February 05, 2005
Reagan Wing Response
For anyone interested, the Reagan Wing has posted a response to my report from the Washington State Chair Candidate debate they hosted last Friday.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at February 05, 2005
09:14 PM | Email This
1. hmmm. he sounded extremely defensive....
2. Good Call. We had been falsely accused. You were reading my defense.
If the Republican Party is going to win state-wide races in WA, it very much needs thoughtful activists with a little real-world pragmatism like Timothy Goddard.
In reading the "Fireworks, Anarchy and Spin" piece on thereaganwing.com, a number of things jumped out; including:
(Vance) "He had come with a posse (including Diane Tebelius and Fredi Simpson)."
"But when some of the Vance thugs got up ...."
".... our incumbent Chair is intervening on behalf of the party’s enemies and ensuring Democrat victories"
Rose Strong and Mark Hulst were credible, experienced candidates for State Party Chair. But tirades like the "Fireworks, Anarchy and Spin" piece by Doug Parris help only one party: The Democrats.
And let the record show I object to Mr. Parris referring to a group of people that included Diane Tebelius and Fredi Simpson as "thugs"; that is out of line. Diane is a well-respected, hard-working, nationally-recognized attorney who has made significant contributions to the GOP. Fredi Simpson is County Chair of my neighboring Chelan County; I met her at the big ReVote Rally in Oly on 11 January. She is personable and outgoing; and IMO another example of someone we are fortunate to have as a Republican Party activist.
And while I am not going to get in to what Chris Vance might have or should have or could have done different in the last few years, IMO he has done a pretty good job of leading the charge as the partisan public face of the State Party on the current far-and-away top priority of pursuing the Election Contest for Gov. The comments by Mr. Parris do not help that effort at all either. And to insinuate Chris Vance is trying to help the party's "enemies".... Come on, that is over the top:
(1) Opponents, not enemies; unless you want to give David Postman and other serious reporters material for yet another piece about how (R)s do not seem interested in broadening their base enough to win State-wide.
(2) The best tactics can be debated, but I am confident Chris Vance is very interested in having Republicans WIN elections. That piece by Mr. Parris makes me wonder how interested he is.
(who just happens to be a 2-time elected-not-appointed (R) PCO, *and* an Area Chair).
At the risk of getting involved in something I don't necessarily want to be involved in, I am going to weigh in on this. I had never heard of Tim Goddard before reading soundpolitics.com and I had never heard of the Reagan Wing before reading Tim Goddard. I think, however, that both sides need to take a step back and review how they interpret events and express themselves. Both stories appeared somewhat hyperbolic and self serving. Goddard was obviously less than enthused with the Reagan Wing going into the event, and the Reagan Wing obviously had an axe to grind against Chris Vance. This being said, the descriptions of the events by each party seemed fairly self serving and designed to reinforce their viewpoints.
I would suggest, first of all, that the organizer of a debate has the absolute right to set the terms of the debate. As the Reagan Wing pointed out, they paid for the microphone and issued invitations based on certain expectations. If Chris Vance did indeed attempt to turn it into a press conference, then he was in the wrong.
I think it might be time, now that we have all had a chance to blow off some steam, to take a step back and figure out how we can work together for the next two years to take back Olympia. If we don't like the management style of the party chair, tough. We have to deal with him for the next four years. If we truly believe that the state party is to moderate or left, then we need to recruit candidates who can win while reflecting our views.
Over the past twenty five years the Republican party has consistently won when espousing a conservative message (Reagan, G.W. Bush, Congress, etc) and consistently lost when espousing a moderate/liberal message (Bush Sr, Dole). It should be fairly obvious that we need to expand our base by convincing people that we are different from the Democrats, not by convincing people that we are a better version of the Democrats. In this I agree with the Reagan Wing.
However, we certainly don't win by alienating people who might be interested in working with us by attacking their views, attacking their events, and generally causing discord. If we don't like a wing of the party, don't attend their events, or attend their events with an eye towards politely disagreeing and then stating clearly and concisely why. They can then decide if you are right.
I'm reminded of the Eleventh Commandment...surely it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. If there are those who want to do jihad on Chris Vance, I would suggest they are a minority, and should act like it.
I have no interest in a repeat of the Craswell years. If you would win a statewide election, you must ask how your message will sell in the Puget Sound suburbs, because that's where it will be won or lost.
They are playing with fire.
I completely agree with South County.
To tie this in to the post above, Kristin Brost's soundbites and press releases make her like an absolute idiot, an indulged child with extremist little temper tantrums that may speak to leftwing nuts, but will never resonate with the general voter base. She is a present wrapped in a nice little red bow to the WSRP, and I only wish her well in her role of making the State Democrat less and less relevant to Washington state voters.
