Posted on 07/30/2005 7:35:42 AM PDT by sionnsar
Baynative, I couldn't agree with you more. A new day IS dawning! The public got their wakeup call thanks to King County Elections, and anybody with a brain now sees how easily their vote can be "lost", stolen or otherwise erased by a dishonest county emoployee, a Democrat out casting illegal votes for the dead, or a Democrat judge who refuses to be swayed by the facts.
Conservatives are finally coming together crossing party lines, thanks to many new groups fighting the various good fights. It does my old heart good to see how much new blood is surging through the many battle groups, and Conservative Republicans and Democrats are fighting side by side and shoulder to shoulder. That's exactly what it will take to bring about change.
As for why good people don't sit Reagan Dunn down and give him the advice he needs to hear ("Don't do this to yourself and your political career"), believe me, he has been told this MANY times. The problem is, he has Mom's big power brokers advising him that he can still pull the wool over the eyes of the local yokels, and that he can and will pull this off.
Those same power brokers are at work on behalf of other candidates too, and the following email will show this. In a nutshell, there is a life and death struggle going on in the Republican Party for CONTROL. The question is, who will run the party and make its decisions, the grassroots, or the "kingmakers"?
Bob Strauss and Dick Durham are both long time (decades long) party workers and officers on many levels, but both are appalled by the move to take over the party and delegate the PCOs and grassroots workers as just mindless zombies who simply follow orders and support whoever the "brains" tell them to. That's the battle in a nutshell. Locally, we see it in the Dunn/Hammond battle, soon we will see it on a higher level, since McGavick has been annointed to take on Cantwell, and no other candidates need apply.
Here's what these two guys have to say:
"Last week Mike McGavick announced that he was forming an exploratory committee to consider a run for the Senate. Even before he announced his candidacy the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and “Republicans in the Nations Capital” announced that McGavick was the “Consensus Candidate” to defeat Cantwell. Over the past week I have been quoted in a couple of newspapers, and I want to make sure that it is understood that I have no problem with Mike McGavick running for the Senate. What concerns me is that he is being “anointed”, and the grassroots activists are expected to just go along.
"The NRSC and the “party elite” in Washington State and Washington DC are hoping the McGavick will not have to compete in a primary. This is my reaction, as reported by the Seattle Times: Bob Strauss of Redmond, a member of the GOP's state executive board, said, "I completely disagree" that the party should avoid a contested primary. He…has seen "time and time again, where there is no contest and people skate through (an uncontested primary), they usually are just not as good a candidate." ‘The Hill’ quoted me as saying: “I work too hard in this party to have some kingmaker tell me who my candidate is going to be”.
"What really bothered me about the NRSC is that an aide (from the NRSC) was quoted as saying: “The first potential problem is we don’t have anyone who’s really interested in running”. I personally know three people who were testing the waters, in addition to McGavick.
"Last year, as a member of the State Executive Board, I voted twice to make a pre-primary endorsement; once for Rossi, and once for Nethercutt. Each time we (the Executive Board) were told that unless we gave an early endorsement there would be no money coming from DC to help the candidates. Even with the preprimary endorsements, we did not win any more races than we had in the past with contested primaries.
"As the 8th CD member of the State Executive Board (and the King County State Committeeman) I am inclined to oppose any requests for preprimary endorsements in this upcoming election cycle. I would like to get input from the grassroots. Are you happy having a candidate “anointed”? Do you want uncontested primaries? Do you think that the “party elite” can make better choices than you can? (I know that all these questions are framed with a negative spin, but it is my e-mail. If you think I am looking at this wrong, please let me know. I am your Representative on the WSRP Executive Board, and I am asking for your opinion.)
"Below is an e-mail from Dick Durham. In the e-mail he reaches the same conclusion that I reached; he just lays it out better. I am sorry that this e-mail is so long, but I felt it was important to start having this discussion.
"If you have any comments, please e-mail them to me. Please feel free to forward this e-mail."
