CCGOP Digs Themselves in Deeper

by lewwaters

Ship 1 As expected, my post Clark GOP Playing Dirty Again? was not well received by some extremist factions within the Clark County Republican Party, who seemingly spent much of Monday, May 19 scurrying around doing damage control and attempting to make themselves appear altruistic.

In the process, they have made some claims that are not being confirmed by the ones they are attributed to when I contacted them.

These extremists would have you believe that the initial email sent out to a selective group of PCO candidates was their effort to ferret out what they describe as a conspiracy against them by some WSRP operative in Bothell that “has been caught filing at least 20 online PCO applications on behalf of Clark County residents, some of whom had no intention of filing and gave no permission to use their names.”

Unfortunately for them, they did not cover their tracks very well in that claim as contacting the Clark County Elections Office asking about that, I was told

“We had two PCO candidates who stated they never filled out any online application, nor did they want to be a PCO. Their names were withdrawn yesterday. To my knowledge, those were the only PCO filings that were done without a person’s knowledge.”

Hardly the “at least 20” being claimed.

Still, even if two were filed, that is two too many, but hardly rises to the level of some mass conspiracy against the local extremists.

Then too, the initial email sent out discredits the conspiracy claim very early on with the paragraph,

“Now that you have taken this important step, you have one opportunity THIS WEEKEND to convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race. We have a very successful way to make this happen with a phone call. Please pay close attention, then make a very nice, friendly and cheerful call ON SUNDAY to see if they will withdraw. This has already worked for David Hedrick and a few others. This does work and can be done. The general idea is to express the fact that YOU are EXCITED about running, and then ask them if THEY are also EXCITED to run. (Many people have been called at the last minute by the establishment and really could care less about running). You expressing YOUR excitement then asking them if they are excited is the KEY.”

The effort is clearly stated to “convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race.”

That point is key as, even if there really was some mass conspiracy going on, it is irrelevant to the effort to encourage selected candidates to “convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race.”

And, as far as this so-called “establishment” trying to recruit people for PCO, isn’t that what both parties do? I know I received emails from both parties trying to recruit PCOs, here and here.

PCO, End Divide & ConquerThen too, isn’t it the very same thing these extremists did when they were recruiting like-minded people for their PCO Liberty Alliance to seize control of the local GOP?

Strange too since one of their cornerstone claims was that they were about “ending the conquer and divide” mentality.

Yet another claim made in the defense of the email was

“Cathie Garber, Clark County Elections Supervisor, intends to change the process, which may include requiring a credit card payment of $1 in order to file online in order to tie an identification to each filing. She concludes, ‘This is abuse of the system, and we can’t have that’.”

Ms. Garber is an upstanding person and freely accessible to citizens. A very trustworthy person, in my estimation. Her response was,

“I never said I was going to change PCO filing fees. I only stated that I thought we should have it reinstated so we can clearly see who has filed the PCO filing by their credit card information. A change would have to be made by legislature.”

I bolded that last sentence because any changes to filing fees must be done in the legislature, just like when the $1 filing fee was ended a few years ago because it was actually costing more to collect it.

Still, for matters of confirming filers’ intent, since so much is online today, I would have no objection if the legislature did in fact add the fee back to filing for PCO.

But, it also is not anywhere near the claim made of she “intends to change the process.”

On a more personal note, I have to shake my head at people that live by conspiracy, the eternal victims so to speak that cannot accept other views and take measures to ensure their views are dominant by underhanded, back door methods.

That is evidenced in their claim,

“it appears that elements of the WSRP collaborated with local Establishment operatives in an attempt to defeat or undermine the rise of the conservative grassroots activists that have been manifested over the last two years.”

Yes, anonymous, unnamed operatives, the hallmark of the conspiracists that claim civilian aircraft contrails at high altitude are really government agents spraying chemicals on the people to control us. Or that the September 11 attacks weren’t terror, but an inside job by some anonymous, unnamed government agents.

Yes, we’re all out to “get them.”

And through it all, missed in the quick effort of Monday was that even if there were some truth in the claim of massive fraudulent PCO filings, it is irrelevant to the fact of the intent of the original email exposed here of this faction of the Clark County Republican Party selectively trying to urge some citizens to withdraw their application in favor of one more agreeable to the faction.

Evidenced by two comments left on my facebook page where I linked the original post;

“I decided to run as a PCO out of BG and the day I signed up online my wife received multiple phone calls from Katja Delavar asking for an immediate call back. When she did not, I received an email from her asking me to call her THAT NIGHT. When I called, I was presented with the same script from the email and asked to call my fellow running mate to ‘decide which one of us should run, and which should drop out.’ Look I’m not dumb, she wanted ME to drop out.”

“I received a phone call from Kenny Smith regarding this very matter of whether I was truly interested in the PCO position I am running for in my precinct in Camas, and if I knew there was also someone else running who he liked. He did say that I looked like I would probably be a good person for the position, but that I should still call my opponent and have a discussion with her. Honestly, I got off the phone with a sour taste in my mouth. After hearing about the phone call my friend had and now seeing this email, I think it is clear that I was NOT their pre-approved candidate.”

This brings us to what was labeled in a subsequent email as a “Spectator PCO,” one who only attends one meeting every two years where party leaders are voted for.

Is it really up to this small faction to make predeterminations as to just who that might be? And, if they really thought there was someone filing just to have the label PCO, isn’t it more transparent to allow a challenge and let precinct voters make that decision?

And if it was a case of someone’s name being on the ballot that did not really want the position; wouldn’t it seem likely that a challenger working the precinct, letting voters know who they are and why they filed to be a PCO be the one that wins in the election?

Would someone not interested in being a PCO actually fight in a campaign to win?

Then too, since this faction likes to portray themselves as the greatest thing to happen to politics since sliced bread, if they see someone filing that hasn’t attended any Central Committee Meetings, wouldn’t it be more proper for the party leaders to reach out to the person, discuss why they are inactive and if they get blown off, recruit another who is interested?

Wouldn’t that have been better than to surreptitiously engage in a behind the scenes effort to encourage only some to withdraw?

And, by the way, what was engaged in did nothing about any “Spectator PCO” running unchallenged, the effort apparently being solely an effort to run selective people unchallenged by encouraging not so favored ones to withdraw.

In closing I’ll mention what I find most remarkable in all of this. Many of these engaging in this behind the scenes effort are among those who complain about the lack of transparency in government, be it the legislature, Congress, city council or even C-Tran.

Yet, they try to hide from view what they are doing and trump up some conspiracy when it is exposed.

I believe you know the proper word for that.

88 Comments to “CCGOP Digs Themselves in Deeper”

  1. Lew, this looks to me like a tempest in a teacup. I see nothing wrong with either party selectively recruiting names they think would make great PCOs. Then when they see someone else submit names that you know, by looking through the records, are not active members of the party test those candidates to see how committed they are. All legitimate activities by the parties. Of course, it might be misconstrued and some who get tested might be offended; it is a delicate matter – yet, hardly proof of extremism. You just got through taking Larry Patella to the woodshed for raising similar criticisms of our Republican leaders as you are now raising. No one is perfect. Criticize, do, but cut them some slack, also.