The point is, leave all the indulged children, temper tantrum, get out of "my" party-type antics to the Democrats. That is, unless you do want to return to the marginalized Craswell years. Rossi won the election precisely because he spoke to the normal person on the street, not only in the suburbs but in the inner city and on the farms. Rossi's message was one of moderation and inclusiveness, not extremism and divisiveness. Other than dead people and felons, most people who vote tend to be normal, rational, everday types whose main concern is putting food on their families' tables. Kudos to Rossi - the Republican wing of the Republican Party needs to take back its party in this state.
COPY OF EMAIL SENT TO REAGANWING.COM
Until today I hadn't heard of your blog page. I have now bookmarked it.
I was reading SoundPolitics and saw the posting of your comments back to Goddard.
Two things jump out at me:
1). I have been frustrated for several years at the lack of proactive movement on the part of the Republican party in Snohomish County and other areas of Washington. The lack of strong candidates or when we do have one; we don't rally. This said, I am grateful for the outrising of strong Republican bloggers as a result of the Gregoire mess. The investigations, analyzing and efforts on the Internet may just save us from eternal liberalism here in the greater Puget Sound.
My hope: Passion is wonderful and needed. There also needs to be some semblance of teamwork. If we want to build this party to maximum potential, we MUST find some ability to be respectful and cohesive while still agreeing to disagree. The Democratic machine is far too skilled in campaigning for us to fight with each other on the sidelines.
Thank you for being involved, I am given hope.
2). I worked hundreds of hours on the campaign in which you spoke of (Betty Neighbors vs Chris Vance). My role was to be with the delegate when at all possible. You don't spend hours driving with a delegate on the roads of Snohomish County to obscure rural places you have never heard of without learning a great deal about that person. Being the type of person that I am, the car was continuously filled with questions, debate and learing. Betty Neighbor's opponent was and is not the same as Aaron Reardon. To compare the two in such a manner makes me nauseated. Their ideology, integrity and style are worlds a part. After the primary, during the general campaign, it was on a daily basis that the differences between the two candidates became more and more evident. Trust me, after having several unpleasant run-ins with the democratic candidate when I defied him to tell the truth...well anyway. Dave Earling beat Betty Neighbors for many reasons. Dave Earling should and could have won the General (and Snohomish County wouldn't be in the mess it is in) if there other factors were in play: Support of people such as yourself and the elimination of the union machine. Voter turnout was absolutely horrendous and the union 'boys' were out in full force. Look at the numbers.
To make a statement about Dave Earling in such an off hand manner is unsettling. If you are going to support the idea that Betty (an amazing woman who has an amazing future IF she is supported to look at the truth of why she lost) lost the campaign because of Chris Vance, then you should investigate more thoroughly.
Chris Vance has had a rise in power lately. Chris Vance had some say in the Snohomish County Election for Executive but not as much as you think. Certainly not enough to doom a candidate.
Lynn S. Eul
Thanks for the kind words from those who have offered them. Calvin A, can you explain how exactly my post was "self serving?" As far as I was concerned, there was no "self" to serve in that instance. I was not a participant in the debate, and to the extent that I had a "dog in the fight," I had endorsed Vance's opponents. I'm just wondering what you meant by that.
At any rate, in case anyone was curious, I stand by my depiction of events.
Methow Ken and calvin
with all do respect I was at the debate.
Let me state for the record I am not a
member of the reagan wing.Most of what
Mr parris said about the debate is true.
As far as fredi simpson and diane tebelius
are concerned maybe his characterazations
were a little over top but the week before
the elections fredi simpon unleashed one the most
vicous personal attacks on mark hulst I have
in 20 years ever seen.
Diane tebelius helped vance game the system
during the elections to help him win.So don't
sit there and tell me these 2 are such civic
One more time I will say this about a week
in a half before the elections Vance sent
out a letter to all the state committee
members stating that Dino rossi's camp
had asked mark to drop out of the race.
Vance also repeated this in a sit down
with the media.
Rossi's camp has adamently denied that
dino or anyone from his staff ever asked
mark to drop of the race.Even mark says
this never happened.
add this to the fact vance cheated to win
reelection says volumes about his lack
of honor and integrity.
My comment is not that one "side" is right or one side is wrong, but that efforts by the Republican Party toward "moderation and inclusiveness" must be tempered by a strong stand on core Republican values. In other words, I really do not think it is in the best interests of the Republican Party in the long term to become more "moderate" simply to win elections. Winning is very important, but it is not everything. We may win elections but lose our identity.
Efforts to quiet ultra-conservative elements in the Republican Party somehow do not strike me as becoming more "inclusive." I do not always agree with what is loosely termed the "religious right," but they have a right to their views within the framework of the Republican Party. No, I don't think they should run the party totally.
But with all this talk of a more moderate Republican Party, I feel increasingly drawn to find out more about the Constitution Party, as I think many more conservative Republican will do if we are excluded with all this "inclusiveness."
