted No Confidence, the remaining SCC members did not and Tracy retained his chairmanship.

Since last November’s election when the expected “red wave” did not develop in Illinois or across the country and only through gerrymandering and an unexpectedly strong performance by the New York Republican gubernatorial nominee were the Republicans able to flip the U.S. House of Representatives by a negligible majority, Illinois Republicans were equally upset and wanted someone to blame for the disappointing election results.

In addition to losing all statewide executive offices and the U.S. Senate race, Republicans lost all 5 (IL-06, IL-11, IL-13, IL-14, IL-17) of the 17 congressional elections which national ratings said were competitive or nearly competitive and saw the open DuPage County Board chairmanship flip to Democrat control, while locally, the Kane County Board saw the Democrats expand their majority to a supermajority of the 24 districts.

There were some wins, like Will County Republicans wresting control of the county board by evenly splitting the 22 seats, and McHenry County Republicans achieved a 13-5 supermajority control of the county board in spite of 5 Republican incumbents losing last November (two Democratic incumbents also lost) as the county board was reduced from 24 seats to 18 seats.

Illinois Review Stirs up Opposition to Chairman Don Tracy among “grassroots” conservatives

About a week after the November 8 election, the longtime conservative political publication Illinois Review (IR) was acquired from the founding ownership by Orland Park-based attorney Scott Kaspar, who brought-in Mark A. Vargas to be editor-in-chief.

Vargas, who until recently was paying for broadcast time on WIND 560AM through his Mark My Words Sunday night talk show, published multiple articles concerning issues within the Illinois Republican Party and the disrespecting of the “grassroots”.

IR whipped up an online campaign to encourage conservatives to attend the December, post-election meeting of the SCC in Bolingbrook and nearly 200 self-described grassroots activitsts attended and wanted answers to the disappointing election losses the prior month.

Unrealistic expectations were expressed by Vargas, both on his radio and in IR articles, concerning the treatment of grassroots activists. The SCC was having a business meeting, similar to a local school board regular meeting, and whether 1 member of the public or a roomful of the public shows up, guests, outside of public comment, have no role or authority.

Just Who Are the “Grassroots”?

It seems every 10-15 years, there is some movement where ordinary citizens form “grassroots” groups either across a state or the country. In the past 40+ years, the United States has seen:

• The Moral Majority of the 1980s, including Operation Rescue protests of late 1980s
• The Ross Perot movement and ultimately the Reform Party of the 1990s
• The TEA (“Taxed Enough Already”) Party of the late 2000s
• “Make America Great Again” of the mid 2010s to the present day

Many of the 2020s grassroots groups have been quickly set-up through social media, be it Facebook groups or other online platforms, and when members or followers get into the four-digit numbers, many people think that makes them an influence maker. This happens among both the left and the right, like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY-14) and her 13 million+ Twitter followers. More locally, twice-failed congressional candidate Catalina Lauf (R, Woodstock) and her 190K+ following on Twitter.

But with COVID pandemic, and the lockdowns, the max mandates, the forced vaccinations, sexualizing of kids in public schools and multiple other grievences brought forth the latest “grassroots” movement. Some may say there are new voters active in grassroots, but did the groups on the letter really represent 80,000?

Here’s a trace of the initial 30 groups listed on the open letter published last Thursday through IR:

The total number of members in private or public Facebook groups, or followers of a group Facebook ID totaled around 45.5K.

The entire article can be read here.

But if a casual reader is one of the 17 decision makers of the SCC, it’s unlikely this letter will change anyone’s mind.