    Like

  2. So this is the big expose that was going to prove us wrong? Really weak. And here I was up all night nervously biting my nails thinking that you had something. LOL!
    Cathie only knows about two because we only brought her two (actually one brought himself, but it was as a result of being called by another candidate). The third (PCO 4 in the article), we discovered by calling the block of voters who were entered at 1 to 2-minute intervals. I can produce, at any time, the three names of the PCO candidates who were filed without their permission. The only reason that ALL THREE are no longer on the ballot is because somebody called them asking if they were serious about running.

    I didn’t get that detail about the legislature needing to be the one to change the filing fee thing – I’m pretty sure she never mentioned it. So thanks for that great piece of investigative reporting, Lew. I feel extremely chastened right now.

    Like

  3. In fairness to Cathie, who was very helpful through all of this, Christian tells me that she did mention the thing about the legislature, and I missed it because I was writing down her quote about Apollo’s filings of unwilling candidates being ‘abuse of the system’.
    By the way, I think it is hilarious that you are responding to my article without linking it or allowing others to link it.

    Like

  4. Apples & Oranges, Robert between Larry and this. Larry was erroneously criticizing two elected officials over something he got wrong and wouldn’t back off. He was demanding they take action on a matter out of their control and misrepresented their intent on their effort to initiate a bi-state discussion on resolving issues concerning crossing the river.

    There is a lot more I could say over the contract matter that I haven’t said to date, but was public and largely over looked and if I posted would just stir up contentions over another favored person.

    This matter was over a secretive attempt to “stack the deck.” This second post concerns an effort to sweep that under the rug and label my effort as somehow misguided. I refer you to the claim Dan makes early on, “On a day when the local chatter among establishment sympathizers has been on an email sent by Christian Berrigan urging PCO candidates to call their opponents in order to assess their level of enthusiasm, the real news story is that there was a very good reason for making those phone calls, namely, that several of those candidates never wanted to file in the first place.”

    Now, I refer you to the email that sent out selectively, “Now that you have taken this important step, you have one opportunity THIS WEEKEND to convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race. We have a very successful way to make this happen with a phone call. Please pay close attention, then make a very nice, friendly and cheerful call ON SUNDAY to see if they will withdraw. This has already worked for David Hedrick and a few others. This does work and can be done. The general idea is to express the fact that YOU are EXCITED about running, and then ask them if THEY are also EXCITED to run. (Many people have been called at the last minute by the establishment and really could care less about running). You expressing YOUR excitement then asking them if they are excited is the KEY.”

    If you have no problem with a hard-nosed, lock-step party, so be it. But isn’t that one of the main points we have condemned Democrats over?

    Then too, there was the words, “Do not talk about this email. Do not forward this email.”

    While not illegal, weren’t we all recently condemning C-Tran over just that and the email Commissioner Madore wanted to be made public that the court agreed should not? Seems I recall your comments over C-Tran hiding emails was critical, not supportive

    Do we selectively apply transparency when it suits an ideology?

    They were pretty up front in the beginning of the PCO Liberty Alliance, but now want to work behind everybody’s back?

    Like

  5. Dan, my claim to you was it wouldn’t surprise me to see you dig yourselves in deeper.

    And it is you that claimed the real intent of original email was due to fraudulent filings when that email clearly expresses it was all about encouraging selected candidates to withdraw, providing the script to do so, saying nothing of any suspect motive of any candidate or their name being erroneously filed.

    Then too was the two commenters I listed that received the calls and came away with the clear impression that they were encouraged to withdraw in favor of another.

    A very weak effort at CYA, but your right to try.

    As to the matter of the legislature having authority over filing fees, it is not so much that you did not include that but that you stated that Cathie “intends to change the process.” She can’t, as you now admit she told you.

    Trying to minimize the original email with this smokescreen effort just digs you in deeper. It’s not a matter of your rights, but a lack of transparency.

    Oh, incidentally, I hope the WSRP is more forgiving as the CCGOP hopes to take advantage of Party resources in the general election, after accusing them of a conspiracy.

    Those “establishment operatives” up there might not think too kindly of such an accusation

    As to linking or not linking, I hope you don’t mind too much that I exercise my constitutional right to operate my blog as I desire.

    Just sayin’ 😉

    Like

  6. I would like to repeat Carolyn Crain’s comment re her response to Mr. Decker on this matter: “From Carolyn Crain:
    It is not a big tent when a group in control uses their position to attempt to get people who wish to become actively involved in their party’s politics to stop being involved. The current party leaders have a motto “sacrifice politics for principle” so that means they do not wish to actually win seats and are willing to allow the liberal democrats to do so if the Republican isn’t in lockstep with their ideals across the board. That makes your statement above wrong Frank.
    The establishment republicans as you all keep calling them are people who worked hard to keep an office open for the public to visit and for pco’s to meet and the board to meet. The office was staffed by volunteers who by the way also had jobs and donated money. They knocked on doors and manned phone banks. So before you go on about the establishment republicans I personally would appreciate it if you would quit deciding who is and who is not a republican or republican enough for you. It and all language like rino, etc. are divisive name calling rude and socially impolite unacceptable hostile titles. I am so tired of this bs. People do not need a leadership team inside a party to tell them how to think and force them all to agree.
    As a leadership team you have one job and only one job that is to win elections in the legislature, governorship and other state races, congressional races and presidential races. To do that you do not need to create a new party or restructure core principles. You do not need to set defined “my way or the highway” policies. You have to recruit volunteers; run an office for visibility, meetings and phone banking; hold fundraisers and support candidates with training or information.
    Stick to your job and the rest will take care of itself.
    There is absolutely something wrong when a group of people thinks that they should secretly attempt to retain power by coercing the potential volunteer to drop their effort to run for pco office. If there weren’t something wrong it would not have been made with the attempt to hide it and everyone knows that. No amount of excuses will excuse it. There is no pardon to be had. You might as well stop arguing because your stance is indefensible.”

    Like

  7. “Leave a Reply. Spam and & off topic comments will be deleted at Blog Author’s discretion. Due to excess spam and off topic comments, comment moderation is activated and comments must be approved in order to appear”.

    Control the conversation–control the message, eh Lew? Gee, now where have we seen that type of control before…hmm. The apple doesn’t fall far from the Brancaccio tree I guess.

    Like

  8. LOL, Frank, you’re not too bright today.

    “Control the conversation–control the message?”

    Is that unlike selectively encouraging PCO candidates to withdraw in favor of candidates more in line with the favored ideology?

    Something like, Control the PCO – Control the Party?

    Maybe that apple falling from the Brancaccio tree is closer to your own backyard than you realize.

    Just sayin’ 😉

    Incidentally, that constitution thing y’all are always boasting about? It grants me rights as well.

    Like

  9. To Lew: I don’t think there is any question that the email that was sent out was badly written in terms of tone. I can’t speak to it, since I didn’t send it. However, I can say that the purpose of calling competitors was very much to find out their level of enthusiasm and to see if they were just being recruited to fill a seat and raise the quorum. It has been known for a number of years now that the local hard-left faction of the Republican party recruits people with the pitch that they need only show up to elect the leaders that are calling them, and the leaders will take care of the rest for the next two years. It was this attitude that led to that horrible convention, which was the genesis of our recruiting efforts to begin with. Our philosophy has always been power to the PCOs, and we wrote our bylaws to that end. So this is not a smokescreen about anything, Candidates were being contacted to see if they were going to fulfill their duties and show up to stuff. If they weren’t, then it seems natural to me to ask them to yield in favor of a more enthusiastic candidate. Also, you keep saying this, but this effort was not being carried out by the party, but by individuals, as it always has been throughout the history of the CCRP. If we left everything alone and never recruited, we would have the same number of PCOs as the Democrats, or probably less, because they are no doubt doing some recruiting as well. We are trying to get people involved. No party can survive without doing that.