I think it would strengthen the Republican Party in Washington State to move more right rather than left (moderate if you prefer) at this time, and take advantage of the fact that many people are angry over this election mess, high taxes, and the leftist agenda being scrammed down our throats at every turn.
The problem I have with Chris is based far more on his chairmanship ability than whether or not he's conservative enough to suit any part of the Party.
Does he have a vision? Can he raise money? Can he find/develop qualified candidates?
It is on these questions alone that this issue should have been decided. Unfortunately for Chris, the answers are no, no, and no.
Let's remember, Chris became Party Chair after an utterly abysmal showing against Adam Smith in 2000. The Party was in turmoil, publicly illustrated by another abysmal and recently failed congressional candidate who couldn't win the primary even though she had raised, by far, the most money of any of the Republican candidates.
The candidates were Chris Vance; Don Benton, who had raised a stunning amount of money, and John Koster, who had come fairly close to taking the WA-2. Oh yeah, let's not forget the worst possible choice for Chair, Reed Davis.
Reed Davis was eliminated in the first vote, having garnered the total of, ahem, 3 votes out of 78, the multiple editorials of the Seattle Times endorsing him for Party chair having been the kiss of death.
You see, both Davis and Vance supporters seem incapable of apparently understanding that candidates need to be judged by what they do far more than by what they say.
Davis had been at the helm of the King County GOP for 8 years, which had become, under his "skilled" leadership, a total train wreck. As Party chair, he would have brought the same talents that have turned King County into a 150,000 vote-plus Democrat strong hold. Davis turned off voters by the thousands in his very public and inexcusable clash with the Party with his whiney demands to get rid of our primary system, cherished by the vast majority of voters across the state... going so far as to publicly demand that the state GOP either join the suit filed by the democrats or that he, Davis, would use King County funds to help the dems fund it... or join their suit with the KingCo GOP party. Idiocy. Michael Young will, if anything, do much worse.
Vance, otoh, having just got his ass caved in by Smith, (The ass-caving having consisted of Vance putting together an ASTOUNDING 34.95% of the vote against Smith and a total fundraising effort of under $400,000 against Smith) brought THOSE stellar talents to the table as Party chair.
He was, however, the darling of the Veda Jellen-Jennifer Dunn-Bellevue Mafia set, who, because Benton failed to be their lap dog, wanted him publicly and politically dead (Ever hear or see the results of the audit that was supposed to "expose" Benton's mishandling of party funds? You won't, either. I wonder why...)
Since then, what has Vance accomplished? Why, he's lost control of both Houses... done NOTHING in minority outreach.... increased the dem’s margin of victory in the presidential race…. continued his abysmal fund raising.... and accomplished zilch in the area of candidate recruitment/development. He implemented his idiotic “suburban crescent” nonsense that accomplished nothing except to make him out to look like an aspiring democrat…. Working towards keeping the party base home in droves. Have I mentioned that he’s done NOTHING in minority outreach?
But, he continues to be the darling of the people that Rossi has, quite mistakenly, I might add, surrounded himself with; those same, stellar individuals most responsible for making King County into a demo punching bag. Vance is a good little lap dog… positioned exactly and precisely where the “powers that be” want him to be and exactly where we cannot afford to have him… IF we want a Republican resurgence in this state… IF we want to turn this thing around… IF we want to do more than forfeit this state, at almost every level, to the democrats.
So, for Vance supporters, here is what you have to look forward to: Republicans will continue to lose at almost every level, but certainly at the legislative level, as long as Vance is running the show.
So, in the end, I need to remind you: be careful what you wish for… Because in this case… You’ve got it.
12. Clarification of one of my comments requested by Tim. By self serving I meant that each article sounded like the author had an axe to grind and used the forum of their writing to grind it. I assume that you both have the best interests of the RP at heart but disagree with what constitutes the best interests of the party. I don't mean that either of you are personally benefitting somehow from the outcome of the race. That was just my take on the tones of the two articles. I am not for or against either side here, just hoping to see productive dialogue come out of this confrontation. The organizations that I have belonged to in which this kind of hostility continued definitely suffered from it.
13. Good post Nobody Special. Drop me your email will you.
I was going to weigh in on Timothy's behalf, but on further consideration I think that to the extent he needs my help here it isn't to come down on his "side", but rather to come down on no side.
I've been reading Timothy's blog since well before he started posting here on Sound Politics, and in all that time he's struck me as a promoter of civil, rational discussions of the issues. He's not the sort who'd enjoy having his writings cause strife among his allies, and he's certainly not the sort who would deliberately try to keep the argument alive. He posted the link to Mr. Parris' response in order to let the man have his say and left it at that.
In this comment thread I've seen people on both sides of this little intra-party rift hurling recriminations at each other, and I've seen people who have no real disagreements whatsoever tearing each other apart over perceived insults. This is idiocy, and it stops now.
