December 03, 2006
King County GOP election results

Here is a very quick, very rough synopsis of how the voting went during the King County Republican Party's organization meeting, Saturday, at Mercer Island. I was unable to attend and got the information via some of those who showed up.

Michael Young was re-elected as County Chair with a substantial margin beating Ruth Gibbs by about three-to-one.

Lori Sotelo was re-elected as Sr. Vice Chair.

With Young's victory, former King County councilmember Steve Hammond ran for 2nd Vice Chair defeating Andrew Franz in a narrow runoff vote.

I was told Doug Parris, who also vied for the 2nd Vice Chair position received around 20 votes during the first ballot. With the runoff vote Parris' supporters split for Hammond giving him the victory.

I'm sure some commenters will give a more lively discussion of the events Saturday morning as well as thrilling anecdotes about the party's bylaw adoption process. No Dodgeball quotes about "What's a bylaw?"

(Sorry folks for not posting anything yesterday. I was planning to attend the meeting but I was fortunately called away down south to participate in special redneck Olympic events in Eatonville by fixing our well and removing its 1,500 pound pressure tank on the family spread.)

Posted by DonWard at December 03, 2006 06:49 PM | Email This
Comments
1. same old hacks - same old drivel and homophobia

losers, losers, losers

Posted by: Sam on December 3, 2006 10:05 PM
2. Sam,

What's wrong? You sound like a heterophobic.

Posted by: Michael H on December 4, 2006 12:09 AM
3. The KingCO GOP has the leader they deserve.

The trouble is, he makes the rest of the state pay for his failures.

Sigh.

Posted by: Hinton on December 4, 2006 12:21 AM
4. Hinton - you guys in the rest of the state are messing things up ok all on your own.

As an interested observer here is my take on the event:

The bylaws discussion was not that exciting. The bylaws were proposed. A pco from the 34th district offered an amendment that would allow districts to appoint their own chair over the current process of county chair appointment and PCO election. The amendment was pointed out to be unconstitutional by the attorney who won the case and the motion was soundly lost. A pco from the 5th district offered an amendment proposing committee chairs be decided by the committee and not the County Chair. That motion was also soundly lost. Discussion was closed, the bylaws were approved without amendment.

The best moment was watching the faces of the meeting when Parris gave his speech. It was as if they were watching a martian. His final tally of 20 (twenty) votes for vice chair and the final loss of patience by the pcos after numerous trips by him to the microphone clearly demonstrated there was (is) no tolerance for his extreme agenda or the poison spewing from his "reagan wing" group. (Will someone please reclaim Reagan's name from those thugs???)

Yes, Michael Young won ~75% of the total vote over Ruth Gibbs. Lori Sotelo was elected by acclamation after an earlier standing ovation by the pcos. Andrew Franz arrived (fresh from duty) wearing his uniform and was forced out of the meeting and not allowed to speak by a ranking officer who threatened him with charges for wearing his uniform in an election. A proxy spoke for Franz but it wasn't the same. Although Franz won the first vote count but not the majority of the votes, Steve Hammond won in the second round.

The incumbent state party representative from the 1st Congressional District was unseated by Mike Nykriem. Afterward I heard a rumor that he supported newly converted Democrat Rodney Tom in the last election over incumbent Republican Luke Esser. I checked the PDC, it is true. I think he will have some explaining to do! The other three imcumbent represtentatives to the state party executive board were re-elected. The 7th District has two new faces for their representatives.

The meeting was not the roust-fest promised by the flywheelies. Their nonsense was rejected by the grassroots.

Posted by: Sarah Osborne on December 4, 2006 08:06 AM
5. "Hinton - you guys in the rest of the state are messing things up ok all on your own."

Sorry, Sarah, but the area that bled GOP seats was pretty much limited to King County (Not entirely, but the epicenter of the d tsunami in this state was King County)

So, if you call what we do, say, down here in Southwest Washington, where we didn't lose a single seat in the last election "messing things up," I would venture to say that King County could only hope to be as "messed up" as, say, Clark County.

That you are so obviously out of touch with political reality goes to the heart of the matter: King County represents a cancer on the Republican political landscape... a cancer not unlike that of the prostate gland; a slow moving but typically inexorable variety that eventually can kill the state that is cursed with it.

Is this a symptom of the typical King County Republican? Self-deluded? Politically unaware? Politically isolated?