    To Ann: I don’t know you, but your name appeared on a list of people who didn’t file themselves, but instead were filed by a guy from King County named Apollo. I just want you to know that the online filing process is really easy, and if you ever need any help with it in the future, I would be happy to show you how to do it, so that you don’t have to rely on people from across the state to affirm your oath to the Constitution.

    Like

  10. Sorry Dan, but regardless of any wording of the email, the intent was clearly expressed in encouraging selected candidates to withdraw before saying any effort of “gauging enthusiasm.”

    And your CYA attempt tries to mask that with your claim of “the real story.”

    All anybody needs do is read the original email.

    Like

  11. To quote, well you, “Apples and oranges”. The way I see it, there are only three possibilities: You are incapable of seeing the explicit intent of the original email, you simply don’t want to see it, or you are intentionally not seeing it in order to wag the dog. I read it and see nothing about ideology, but rather an attempt to ensure the party is stocked with active, enthusiastic PCO’s that are not only willing but capable of doing what is needed to defeat liberalism and liberal candidates in Clark County. Spectator PCO’s, and there are still plenty of them, never have nor ever will make one shred of difference in the outcome of elections. They can only serve to be a place holder until such time as a power addicted CCGOP board needs them for an official vote. Which is exactly why my point on your other thread concerning the bylaw changes is absolutely on topic and relevant. If, as you assert, the intention of Christians email to select PCO’s was nothing more than to secure ideologically allied PCO candidates, then by necessity there would need to be a point to doing that. The PCO’s, as a collective body are the only ones with the power to change the bylaws that govern the party. Securing PCO’s that vote to change the bylaws in such a manner as to lessen the power of the board and increase the power of the collective PCO’s would seem to any reasonable person a step in the right direction. Furthermore, if this was about ideology, then the CCGOP leadership would have gone in the opposite direction by encouraging the spectator PCO filings, thus ensuring just enough “allies” to have a quorum at central committee meetings.

    Like

  12. Let’s not forget either, Dan, a large part of your effort is claiming several people were signed up fraudulently with neither their knowledge or permission.

    I see nothing in the script supplied in the email trying to ascertain that.

    Like

  13. Yes Frank, I’m too ignorant to understand the real meaning of “you have one opportunity THIS WEEKEND to convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race.”

    Give it up, you’re making yourself look more and more foolish.

    Like

  14. Alrighty then. Based on that response I’m going to have to go with option #3 – the wag the dog scenario. Makes sense, doesn’t it, being the “eternal victim conspiracy theorist extremist Paulbot” that I am? 😉

    Like

  15. Seriously, Frank? Maybe you should research “projection.”

    So let me help you out here. The full email is available on my previous post.

    Feel free to point out just where in the script or the lead in to the script is anything relating to discovering if someone was recruited by “elements of the WSRP in collaboration with local Establishment operatives” or if someones name was filed without their knowledge or permission, as is being claimed.

    Relate the effort now being claimed with “You want to create a situation where THEY OFFER to withdraw.”

    Wag the dog? Have you guys taken a look in the mirror lately?

    Like

  16. Lew, for the sake of fairness, there is nothing in the original email to suggest that it was motivated by a desire to stack the Party with like-minded idealogues. Judging by this thread I’d be surprised if you could get two conservative Republicans to agree on every issue let alone make an effective cabal – it would disintegrate from fusion. They have supplied the alternative explanation for the email – that they wanted only committed PCOs on board – and that satisfies me. Asking to keep the email secret was clumsy for sure but given that it might easily be misconstrued perhaps that caveat was prudent in its own way. Can’t we all just get along?

    Like

  17. Lew, I have to say, your schtick is getting pretty tired. You did the same thing when we caught the sign thief – you ranted and raved about how it wouldn’t matter in terms of signs, how we had ‘distracted priorities’, and how it wouldn’t come to anything legally. You were wrong on all counts. You are making all of the same arguments now. It gets old, man. Wag the dog? Really? We came up with this whole story, one that is circulating all over the state….in less than 24 hours? You must think we are really, really smart.

    The story is legit, and it is the natural result of calling around to find out why so many non-participating PCOs all filed on the very first day of the filing week. The investigation was older than Christian’s email. I can’t speak to why he didn’t say ‘Hey Everyone, we think there might be Election Fraud happening with all of your opponents, so call them out on it’, but I think it might be fairly obvious to most unbiased readers that such a transmission might have been premature. What he did send did not have a very good presentation (obviously) and left something to be desired in terms of diplomacy, but it was probably never meant to be a press release. He was just trying to get people to react quickly and talk in a polite way to their opponents and discern their enthusiasm for the office.

    I think that your willingness to bring yourself, others, and the party down just to get a few blog hits has really told us all something about you. I feel sorry for you, dude. This will pass, but our memories of your attempts to hold up the establishment line will not. Good luck.

    Like

  18. Robert, is there anything in the original email to support the claim now of it being to weed out or discover candidates signed up against their will or without their knowledge?

    It seems the desire for “sake of fairness” has become one-sided.

    That was the original claim I made and have stuck with. And if there is no desire to stack the deck, as was done in 2012 with their preferred candidate list, why encourage any to withdraw and only selected ones?

    Wake up, Robert, the truth is staring you in the face.

    Like

  19. Dan, if “wag the dog” really bothers you, talk to Frank, he is who entered it here.

    Now, my “schtick?” LOL Funny.

    You still have not addressed the quotes straight from the original email in encouraging selected candidates to withdraw and instead, claim the real effort was to discover or encourage those signed up against their will or without their knowledge to withdraw. My words on Christian original email sent out selectively is also “legit,” and no matter how many efforts to throw out a smoke screen to hide it, that will not change.

    As for you assertion of “bring the party down,” yes, cock roaches do hate it when light is shined on them, don’t they?

    And spare me with your “memory being held.” I left that group in 2010 and since you or the party have never contributed to the successes I might have had in life, I think you know where you can put that threat.

    Like

  20. I can not tell you how disappointing all of this business is. It is no surprise that Christian is up to this because he is part of a faction that believes only they know what is good for this party. For me this letter is no different than the D.C. establishment such as Carl Rove going after the tea party. I have been a PCO for many years. I have run for office twice. I was the President of the Republican Women’s club for five years and I am once again back there. Yet when this group decided to run their slate to take over the CCGOP, Christian called me to encourage me to vote for his group. He did that because he had no idea who I was. I had been a member of this Party contributing both by volunteering and monetarily for many years and guess what I had no idea who Christian was either because I never saw him before. I know that this group puts up their own candidates against those they deem unworthy. I believe in my City Council run it was done against me but so be it. That is the nature of any election. There is much I could say about the City Council election but I haven’t because I believe that no matter what I feel was right or wrong about it everything that others contributed was done with the best of intentions and I appreciated that. I ran a strong race and I have no regrets. During all of it I never thought that I should approach an opponent and ask them to drop out. I don’t care what you believe your intentions are this really plays bad. And you should have more faith in your chosen Candidates that they will do everything to win in a fair way.