Whatever our rivalries, when all is said and done we are friends and allies. Don't ever forget this. Our disagreements may be important, but they should always be pursued in a civil manner. Anything less is a distraction from the main goal of getting Republicans elected.
As for this specific instance, Mr. Parris has had his say, and presumably that satisfies his desire to respond to Timothy's description of events. Those of you zealous to defend Timothy's honor, let me assure you that he is more than capable of defending himself. He has elected to let this pass with only one or two minor caveats. I think perhaps it is time for the rest of us to do the same.
15. One difficulty in defending and explaining my statements and the positions of the Reagan Wing on the struggle within the Party is the general lack of knowledge about the history of the GOP in Washington State. Many essential points can be established as fact, with evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, but it takes a lot of documentation most people are simply unwilling to read. Let me respond directly to the above comments, but not (here and now) take up the many pages necessary to document the truths I will reference. I will, however, estimate how long my replies would be (if you were interested) and pledge to publish them later on www.TheReaganWing.com if there is significant interest expressed to me through email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
1. Since the days in the 70s when Dan Evans and Slade Gorton ruled State government directly, and the WSRP, by proxy, from the far left, the so-called “moderate” wing has held dominant power in the GOP Party Structure. They are tax-and-spend, radical environmentalist; socialist-friendly, pro-abortion, gay rights Republicans who regularly use religious bigotry as a political tool to win power. Even while conservatives have held the vast majority of grassroots positions, this “moderate” elite has dominated what is, except for them, a very conservative party by deception (i.e., making conservative-sounding speeches; supporting Rossi at the last minute) and seduction (corrupting weak-willed people by flattery). They still do.
a. Words necessary to document: 10 to fifteen thousand.
b. Riddle of the day: Q: what do they call a Marxist who runs as a Republican? A: “moderate.”
2. “Unity” among the moderates means eradication of the conservative movement and eclipsing of conservative candidates. It means demonizing anyone who takes Reagan-like positions as “extreme” and “far right” and “religious right.” “Unity” and “Pragmatism” (“U&P”) are elevated as the only principles for which the Party consistently can stand. The U&P agenda excludes the Pro-Life issue.
a. I believe I can adequately demonstrate this in 3000 words, but could document it for at least 20,000.
3. The typification of Fredi Simpson:
a. Fredi Simpson was, quite literally, one of the verbal thugs. She showed no qualms about attempting to interrupt the valid speakers on the floor if she disagreed and attempt to drown them out by talking over them with sheer volume. She openly rejected being called to order.
b. Fredi Simpson is relatively good-looking and can deliver a speech, but she has sold her soul to the liberal wing of the Party and is not an honest person.
c. Words necessary to document: about 1000.
4. The typification of Diane Tebelius:
a. Diane was a part of Vance’s posse and while I did not observe her engaging in the verbal street-gang tactics that Fredi did, she was clearly pleased, and in full approval of both those tactics and the manifold falsehoods Vance spouted from the podium.
b. Diane Tebelius is the heir-apparent to control the State Party Chair for the left. It is necessary to document her activities over time so that new and inexperienced people (like Goddard) can evaluate what she actually stands for by other means that the positions she may temporarily take in speeches.
c. Diane has used falsehoods to further the cause of the left. Words to document:750
5. “Chris Vance is very interested in having Republicans WIN elections.” Of Course! But he is convinced to do that he must use candidate censorship to ruin any primary-contested Republican Candidates who believe in Property Rights, Decreased business regulation, the right to life, parent controlled education, or who wish to contrast their conservatism with their primary opponent. He is a political liberal committed to a scorched-earth “move left” policy. He would have destroyed Rossi (whom he initially opposed and attacked) if he could have come up with an alternative. And he tried.
a. We have already proven this beyond reasonable doubt on our website in articles collectively exceeding 20 thousand words.
6. “...the Reagan Wing obviously had an axe to grind against Chris Vance.” Guilty. We have never tried to hide it. He is a destructive force within the GOP. We have proved it. But we have extended fairness to him, including during the debate that dwarfs any fairness he extended to conservatives.
a. The anti-conservative agenda and the associated violation of Party rules in King County (that ran an all-Vance plan) is a good example. Words necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt: 15,000.
7. “...the Craswell years” and “...the marginalized Craswell years.”
a. The demonization of Ellen Craswell as an example of the impossibility of winning with conservative values is half intellectual stupidity and half religious bigotry. Words necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt: 2000
b. The “Ellen Craswell Years” were a few months in 1996 when Timothy Goddard was 13 years old. She won the Republican Primary for Governor. I endorsed Pam Roach. After the primary I worked to get Ellen elected.
c. There was no “divisive primary fight,” as frequently claimed. That is a fabrication.
d. The “moderate elite,” then, as now, were in complete control of the Party structure and hated Ellen. How was it “the Craswell years?”
e. Bruce and Ellen Craswell did everything possible to cooperate with the “moderate” wing of the party who, in turn, did almost nothing to win that race. Conservatives are routinely demonized and undercut by the “U&P” elite.
f. John Carlson did worse than Ellen four years later. No one talks about “the marginalized Carlson years” Why is that? I’ll tell you. He took economically and socially moderate positions and cooperates completely with the Party elite. Conservatives who lose are supposed to prove that conservatism is not viable, but moderates (who lose more) apparently prove nothing.
g. Ellen was openly religious. She made strategic choices before, during and after her gubernatorial race I strenuously disagreed with. But she is a wonderful woman who had a great voting record in the Legislature and earned the right to run her campaign. Do not crucify her for the sins of the Party.