/s/Bob Strauss
mailto:strauss@att.net
(206)972-7568
Bob,
"I read your comment in the paper. A talking point that you might find useful in discussing the "anointing" of candidates....
"Under our new rules, used for the first time this year and never used at the state level, the Republican State Committee is responsible for administering the process by which candidates will qualify for the ballot.
"In order to maintain the credibility of the process and the acceptance of the results, what policies should the party have in place regarding: pre convention endorsement, public statements by party officials, and access to party resources?
"This is a new issue no one has had to work through before. (Or at least it has substantial new elements to the old issue of preprimary endorsements),
"My own view: we are now asserting (contrary to the desires of many Washingtonians and nearly all the press), the right to limit the number of Republicans who may appear on the ballot. If we do that through a vigorous precinct caucus and convention process we can point to increased public participation in our party. If we do it (European style) by anointing (or, which is the same thing for public purposes) appearing to anoint a candidate, we undermine the credibility of the process we have just fought two law suits to get in place.
"In addition to undermining credibility of the process with the general public, we also transform an intra-party contest from a discussion of who is our best standard-bearer into a divisive contest between the "party elite" and the "grass roots." While the elite may usually win, especially if they have chosen a good candidate, they will leave scars that will damage what we are all working for.
"Note: these points assume the bona fide intentions of the leadership lining up behind a particular candidate. And party leadership is in an interesting position: on the one hand, it is their responsibility to recruit, encourage and support qualified candidates for office (and how do you do that if you don't go out and recruit?) and on the other hand they may have an obligation to be even-handed among all candidates.
"2005 is the time for the state party to work through carefully a Policy Position on what it and its leaders will do not only in the Senate race, but this applies equally at the state legislative level." (Ths email was from Dick Durham to Bob Strauss)
See Post #61.
From Stefan Sharkansky:
Here's the latest installment in our occasional series of Dumb E-mails from Elected Officials.
Rep. Jim Moeller (D-49) of Vancouver, sent this e-mail to Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation upon receipt of Williams' essay on election reform in the July 2005 issue of Imprimis
Sour grapes Mr. Williams! You are a Republican (or perhaps Libertarian). Your candidate lost. End of story. People aren't being prosecuted because there was no fraud. You and the Republican party went venue shopping hoping you could find a sympathic ear in Eastern Washington for your pleas and what you got was an ear full. Why or why did I not hear you howls of protest of fraud, enhanced ballots, and illegal voting after the presidential election of 2000? Because you candidate won! Jesus, you are so transparent as to be comical. Move on Mr. Williams or better yet, just move. Sincerely,
Representative Jim Moeller
49th Legislative District
P. O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
360-786-7872
Point of fact: People are being prosecuted for vote fraud, albeit not as many as should be. But what kind of elected official is so eager to offend people that he would use the name "Jesus" in vain in an e-mail and then tell a citizen he disagrees with to "move"? Sheesh.
"Mr." Moeller needs to have that shoved up his caboose!
Please add me to the ping list. Thank you!
You're on the list now. Welcome!
I went to the CAPR meeting last night. Unfortunately, don't know what any of you look like, so couldn't say hello (should have made arrangements before the meeting). I did see a car in the parking lot w a vanity license plate that made me know at least 1 FR was at the meeting - couldn't help but get a big grin when I saw it.
So you saw my "Freeper" custom license plate...neat, eh? You should have yelled "hey holyscroller" and we could have met. The meeting was good but a tad less active than usual. It was interesting though, wasn't it. Hope you can come again. You don't happen to have a wife with a grey upswept hairdo do you? I dind't recognize that couple.
Yes, I saw it and yes, I thought it was great!
No, since I'm a she, I don't have a wife ;-)
I was sitting towards the back, have semi-long brown hair and had on a beige slacks w a tan jacket - -you may have seen me trying to 'sneak' out (hard to do since I had to walk across the room! - I had to leave about 8).
Yes, the meeting was very interesting. I think it's a hoot that the Rural Majority didn't register their name and do all the other appropriate paperwork w the state and the Pubbies (who are the REAL Rural Majority) took it over!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.