    I know that Christian and Dan believe that people are out to get them but the letter that was sent out was designed to manipulate and get rid of undesirables. I never received that letter and I have two opponents for PCO so it tells me I am not one of their desirable PCO”S. I know they don’t believe that I am participating in their identify voters campaign as I should but I have been worried about their focus for awhile because I do believe they concentrate in the wrong areas. I am concentrating on helping the candidates.

    There is also a piece in this PCO’S volunteer story that this group leaves out. There is a huge monetary burden being put on the PCO’s. It is voluntary but they are being asked like this is the only group that should carry that responsibility. This is why our party works towards a big tent so the cost of our county party is shared. If this is not happening in the party then maybe it is because this group alienates the people who supported us before. What will eventually happen is that your PCO’s will all burn out and if you are trying to tear down this party then you will succeed with no funds. This letter did not help. it looks as if those phone calls have only fortified people to continue on as PCO candidates so it looks like you only deterred your cause.

    The one thing I really took offense to was the remark by Dan about Lisa Ross being such a great worker for the party. I went to many CTRAN meetings and I only saw Lisa at one but every City Council meeting, every CTRAN meeting, every RTC meeting and many Commissioner’s meetings, Carolyn Crain has been there. I have watched her work diligently for many candidates in Clark County and she attends most if not all of the PCO meetings. Carolyn has also testified on many bill presented in committee’s and on the floor of the Washington legislature. No one has protected or will protect us better than Carolyn Crain. NO ONE should ever belittle Carolyn’s activism in our party. Just because you attend a meeting long enough to take a picture for your Facebook page does not mean that you are a worker for the party or a good candidate. One thing all candidates should learn is don’t try to embellish your resume because there is always someone waiting in the wings to use it against you.

    Like

  21. My goodness you come across so hostile and emotional it’s hard to see past it to any facts.

    Like

  22. Lew, the fundamental problem with getting all worked up on this issue – which I’ve raised repeatedly – is that anyone who is so uncommitted that they would drop out merely because their opponent asks them to, is likely to be WORTHLESS as a PCO. Period. So if anything, the letter just helps us get rid of do-nothing PCO’s. And that’s a damn good thing, IMO.

    Now you can say that the voters should decide, But in at least one instance that I previously cited from personal experience,that did not help. And I’m sure there were others.

    Again, anyone who really wants the job, wouldn’t have dropped out upon being asked by their opponent. Would you have, back when you were running? Me either. Carolyn Crain either. So in those cases, the voters would still get their choice, letter or no, right?

    Like

  23. Thanks Joan, I appreciate your acknowledgment that I included “facts,” even if you try to ignore them.

    Like

  24. Tom, that doesn’t change the facts spelled out in Christian’s original email that he tried to do just that and secretly.

    Like

  25. One more point, Tom.

    I have been one of the voices over several years trying my best to point out shady goings on in our county by the newspaper, city council, Democrat Party, C-Tran, CRC and more.

    Shady is shady and you would expect me to give this group a pass simply because they claim to be Republicans?

    Like

  26. What is funny is the elevation of enthusiastic PCO’s to mean those who will attend the Central committee meeting and vote in lockstep with the board, and does not include those who work to help get Republican candidates elected.
    BTW, There is good reason to not attend some Central Committee meetings.

    Like

  27. Well that’s weird, Dennis. Plenty of us are working to get Lynda elected. Is she not a Republican candidate? Many of us are working to get Michael elected. Is he not a Republican candidate? And what of us who are working to get Lisa elected? Is she not a Republican candidate? Perhaps those of us who are constantly accused of defining what is and isn’t a Republican simply just don’t know what is or isn’t a Republican? Perhaps us lowly upstarts should learn our place and bow to the ultimate wisdom and vast knowledge and experience of the establishment party royalty?

    Like

  28. I can’t help but notice you did not mention any of you were working hard to get Carolyn elected, Frank. Surely just an oversight since she is a Republican, right?

    Like

  29. Oh, I’m sorry, Lew. Did I go and break another one of the Blog Author’s rules? Am I only supposed to support certain candidates? Look at me, I just keep making myself look more and more foolish. I have to wonder though what you mean by “any of you”? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I get the feeling you are of the opinion that I speak for a larger group of people in the community? I can assure you that I do not. I’m a resident, voter, and PCO of 641, nothing more. I am not a member of the country party leadership. I speak for myself and myself alone.

    Like

  30. Typo – country = county.

    Like

  31. First of all – a disclaimer. I called/emailed Lisa Ross twice to ask her to remove herself from the 49th District Rep race. I did it because my concerns, looking towards Nov., is that her supporters will back away from voting for Carolyn Crain, when she makes it through the primary. (Believe me, it has happened before.) I see nothing wrong with that. However last Sunday, my friend ,also a PCO candidate received this same type of phone call and email, as described above. She did not appreciate either. She also said that, in her email, she was asked to keep the email a secret. That is what I find most disturbing. This behind the scenes sneaky manipulation. I emailed Kenny with my concerns. At the time, I did not know that Kenny was a part of this, as the reference on the email was Christian’s. This is not a tempest in a teapot. This is a symptom of value system/philosophical system that basically subscribes to bullying. I am glad that Lew is shining a spotlight on it. The CCRP need to get their act together. The organization, with dumb moves like this, is causing a divisiveness that I have never seen. They are alienating some of the County’s best worker bees. Really too bad. While I appreciate Christian’s enthusiasm, I repeat what I told Kenny. They are novices at this political game. Everything they do/say/write should be sent through the filter of folks who have more political experience.

    Like

  32. Withdraw the fangs, Frank. You were not edited nor deleted, yet. 😉

    I merely asked you about “plenty of us” and notice just one you left out, presuming just an oversight, but asked to be sure. After all, you claim to be among “many” working to get Republicans elected. Or, is it just selective Republicans?

    But, since it is very obvious how bitter you are towards me and my blog, why do you waste your time on me?

    Like

  33. Actually Frank, I do think that is a weird twist to the point I made, but hey thanks for playing, right?

    Like

  34. Not an oversight, I publicly support Lisa in that race against the jackass Moeller. There are 3 candidates, one has to make a choice, right? Can’t vote or support all three. Or, is that what “big tent” means? 🙂

    And I’m not bitter, Lew, just irritated. Why waste my time? Isn’t it obvious what we have in common? Political junkies. Every time I post here I have to stand up and proclaim…Hello, my name is Frank and I’m a political junkie. I’ve been sober for 1 minute 😉

    Like

  35. Funny thing, Frank, what you now describe is the very reason I separated myself from the party, pitting Republican against Republican in a contested primary while ignoring the Democrat.

    If you haven’t noted, I have tried to give both Carolyn and Lisa as equal coverage as I can, even though I personally have known Carolyn for some time and Lisa has done little to get to know me.

    I prefer to allow voters to make the choice and then support whoever makes it through the primary to run against the Democrat.

    You are quite the drama queen, though.