8. “Dave Earling beat Betty Neighbors for many reasons.” And “. Betty Neighbor's opponent was and is not the same as Aaron Reardon. To compare the two in such a manner makes me nauseated.”
a. The political similarity or difference between candidates should be a matter of open debate. Neighbors and Earling had serious differences that Neighbors was SPECIFICALLY PREVENTED FROM ADDRESSING by Chris Vance through the use of his censorship contract specifying an unlimited number of $5,000 fines that all contested Republican candidates are required to sign.
b. How is it that otherwise rational people are incapable of seeing how this is incompatible with American values of Freedom and Democracy?
c. The censorship here enacted by Vance was at the request of Earling. This is despicable. (Here I go getting emotional again. I think I’m in good company, though, if you look at American History). This should have made Lynn S. Eul nauseated before she read my article.
d. Earling and his supporters, the un-protesting beneficiaries of censorship, need to clean up their own house of censorship before they go complaining about similarities or differences between candidates so muzzled.
9. Goddard’s statement: “I stand by my depiction of events.” I cut Timothy some slack for inexperience and ignorance. If you simply accept the statements of proven prevaricators at face value (as the press did with Clinton and Goddard with Vance) you can be fooled. But if Timothy continues to stand by factual errors even after they have been exposed, it brings his honesty into question. I’ll save space and only address one simple issue.
a. I was present at every planning meeting the Reagan Wing had with regard to all the debates (including the one on the 28th) with the exception of the phone campaign (to invite every member of the State Committee) and that campaign was only promotional in nature. It was a conceived as a debate and not a reception from the beginning and never anything else.
b. Upon what evidence does Timothy claim that “The original plan was for it to be a reception, a time for members of the executive committee to meet each other and the candidates.”? This is not only fiction, it smacks of simply repeating Vance spin.
c. As evidence for my contention that this is pure fabrication I have the testimony of our entire executive board. What does Timothy present in rebuttal?
Two themes really jump out from Mr. Parris' work on the ReaganWing site: one, overly melodramatic use of the 1980 "I Paid for this Microphone" analogy, and two, a glaring pettiness that deeply undermines the persuasiveness of any rational argument he might be putting forward.
The Reagan Wing's own website can hardly be described as civil. Furthermore, while Tim Goddard's description of the events in question may or may not have been 100% correct, this would hardly be the first time members of the Reagan Wing have been accused of acting inappropriately.
Which begs a interesting question as posed by JG: how does the Republican party balance the moderation and inclusiveness necessary to win elections in this state without losing touch with its core principles? While some, incorrectly I think, might accuse Goddard of swaying too far toward pragmatist side, it seems to be inarguable that the Reagan Wing has swung too far to the side of being stridently unyielding.
For example, I had to chuckle at Mr. Parris' analysis of the Betty Neighbors race for Snoh. Co. Exec. (full disclosure, I'm the son of the man that beat her in that primary). I know Steve and Betty, and have gotten along with them well after that election, but Mr. Parris is flat out wrong. In fact, Betty was able to compare positions with her opponent in the primary, as there is evidence to prove - her consultant even took excessive liberty with the facts in achieving that separation. Moreover, Dave Earling received a higher percentage of the general election vote than any Republican who has ever run for the office, thereby making Mr. Parris' analysis of the general wholly inaccurate. In fact, had the traditionally conservative Master Builders and a number of other development interests not supported Aaron Reardon, Republicans would likely have won the seat.
These sort of overall flaws in analysis, and the very nature of the response to Goddard, are an interesting analogy to the Reagan Wing's problem as a whole: just as Mr. Parris' defense against Goddard is obsessively focused on petty details and personal attacks, the Reagan Wing has a whole seems to gets so wound up in the details that they never see the big picture. They represent some of the great principles of the party, but their approach would doom the party to failure in Washington state.
One needs no other evidence of that last point than to examine the gratuitous personal shot Mr. Parris takes at Goddard at the end of his defense: "Perhaps last month when I pointed out the inconsistency between Timothy's “pragmatic” political philosophy and his professed Christianity..."