    Like

  36. Of all the posts, in either related thread, Debbie’s takes the cake–1st prize! Why? Because it sums up the underlying theme of this whole issue–the establishment vs the upstarts. Let’s break it down, shall we?

    “I called/emailed Lisa Ross twice to ask her to remove herself from the 49th District Rep race. I did it because my concerns, looking towards Nov., is that her supporters will back away from voting for Carolyn Crain, when she makes it through the primary.”

    Now, I can’t help but wonder where the scathing, multi-article rebukes are by the blog author for this tactic of calling a candidate and asking them to drop out of the race? Better still, why didn’t Debbie give Carolyn an call–twice–and ask her to drop out of the race for the good of the party? Well, it’s pretty obvious, Lisa isn’t party royalty and Carolyn is. Duh. I mean, just ask Micheline, “NO ONE should ever belittle Carolyn’s activism in our party.” It’s an entitlement, you see. X number of years of party loyalty = unquestioned support. Again, duh.

    But my favorite part of Debbie’s post is this. I mean, I get goose bumps just reading it again, “They are novices at this political game. Everything they do/say/write should be sent through the filter of folks who have more political experience.” And there you have it, folks. Yahtzee! Two short sentences that sum this entire argument up–father (or mama) knows best. I fully admit, under a different set of circumstance, that would actually be accurate and sound advice. However, we aren’t under different circumstances. What has all of these years of wisdom and experience gained us in the fight against liberalism in this state? Someone want to tell me when the last time we had Republican control of the state legislature? Or how about the Governor’s mansion? Hell, when was the last time we even had Republican or conservative control of our city council?

    Thanks, but no thanks. Take your antiquated, tired, worn out strategies on down to Yuma or Pensicola with you. Or, stick around, open your mind, think outside the box, and maybe…just maybe together we can turn the party around and stick it to the progressives once and for all.

    Like

  37. Do you ever do anything but whine, Frank? Is that the new qualifier for the CCGOP, who whines the most?

    You don’t approve of how I operate my blog, feel free to exercise your prerogative to open your own and whine to your pleasure.

    Like

  38. Well, thanks for the advice, Lew. Alas, only so much time in a day…what with all the canvasing, proof-reading candidate statements, putting up signs, designing artwork for door hangers, managing ground game walk lists, consulting on social media advertising strategies. You know what I mean, right? All that boots on the ground, actual hands on work…who has time to armchair quarterback from a blog. You get it. You know what I’m talking about.

    Like

  39. Wow. Frank, I have to say that my efforts to help you with a platform for the city race, with understanding the votes they had taken and the budget issues must have made me a P.O.S. right? Wow… the hostile anger and bitterness towards me as if I have ever done anything but contribute my money, time, energy, labor and skill and knowledge to help the people in this party. Wow… no wonder so many people disavow being Republican around here!

    Like

  40. There is wisdom in the substance of Frank’s last post for those willing to concentrate on the underlying points and not get distracted with the presentation. I can’t even begin to address Micheline’s post other than to say she is perfectly entitled to her opinion as well as her interpretation of events past and present.

    I met with the person who filed in my precinct. I think he wanted to check me out before he withdrew — as he should! He is a great guy. He gave me a tour of his nursery, and I’m looking forward to meeting with him again. I hope that I have so much energy when I’m in my 70’s! This guy is awesome and I’ve made a new friend. That is the result of talking to someone and being excited about being a PCO.

    Like

  41. Still whining? Hate to tell you, Frank, I’ve been “boots on the ground” long before you got involved, been a PCO, had an appointed seat on the board and did my best to support as many candidates as I could, some actually getting elected. I’ve never asked for nor received a dime from anybody, even though I may spend hours taping, editing and posting video’s of candidates speaking.

    Apparently you fail to realize that my “armchair quarterbacking” also has me with the only copies of some events on tape.

    I stood in the midst of a Moveon.org rally a couple years ago, taped the whole thing with them not realizing who I was.

    I walked through the parks in Portland during the Occupy time and taped the entire interior of the group’s camp, the day after another guy they caught had the crap beat out of him.

    And in return, I get shit smearers like you and your little know it all group.

    So take your sorry ass back to Poletti’s and stay there.

    Like

  42. “Better still, why didn’t Debbie give Carolyn an call–twice–and ask her to drop out of the race for the good of the party?”, I have more respect for people than to play such a cruel joke on someone like Lisa. Do you not understand that? If she is a willing participant…, something about deconstructionism and spit.

    Like

  43. I thought your effort was to reveal those who were fraudulently signed up, Christian?

    Like

  44. Frank, is it okay for a candidate to stop for a photo op, to take pics with police officers before a fallen officer memorial and then leave? I respect your efforts with the Patriot Guard, so show me now, how low you will go in defending that kind of political whoring?

    Like

  45. Apparently Frank can’t explain how I went from an awesome helpful individual in his council race to something so evil 5 months later. I do not get it. A reasonable person is never going to be allowed to question the actions of anyone in this high schoolish elite group without being castrated and ostracized outright. No one is perfect and there have been a ton of foolish errors made by this group. It is only human to make mistakes but the necessary growth will not occur from them if one refuses to admit them. This has become the saddest display of … oh I do not even know what to call it anymore. I am done with this thread. I have a campaign to run and this kind of hate taps energy I do not have to spread to this group of people. In spite of themselves they need representation in Olympia and I am going to be that person this year. As usual I will do it with a skeleton crew and a knife in my back.

    Like

  46. If they intend to help Lisa like they helped city council races last year, she won’t be a problem.

    You would think they had learned, but apparently not.

    I’m wondering just what support they will receive from the WSRP in the general, now that they accused them of conspiring against the local party?

    Like

  47. Gee, Lew. I didn’t realize that wanting our government to operate according to the constitution and allowing the local citizens to select who they want to have represent them instead of having candidates shoved down our throat by the party, who has a proven track record of blessing and financially supporting the “anointed” candidate even before the primary makes us “extreme.” If you think that trying to get people who believe in a limited constitutional government to stand up and have their voices heard is “extreme,” then you’re on your way to being classified as an irrelevant nut.

    Like

  48. I guess that those being coerced to withdraw in favor of the more favored ones the extremists prefer isn’t exactly protecting their constitutional freedom?

    I was wrote off years ago as an “irrelevant nut,” yet here I am.

    Just sayin’ 😉

    Like

  49. Lew, The purpose of the email was just as I stated it in my reply to Mary Graham of 8:30am Monday — you don’t need to post it *again* do you? It is self-evident from the email and my reply — ascertain your opponents enthusiasm and sincerity by expressing your own excitement, and that might result in them offering to withdraw. I am under no obligation to have you or anyone else tell me to whom I must send my emails anymore than you are obligated to publish links to the *real* PCO story.

    Other than Lew or the Columbian, anyone who thinks this is the big story of the PCO races is not paying attention. Of course, if you only get your information here, you will not have any idea because Lew will not give you a direct link to it — only his filtered and propagandized version of it as he wants you to perceive it.

    Like

  50. Where did I say you were under any obligation to send anything, Christian? More smoke screen from you?

    But please, make up your mind on your intent, the *real* story as you say.

    The original email speaks for itself and all of your subsequent bluster has not changed one single word of it.

    And again, if you and Dan wish to build your readership, do it as I did and not by trying to piggyback on someone else.

    Please explain how posting your email in full, without any editing whatsoever is a “filtered and propagandized version.”

    In the mean time, I exercise my constitutional right to operate my blog as I desire, not as you wish.

    I would advise you to worry more about about the upcoming elections as it appears y’all are losing support. Maybe not much just yet, but you’re going to need all of the help you can get.

    Like

  51. You know, Christian, thinking over your comments here and smokescreen efforts elsewhere, I can’t help but notice a similarity to other claims we have heard over the years.

    Such as “I was taken out of context,” “what I really meant was,” “You did not actually hear that,” and more as wagons have been circled around Obama and the Clinton’s before him.

    Just sayin’.

    Like

  52. Lew, I’m sure your misapplication of my remark was not accidental, but since you asked: I was referring to a filtered version of the real story meaning the story of illegal or fraudulent application filings, some against the will of and/or without the permission of the “filer”, a story which, if the violations were perpetrated by the grassroots and not the so-called establishment, you would no doubt be trumpeting for justice.

    Like

  53. You and Jay Carney 😉

    Like

  54. “Now that you have taken this important step, you have one opportunity THIS WEEKEND to convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race. We have a very successful way to make this happen with a phone call.”

    “Do not talk about this email. Do not forward this email. Just make your one call to your one opponent and be super nice and cheerful. You want to create a situation where THEY OFFER to withdraw.”

    “The more unopposed races we have, the more we will all be able to concentrate our efforts on the rest! This is our chance to win 20-30 races in one day. Good luck tomorrow, let us know how it goes. This is gonna be fun!!!”

    Strange, I can’t seem to find one word in any of that about any fraudulent filings or filings without someone’s permission.

    In fact, it seems just the opposite.

    Like

  55. Geeze Lew, I just told you the purpose of the email in my prior comment – again. Why are you putting words in my mouth that the purpose was to ferret out fraudulent filings? We definitely knew there were people recruited who could really care less about being a PCO. But have I said somewhere that the purpose was to find fraudulent filings? I clearly, CLEARLY stated the purpose in my comment at May 22, 2014 at 1:34 PM. Your continued tactic of putting words into my mouth so you can appear to controvert them is juvenile and tiresome. It is also transparently obvious to any objective observer. You discredit yourself further every time to do it — and you do it habitually.

    Like

  56. You get more laughable all of the time, Christian. I’ll tell you the same thing I told Jon Russell, you re your own worst enemy.

    Bray all you want, nobody put any words in your mouth, it’s all right there, your own words exactly as you wrote them in all of the bluster of “what you really meant” has not negated one word you wrote and sent to just a selective few.

    But like Jay Carney and Bagdhad Bob, you wish to keep throwing out your smokescreen to mask what you have been caught at.

    Not unlike back when you put those traffic sign looking signs up entering the freeway, never checking with anybody first to find out you were violating state law or that it was the very issue we used to defeat Sherry Parker with.

    All anybody needs do is read the original email to see how full of it your subsequent smoke screen effort is.

    And since I am so discredited, why are you continually here to raise your smoke screen?

    You got caught with your pants down, time to man up and accept that you were caught, again.

    Like

  57. I never said anywhere the original intent of the email was to find fraudulent filings. YOU said that I said that. Trying to converse with you is (still) pointless, as you don’t even converse in an intellectually honest or consistent manner. I will consider your future direct questions of me to be merely rhetorical and not worthy of a response. Have fun.

    Like

  58. You’re just digging yourself in deeper and deeper, Christian.

    How was Dan’s post you desperately wanted to link here worded?

    If Dan’s post has nothing to do with your original email sent out, what is your beef?

    Or are you admitting what I have been saying, that the post by Dan is irrelevant to my post on your original email?

    You can’t have it both ways, Christian.

    Like

  59. Incidentally, it is not up to you about questions or responses here. Remember, this is my blog, not yours, you don’t have any say in what I ask or respond to or not.

    Only your arrogance would make you think you do.

    Like

  60. The first thing you would discover – is if they did not WANT to be a candidate.

    Second you might find out that they are more enthusiastic and smart and innovative than you are. You may realize just how busy the rest of your life has become while speaking to them

    You might start remembering just how many meetings you have missed.

    One of the facts of life about PCO races, is that they are often decided by voters with no info. While ideology should not be a factor – participation should be. Enthusiasm is a primary gauge of this.

    I don’t know who the email went to, but if it just went to people with a high attendance record at the meetings it would seem appropriate to me.

    Uncovering the fraud was just a bonus.

    Like

  61. All of that is pretty much negated due to the secrecy involved and the clearly stated effort of “You want to create a situation where THEY OFFER to withdraw.”

    If their name was added without their knowledge, it’s doubtful they would try to win. And if someone else does want to win that precinct, they will campaign to and likely will win.

    And again, that it went to select individuals speaks tons. Had it gone to all and been transparent, I might look at it differently. But it didn’t.

    There isn’t enough vinegar made to spray into the air to cover what it was.

    Like

  62. Oh, and if they intend to keep accusing the WSRP and that attorney up there of fraud, I hope they have their ducks in a row.

    Some people in more powerful positions don’t take too kindly to such things

    Like

  63. The email sent out by participants of the newly elected CCRP requesting certain people who have filed to become a PCO to voluntarily drop out of the race is the most unethical behavior I have seen in all the 20 years I have worked for the Republican Party; a Party that needs unity and not more divisiveness. And the attempted cover up of those participants, whose hands were caught in the cookie jar, is almost laughable.

    Like

  64. Ann, just to confirm…you find the recent PCO recruiting actions the most unethical you’ve seen in 20 years, including the recent and confirmed fraudulent PCO filings?

    Like

  65. This crap sickens me, just as a broken printer was a reason assigned for halting people from voicing themselves at the only caucus I attended. I will be out talking and convincing my American neighbors to vote for Carolyn or Lisa or whoever survives this exercise in ego’s. At least I am certain they love this country and do not wish away the Constitution. Was I surprised to see someone standing to take away my seat? yep, but then I did not ask for it. It was vacant. Has he returned my call? Nope. I’d like to meet the guy, and wonder why we have not yet met. Nor have I seen him working the precinct. Frankly I do not care. Let’s get this crap off our chests and get to work. We will not long survive another round of this subversion of our beautiful country. .I am proud of these two very good people stepping up, and it is the least I can do to help them whether I am re-elected or not. Enough of this demonizing each other. That is the play book of the enemies.

    Like

  66. My apologies if there is a delay in moderating and approving comments.

    I’m very busy with my “armchair quarterbacking” preparing and uploading video of last evening Sheriff’s candidate forum in full, so that everybody in the community that couldn’t attend and may wish to view it may do so.

    Like

  67. Lew these people have no idea what they have done nor do they care. They have no idea how many people this has affected but they will find out. I am entitled to my opinion…well thanks a lot guys because it doesn’t matter why this letter was sent out. The perception is that you want to pick and choose your party and that some of you want to destroy it. Lew is right you have shown in your responses that you were going to get the people you wanted for PCOS and you thought with your letter you would pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. You want to try to not appear divisive and then you do the very things that shows division. Then you insult the people you will need to keep this party going. Well good luck to you but be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. YOU guys who are so gung ho to get the proper PCO’s may just have pissed off enough people that you will get opposite of what you want. At least I hope so.