I don’t see the evidence, necessity, or propriety in questioning Mr. Goddard's personal faith. As a fellow Christian and Republican I hardly see the dichotomy, and if Mr. Parris is attempting to argue a theological point, his attack on Mr. Goddard is more contrarian to the Christian faith than the accusations he puts forward. All the more reason to leave that issue out of this debate since it has no business there to begin with.
If unity is what we seek, it would be helpful if people could put aside ad hominem personal attacks and focus on winning elections - which if we don't do we'll never be able to enact the principles in which we all so strongly believe.
Finally, Mr. Parris’ analysis of Mr. Goddard’s background implies great concern with Republican credentials, so I’ll lay mine out for full disclosure here: I worked on Gary Nelson’s Congressional race in 1992 and worked for Slade Gorton for the last 3 ½ years of his term (including a leave of absence to assist Rick White’s 1998 campaign). My work for Slade included 8 months on the campaign staff where I was among other things, Field Director and GOTV coordinator for the 2nd CD and the whole of Snohomish County. I also advised at length my father’s campaign for Snohomish County Executive in 2003, and am currently a Bush-administration appointee in Seattle. I can speak from experience – it is better to win and govern than to lose and complain.
Doug-- The one factual error you accuse me of, my description of what the evening was originally planned to be, sprang directly from a discussion between myself, Steve Neighbors (SnoCo party chair and the man who nominated Mark Hulst), and Mark Hulst himself after those two men had just arrived at the event. In fact, my description was almost verbatim what Steve said when I asked him about the debate. The two of them were unaware that there was going to be a debate when they first arrived. That's a fact.
My point was that this was not a Party-organized or even candidate-organized event. The debate was organized well after the registration and two candidate receptions had already been planned.
Please refrain from questioning the facts in the piece. It may not have contained everything you thought was important, but everything contained in it was true.
Whoa! I going have to put the kabosh on this
right now.Mark hulst did know there was
going be a debate.The reason I know is
because I spoke with mark the night before.
He said to me yeah I found out about the
debate from the internet.So yes he did know.
I am sorry to disagree with you but he knew.
Tim the real story is being missed here
Vance rigged the vote so he could win.
this is outrageous.
19. So, for Vance supporters, here is what you have to look forward to: Republicans will continue to lose at almost every level, but certainly at the legislative level, as long as Vance is running the show.
So, in the end, I need to remind you: be careful what you wish for… Because in this case… You’ve got it.
Exactly so. That election is over, and it's too soon to start the next one. There's a process in place, which was followed.
Re: comments by Eric Earling…
After (without any documentation) accusing the Betty Neighbors campaign of lying, and
After (without any documentation) accusing The Reagan Wing and me of:
Being overly melodramatic,
Being stridently unyielding,
Obsessively focused on petty details and personal attacks, and
Taking a “gratuitous personal shot” that is “contrarian to the Christian faith,”
Mr. Earling suggests we “put aside ad hominem personal attacks.” Wow. Isn’t that suggestion a bit late in his diatribe?
Mr. Earling states accurately that “Betty was able to compare positions with her opponent in the primary,” The point is, that when it began to be effective, Chris Vance intervened on behalf of Earling and shut it down with his censorship. That effectively shut down the Neighbors campaign in the last two weeks. He apparently sees no problem with this.
I must, however, acknowledge Mr Earling’s experience. He worked for Gorton when the Senator voted to acquit Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial for political reasons, despite admitting the evidence was to the contrary. How can those of us who are “stridently unyielding" compete with flexible moves like that?
“Steve Neighbors (SnoCo party chair and the man who nominated Mark Hulst), and Mark Hulst himself after those two men had just arrived at the event. In fact, my description was almost verbatim what Steve said when I asked him about the debate. The two of them were unaware that there was going to be a debate when they first arrived. That's a fact.”
We had a team calling every member of the State Committee personally during the week of February 23rd to make sure they knew of the debate. Steve Neighbors, however, emailed me on the 28th to point out that our contact information (that drove our parallel email campaign) had not been updated for Snohomish County since their re-organization meeting. So I’m not surprised he was missed. Mark Hulst, as I pointed out in my article, knew of the Reagan Wing plans for the debate as early as Jan. 14th. I talked to him several times on the phone about the debate in the final week. Among the topics discussed were the possible elimination of Vance because of his unwillingness to sign the censorship agreement he required of others. Mark expressed the desire to debate Vance, hypocrisy notwithstanding. Mark was also willing to put his hospitality suite plans aside (which later became a moot point) in order to get to debate the other candidates. Mark arrived early that evening (the only candidate to do so) while there was virtually no audience. The only sense in which Mark might not have “known” the debate would occur is in the same sense I didn’t either, when it looked like we might only have one candidate. I explained that uncertainty in my article.
Doug - My one regret with my previous post is there was a delay between when I began composing it and when I completed and posted it, as such I missed your lengthy response at 2:09 whose tone and content validates much of my original critique.