    Like

  68. Micheline Doan, Lew Waters and Debbie Peterson
    My experience with the PCO Liberty Alliance gave me an early glimpse into the way this cabal, which has now seized control of the CCRP, operates. They deliberately hid the fact that the majority of their PCO candidates were devotees of Ron Paul and created their slate as surreptitiously as possible. When they submitted that slate, they selected a candidate to run in the 410 without bothering to vet me as possibly acceptable, even though I was the 410 PCO of record. Evidently, only Paulbots were acceptable. I published this deception by e-mail to all my Roundtable contacts and was rewarded by an explosion of denials including the allegation that Mr. Berrigan, who had been selected to lead the local PCO Liberty Alliance, was a former Santorum supporter and that was supposed to prove the Paulies were not running the show (they know Ron Paul has few followers in the GOP mainstream; the Communist Party of the US used front groups in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason). I was accused of slandering the PCO Liberty Alliance for revealing the truth, but I was not deterred…many communists about whom I have also told the truth have made the same charges of slander dating back to the ’60s. I am not currently active In the local GOP and am not likely to be in the near future. The truth cannot set these people free, but it will reveal their actual loyalties.

    Like

  69. I couldn’t help but notice recently, given that I have been told that other little hole in the wall site is an “outstanding blog,” that while they have boasted of catching a sign thief that resulted in who knows how much tax dollars wasted in prosecutions for a diversion that did not curtail any sign vandalism or win a single election and now a circling of the wagons with allegations largely unsubstantiated against the WSRP and an attorney up in Seattle area, I see very little, if any, promotion of Republican candidates running for office.

    In fact, as the later post on the Sheriff’s Candidate forum shows, I was present for that, videotaping the entire event and spending most of the day and evening yesterday uploading it after editing it to share, I do not recall seeing a single Clark GOP leader present. Even though two of the candidates have filed to run as Republicans, the other two not stating a party preference. And, I’m not even a member of the Republican Party any longer.

    What is the current Republican party there for, boasting of sign thief capture and protecting PCO’s while candidates languish in their campaigns for office?

    Or will they only offer some support to just a few that are favorable only to their extremist base?

    All of the smoke screens they can throw out will not change the intent of the original email.

    Like

  70. Almost funny, I’m seeing a lot of comments on facebook about sign vandalism again.

    I thought this PCO Liberty Alliance took care of all of that with their sting?

    I guess when grandstanding is more important than electing candidates, it’s what you get.

    Like

  71. Jim Johnson – THANK YOU!

    Like

  72. “What is the current Republican party there for, boasting of sign thief capture and protecting PCO’s while candidates languish in their campaigns for office?”

    One could ask the same question of the last 4 decades of the party, Lew? What have they been there for? A number of them have commented on this thread, touting there decades of political experience and activism in the party. They have used that “experience” to insinuate that the current party leadership (all of 18 months in control) is making mistake after mistake and should be listening to the advice and council of their self-proclaimed CCGOP aristocracy. So what has all of those decades produced in terms of candidates? A Republican governor 34 years ago? When did they achieve a Republican conservative majority in Olympia? Prior to Madore & Meilke, when did they have a conservative majority of county commissioners? Or what about the VCC, when again was it that all of their vast experience, knowledge, and political expertise that they get candidates to gain a majority at city hall?

    If your goal and their goal truly is the promotion of conservatism and the election of conservative candidates, then Jim’s comments above are spot on. I, however, do not believe for one second that is your or their primary goal.

    Like

  73. In the first place, Frank, you and your little band do not get to define just what is and isn’t “conservatism.”

    Strange that you would even mention a Republican majority as if it were solely upon Clark County to accomplish, especially given that your group not only did not win any elections last year, but lost ground when Jeanne Stewart was defeated. And, your group controlling the Clark County party will ensure Olympia sees a majority of your favor?

    Where were any of you Thursday? Are you unaware that two candidates filed as Republican?

    Personally, I give a rats ass what you think. You don’t know me or much of anything about me. But it’s apparent that you can’t handle when your group is “fileted open like a carp.”

    Don’t cry how you want transparency when you work to hide what you all do.

    Like

  74. Thursday? Oh, that’s the day all of us Paulbots are required to plug in, recharge, and get the latest downloads from cult headquarters 🙂

    Strange though that you should mention the elections last year. They were the new party leadership’s first elections and all non-partisan positions at that. Decades of elections compared to a single election cycle–yes, that is more than a fair comparison. But since you mentioned it Lew, what exactly did the CCGOP not due right in that election? Did they only support Paulbot candidates? Is Jeanne a Paulbot? How about Micheline? How about Bill? Did they not raise exponentially more money with their LDD for the sole purpose of supporting candidates like those? Did they not support those candidates financially? Did they not invite all those candidates to speak to the PCO’s at more than one central committee meeting? Did they not encourage the PCO’s on multiple occasions to help those candidates canvass neighborhoods? DId they not make an investment in data purchases and mobile canvasing tools for all those candidates? Did they not openly endorse any of those Republican candidates in non-partisan races who requested the endorsement? What exactly is it that these “extremists” did wrong or didn’t do, Lew?

    I know, I know, you’ve made it very clear that it’s you’re Constitutional right to control the conversation on your blog, I get that. But I’m asking you, man to man, can you please explain what they did wrong in that election (since you brought it up) while at the same time apologizing for not supporting Anne, who while not a Paulbot, is very clearly a left-wing progressive?

    Like

  75. Frank, spin is not your strong suit. Everybody knows both parties have always stuck their noses into so called nonpartisan races. Strange too that you would excuse losing every single election last year because they were “new.” You really should look back at what was done before, you know, the official record? And true, not as well as I would have liked, but better than what we see of late.

    If I were you, I’d be careful of trying to0 glorify “Paulbot” candidates, there isn’t much or a record of wins there either, what with Ron Paul not winning a single state primary in three tries, not even his home state and Michael Delavar losing in 2008 by the largest margin in the 3rd Congressional District in 20 years and losing an incumbent seat on the Washougal City Council by some 8 points. I guess we could say that is one of those kettle/black things, know what I mean? 😉

    You even miss the point of my slapping back at you with my constitutional right comments and that has me laughing my head off.

    But one thing you ought to ask yourself, since I am considered one with an “Inflated ego that is externally controlled and can’t function without the conflict you supposedly unwittingly supply,” why then was it you all who sought me out? I didn’t seek you out.

    In fact, why do you even continue returning? I hear tell I only have 3 readers and y’all have an “outstanding blog,” so why bother with little old me?

    I guess the final judgement will be seen after the elections and in subsequent elections, won’t they?

    And say what you will about Anne. Even though I disagree with her on many issues and she knows I do, she has more class in her little finger than you hold in your entire self.

    Now, why don’t you go focus on catching another sign thief or something you think is productive. I hear here is a lot of sign vandalism still going on.

    Like

  76. You can keep trying to tie me to someone else or a group of people, Lew, but as I’ve said before I represent myself and only myself. My only position with the CCGOP is PCO 641.