And I should note, there is a big difference between having a disagreement over issues and ideas versus personal attacks. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think your point of view and chosen actions in support of that view are incorrect. I was not taking shots at you personally and think it is rather thin-skinned of you to take it otherwise. If we can't have a healthy, honest debate it does everyone a disservice.
As to your points in your 5:04 post: the Reagan Wing website and your own posts here are proof enough on the points of disagreement I raised regarding your work that you line-itemed out. If you can't acknowledge candid, honest disagreement with your work and analysis, which at the least should be described as highly emotional, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
As to Betty Neighbors, here again you've got your facts wrong. The last thing I did was call Betty a liar, simply not true. No candidate for that caliber of race does the research for their mail pieces, that's the consultant and campaign staff. Thus the content is their responsibility, not hers.
In this case, there were mailers - which constituted a huge portion of that campaign’s mail program - during the last two weeks (the timeframe you claim she was hamstrung) where the facts were simply wrong. And 100% factually correct or not, they did separate her from her opponent. You have my email address with this post and I would be happy to discuss the details of that in another setting since it would get much too lengthy for this forum.
However, I don't see the value of a Earling v. Neighbors debate in general because it does little to help the party now. I'm simply noting you have a number of basic facts wrong in one example you’re using to discuss the state chair race, as an example of errors in other analysis you have offered. I know Betty and think she was a good candidate then and a great candidate in the future for the party. I also think Steve Neighbors will be a true all-star performer as a county party chairman.
To be candid, I don't see you disputing any of my assertions with facts, only more vitriol. If you take that as an "ad hominem" personal attack so be it, I'm not trying to impugn you, I'm simply observing your style of communicating.
Which leads me to your, and my, last point, regarding Slade. Once again, you're factually incorrect. Slade voted the way he did because of the way he read the law. You may not like it but he took his role as a juror seriously and frankly ignored all political advice. The politically expedient thing to do in that instance would have been to vote yes to the charge in question and move on. It is a measure of the man – whether you agree with him or not - that he held his Constitutional duty in higher regard than his political popularity. Nonetheless, your need to get focused on this detail again validates one of my points: your political and policy analysis seems unable to get past details you don't like to see a bigger picture.
You may not like that analysis, since it disagrees strongly with you, but it is just analysis and commentary, not me questioning your character as you imply. Based on your statements thus far, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on many, many things.
Response to Eric Earling:
Your phrase “whose tone and content validates much of my original critique,” is an ad hominem attack.
You say, “I was not taking shots at you personally and think it is rather thin-skinned of you to take it otherwise.”
Gosh, let me get this straight… If you accuse me (ambiguously) of “ad hominem attacks” it’s “just analysis and commentary” but if I point out that you called me overly melodramatic, petty, uncivil, stridently unyielding, obsessively focused on petty details, and engaged in personal attacks and un-Christian activity… I’m just being “thin-skinned”? Is that correct?
You say, “If you can't acknowledge candid, honest disagreement with your work and analysis, which at the least should be described as highly emotional, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.”
What do you mean “can’t acknowledge candid, honest disagreement with [my] work and analysis”? You have made no rational criticism of anything I said. You just applied a lot of ad-hominem labels to it. You say I can’t “see the big picture” but offer no illustration of that or any particular with which you disagree… except my comments on Slade. And I’ll get to that in a minute.
You say, “The last thing I did was call Betty a liar, simply not true.”
This is a careful distortion of my words. I said you had accused “the Betty Neighbors campaign of lying.” Here are your exact words: “…her consultant even took excessive liberty with the facts…”
That is not accusing him of mistakes. Taking “excessive liberty with the facts” is an intentional act. It is lying.
But I suppose you will say that pointing this out is the petty obsessive ness with “detail” you accuse me of. Others call it “accuracy.”
You say, “I don't see the value of a Earling v. Neighbors debate in general because it does little to help the party now.”
Or perhaps it would reveal too many inconvenient “petty details.”
You say, “To be candid, I don't see you disputing any of my assertions with facts”
You make no assertions that could be disputed with facts. Except the comment about Slade. (I’ll get to it.) You have made a series of entirely subjective and denigrating slurs. “…melodramatic, petty, uncivil, stridently unyielding, obsessively focused on petty details, engaging in personal attacks and un-Christian” What facts would be an appropriate rebuttal of those smears?
You say, “…I'm simply observing your style of communicating.” No, you’re attempting to undercut my points, not by reason, but by implicating me personally.
You say, “Slade voted the way he did because of the way he read the law. You may not like it but he took his role as a juror seriously…” and,
“It is a measure of the man – whether you agree with him or not - that he held his Constitutional duty in higher regard than his political popularity.”
Mr. Earling, immediately following Slade’s indefensible vote to acquit I corresponded with him personally disagreeing in detail. (Petty of me, I know.) Slade wrote back and explained that while there was ample evidence to convict Clinton of the charge for which Slade had helped vindicate him, He was also aware that the Constitution called for Clinton’s removal from office if convicted. Slade explained that he thought that was too harsh a penalty. So, literally to avoid the inevitable effects of the Constitution, Slade voted “not guilty” to charges for which he said he knew the truthful vote was “guilty.” This letter is in my possession. It is personally signed by Slade Gorton.
Mr. Earling, if you are typical of Slade operatives, you are an epistemological relativist. To you this is all “detail” that needs to be “gotten past.” But to those of us who hold, as a matter of real belief, the principles upon which this nation was founded they are matters of truth. Sorry, we won’t “get past” them.
Doug - since it appears we can't agree to basic facts and thus have a constructive arguement I don't see the value in continuing this conversation much further.
As the ReaganWing website and your posts here show, it seems you tend to construe criticism of your positions as a personal attack at the same time as your critiques of others could easily be construed as personal slanders against them. Given the shall we say bold nature of the positions you take, that problem essentially chokes off debate.
Looking at the comparative tone in your posts versus mine, I think it is inconsistent for you to claim I'm not putting forward any facts and "rational analysis." Meanwhile, many of your statements, as I and others here have noted, are not supported by facts, only your emotion and perception. I believe other readers of this site would agree.
One final point on a fact you continue to get wrong that bears correcting. I never said anyone affiliated with the Neighbors campaign lied, I said someone took liberty with the facts. If I had to guess it was insufficient research of a couple of issues rather than deliberate mistatements.
And lastly, I'm not sure based on our continued disagreement on facts and your analysis of the facts that I even trust on face value you're analysis of the letter you received from Slade. If you know Slade personally, so be it. If not, as with all other Senate offices, we had a handy auto-pen device in Washington, DC and Bellevue to cope with the volume of signatures that would otherwise occupied a tremendous chunk of Slade's waking hours.
I wish this conversation would have been more productive. Have a good day.
25. An Objectivist...that answers all my questions.
26. It appears there is some confusion about what "ad hominem" means. It's Latin, and literally means "against the man." An ad hominem attack specifically ignores the "tone and content" of an argument, and attacks the person on the other end. Simply saying something the other person doesn't like doesn't count as ad hominem.
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
“…melodramatic, petty, uncivil, stridently unyielding, highly emotional, obsessively focused on petty details, engaging in personal attacks and un-Christian”
You, gentlemen, have "taken excessive liberty with the facts."
28. Exactly--your arguments were all of those things. Now, are you as a person? I don't know that anyone here cares.
It is clearly because you cannot refute my arguments that you choose, instead, to simply assault them with subjective slights.
I offer evidence for my claims of fact that you cannot counter and I am accused of “pettiness.”
I offer the substantiation of an overview of detailed Washington State Party history covering more than a quarter century and I am told I “cannot see the big picture”
I condemn the use of coercive totalitarian political censorship within the Party as a means of controlling it by a tiny elite group that does not share its objectives and I am called “overly emotional.”
It is because you have no other avenues of defending your falsehoods that instead of responding to my arguments you trust in the simple application to them of denigrating adjectives. If I were to respond in kind I would, without any specificity, say your arguments are slanderous, immature, duncical, malevolent, obstinate, defamatory, uneducated, doltish, naïve, headstrong, chuckleheaded, intractable, libelous, heretical, puerile, numskulled, pigheaded, stiff-necked, illiterate, ornery, impractical, and downright evil. And I would protest that this was a criticism, not of you, of course, just your ideas.
You do not wish to discuss the facts. You wish, instead to change the subject to my “approach.”
Yes, Timothy, your case rests, for effectiveness, on making Doug Parris look bad by the continued repetition of hateful insults. Yes, it is ad hominem, and it is intellectually barren.
Yes, Doug, you've overwhelmed us with your superior logic. Congratulations. I don't even know what you think you've won, but sure, you've won it. Good work. I'm sure it was this same tact and precision that enabled you to unseat Chris Vance last week.
(Incidentally, what was my "case?" I wasn't paying attention.)
Forgot your case, huh? Strange. Here is the url: http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003636.html
I assume that your sarcastic indictments of tactlessness and imprecision are really not about me as a person, right? You wouldn't do that, would you?
Regarding unseating Chris Vance: I was not a candidate. You probably just weren't paying attention.
32. First in defense of Fredi simpson,I really Dont like you calling the vice chair a "Thug and or posse".
You must not know her at all. and as for Vance he will continue to keep doing a great job. you must be a democrat!!!!!!!!
33. You must not have read the evidence.
This is whats wrong with the state republican
party.You have people condoning what someone
like fredi simpson did as opposed to comdeming
her for lack of character.Great job by chris
vance? He lies through is teeth to keep his
job and your ok with that?
Whats wrong with you people? either you want
people that are honorable and have integrity
or you want to be like the democrats who don't
care.as long as they win its all that matters.