    But I can’t help but notice you avoided my reasonable question completely. You employ the same exact tactics a liberal does: 1. Avoid answering the question, 2. Shift the conversation topic, 3. Resort to personal attacks and name calling.

    But what is most telling about you and your “class”, Lew, is this. We have disagreed on exactly two topics: Teacher Evaluation Accountability and this email about PCO recruitment. So, for no other reason than those two issues on which we disagree and the fact that I was a Ron Paul supporter, you have declared me a “shit smear” with no class in whom you are “sorely disappointed”.

    Very telling indeed.

    Like

  77. Lord almighty. Are we so bored in retirement that we seek out high drama even to the point of ginning it up? For the life of me, this is confounding. The wheels have gone off this country, and we choose to go pick fights where there need be none. Somebody is scaring up a whole lot of suspicion where I have yet to see any. In my time in office, I am pleased with my fellow PCO’s I meet, and even more so the neighbors i Knock and talk with. Somebody wishes to unseat me, but I have never met the guy. What’s up with that? Is this some school yard where I happened to hang around the wrong crowd? Do we know what the best defense policy is, or the correct policies for foreign affairs, or can argue Keynesian Economics? Nope. Don’t kid yourselves, it is way beyond out pay grades. But then the focus needs be right here under our feet, and we do have some ideas about that. That is my job. Find good people and promote them. I suspect you all have good reasons to suspect each other. Count me out. Recess is over.

    Like

  78. And yet, you and Jimmy can’t help but continuing to engage in what you believe to be a waste of time.

    What are you trying to prove? You sure as hell aren’t going to prove anything to me. Are you just trying to prove you can get me to oppose those you support? Or like other Paulbots, do you really think you are going to “get in my face” and force me to back losers?

    Stop wasting time here and go catch a sign thief or undermine PCO’s that you feel don’t support your view.

    Like

  79. I met Mr. Decker in a formal setting, and believe him an honorable American. I made a judgement call, but then that is what I am here for. I felt an affinity for his reasoning processes that would give us decisions i could at least respect as from a solid citizen, so I banged on doors on his behalf. But then most of my neighbors decided not to even vote. Looking at this kind of politics, I can see why. As for the rest of this conspiratorial drama erupting, well, I guess you just have to go with your gut instincts. I also suppose many of you have been burned, as happened with this mayor, apparently. All I can say, Mr. Waters, is I am not part of any game being run, nor would I abide it. Not from you, not from anyone. My Father died for this country. I plan on smiling when I meet him again.

    Like

  80. And what you think of Decker matters to me because?

    And don’t forget, Jimmy, y’all keep coming back here, I’m not seeking you out.

    While I appreciate your father’s sacrifice, that also has little bearing on either you or me. I don’t engage in games, I just write my opinions, whether people like it or not. Take it or leave it, your choice.

    You do what you think is best and I’ll do the same.

    Like

  81. Good news and bad news, Lew. The good news is this is my last post on your blog. Everything that needs to be said has been and you, Hinton, and the rest of the establishment CCGOP aristocracy have done an excellent job showing all of us your true colors. So, consider this “shit smear”, a term you haven’t even used on the likes of Moeller, Lou, or even Leavitt, out of your hair.

    The bad news? Well, the bad news is you and the establishment puppeteers that pull your strings have reached the end of your relevancy in Clark County.

    But, being as tomorrow is Memorial Day and you are a fellow veteran, let me say this with all sincerity–Thank you for your military service to this country.

    Take care and best of luck.

    Frank

    Like

  82. Enjoy, I have my popcorn all popped and will sit idly by watching the train wreck that’s coming.

    We’ll see who’s relevant, LOL

    Like

  83. I’M a member of the “establishment?”

    I’M “having my strings pulled?”

    Decker… You’ve got a screw loose.

    Like

  84. The problem, Frank, is that there is no, “together.” What there is, is a bunch of newby’s who have systematically divided the Republican party. Congratulations. If that was the intent- they have done a magnificent job. I don’t know. It seems like the Republicans have done pretty well, so far, without the newby help. Let’s see. 18th District: 3 Rep. seats. 17th District: 2 Rep. seats. County Commish: 2 Rep. seats. Republicans: County Auditor, County Assessor, County Clerk, 49th District: 0 republican seats. City Council: 2011 – $95,000 spent, gain of 1 candidate (The old Republicans – and we had one AWOL candidate and one really young candidate). 2013: $115,000+ spent – gain of 0 candidates (and you guys had four really great candidates to work with.) So, would it have been helpful for the PAC to filter their ideas through a couple of the Old Republicans? Probably. Yes, I know Anna was involved with the PAC, but at the critical end, she was really sick, so they should have brought someone else in, or listened to the advice that was given. Am I grateful for the PAC? Sure. But grateful didn’t gain us any seats. Of Course I asked Lisa to drop out. I, probably more than anyone else, have that right, given my involvement in the 49th, and politics, in general. I have seen two races where the newby folks didn’t support the primary winner because???? Who knows why. They take their marbles and go home: Rossi/Didier race. Herrera race. Lisa has had small races where she should have won, and didn’t. The CCRP Treasurer’s race and the School District race. She did not show up to one School District Board meeting. Her campaign skills are slim, and in this race, it is going to take someone who is willing to get out and do the grunt work. I haven’t seen that in Lisa, yet. Carolyn has worked for over three years, building a base – making connections. It is not that dues are owed to Carolyn – it’s just that it makes sense for her to run, given the knowledge, background and connections. If all the items in the plus column were reversed, I’d be supporting Lisa. So Frank, any bets on once Lisa loses the primary, she and her supporters back away and don ‘t lift a finger for Carolyn? Exactly. Of course you guys won’t. In fact, I can see you guys not voting for Carolyn, in the general. You’ll have a meeting, decide for whatever reason that Carolyn isn’t worthy of your vote, and be an under vote statistic.

    Like

  85. The only measure I can think of for these “newbies” (more name-calling-grrr.) is the past caucus that went from a few hundred to 1500 people. Most PCO positions were vacant or held by people encouraged to do a job that only required them to ‘do something’ once every two years. There really was no time to debate issues, much less hear them, and it quickly became apparent thru procedural shenanigans that some voices were absolutely taboo. Deviation from upper chambers was not to be questioned. More and more, government is trying to impose itself thru my front door, take away my health care, and tell me what to eat, drink, smoke and say. I have seen the ‘system’ as designed, and still we divide ourselves and worst of the worst is we still are not effectively talking to our neighbors. I expected some sense of something would be fixed by now. Seems the effort is more about wearing people down or insulting them into quitting. That is not going to happen, not now nor not here. Working people showed up and quadrupled the interest and participation. People standing up for the future of their kids. The process of standing up for office will both educate and focus Lisa and Carolyn, and we shall all take that measure soon enough. I thank you all for being at this stuff much longer than I. But do not make me feel unwelcome. I begin to question motives when that occurs.

    Like

  86. “do not make me feel unwelcome. I begin to question motives when that occurs.”

    Tell me about it

    Like

  87. Debbie, I couldn’t have said it better. One lesson I have learned about running for office is the only person you can depend on if you want to win is yourself. That is what Carolyn is doing and that is why she will beat Jim Moeller.

    Like

  88. Do not go away Jim Johnson. We need you talking to neighbors and helping take control of this country again at every level.

    Like