With Sarah's response and the re-election of those like Michael Young, is it any wonder that tens of thousands of voters in King County ignore the GOP banner, turning the region into a blue so dark it actually borders on black?

Posted by: Hinton (Former Seattleite) on December 4, 2006 09:20 AM
6. Hinton - Take a break, take a few deep breaths, and get a hold on your self.

Now, let's look at the facts in your Clark County Leg Races 2004 vs 2006. In each case, except the 18th Pos #1 where the democrat candidate was unpalatable to even his own party, the democrats gained ground.

2006 Results:

15th District
Pos #1 Rep won no challenger in 2004. Received -2.2% less than 2006 Rep Pos #2 (next)
Pos #2 Rep won -3.58% from 2004

17th District
Pos #1 Rep won -4.5% from 2004
Pos #2 Dem won +4.6% from 2004

18th District
Pos #1 Rep won +2.6% from 2004 (see above) congratulations.
Pos #2 Rep won -2.66% from 2004

49th District
Pos #1 Dem won +1.7% from 2004
Pos #2 Dem won +1.1% from 2004

Your Clark County Council has been over run by the progressives who have targeted your county specifically, and are looking at your city councils to take over to further their progressive agenda.

You guys might be winning some but by smaller margins. Point the finger at yourself. You are a target. MYOB!

Posted by: Sarah Osborne on December 4, 2006 10:08 AM
7. KCGOP DESERVES A BY/LAW CHANGE FOR BETTER VOTING PROCEDURES. I PROPOSE THAT ALL CANDIDATES AND NOMINATORS SPEAK CONSECUTIVELY; VOTING BE DONE 'FILL IN THE BUBBLE STYLE' ON ONE SHEET OF PAPER, AND RESULTS BE TABULATED AND ANNOUNCED ALL TOGETHER--RUN-OFFS IF NECESSARY DONE THE SAME WAY. LOTS OF DEAD AIR TIME ON SATURDAY CAUSED SOME SHRINKAGE OF THE 386 CREDENTIALED PCO'S.

Posted by: Alan Deright on December 4, 2006 11:51 AM
8. Sarah, great commentary on the days events. Only one thing to add. In an all-star display of nutrootiness, Doug Parris and Ruth Gibbs won one small victory. They got me to graciously, if begrudgingly, resign as Seargent-at-arms after tossing accusations of sign pulling and threatening to call the police. Good job, Ruth!
Details: I arrived at Islander around 930 to see Doug posting Gibbs/Hammond signs on school property. I was told, and later confirmed to be true that, as a condition of our use of the school, we were not allowed to post signs outside on school grounds. I graciously asked Doug to remove said signs to which he ungraciously refused and demanded to know under what authority I was requesting this. A rather humorous yelling match insued until I decided yelling at a brick wall wasn't getting me any where and I left the scene. I briefly considered removing the signs and even got out of my truck but thought better of sinking to their level. Apparently Ruth Gibbs, who came driving up at that moment, was able to read my mind and demanded that I cease and dissist or she'd... CALL THE POLICE! (Good one Ruth, I'm really scared of the MI Police taking your side in this matter). Anyway, I guess these actions along with all my controversial video taping left me in such a controversial position that I thought it better to recuse myself as SAA and just sit back with a bag of popcorn and enjoy the circus that ensued that morning.

On another note, Doug, have you collected the 50 cents from each of your supporters so you can pay me the money you owe me? On second though, don't worry about it. Use that money for your tax bills.

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 4, 2006 11:59 AM
9. Another sign of unfortunate incivility.

As I was driving up to the event, I noticed a lot of cars parked on the street. I passed a car who decided not to head to the end of the line...but rather park in a bus spot.

Every mindful of the criticisms we heap on the left for such misdeeds, I rolled down my window and let the man know he had parked in a bus spot.

His reaction? He dismissed my comment with a gesture and headed into the school.

At first, I thought of calling the police to issue him a (much deserved) citation. But, since he's a republican, I let him off the hook. We have to watch out for our own!

I wish he had moved his car.

Posted by: GOPlease on December 4, 2006 12:11 PM
10. Hinton,

You're perspective is right on. Pay no attention to the nutroots like "Full Contact Politics" aka: Mark Griswold, pro-gay rights Republican who with his friends wish to label conservatives as "martians" and "circus-like". They're spinning out of control. And as I recall, Mark, those signs were placed outside of the school property, along the road to the location. I did see several of the Gibbs/Hammond signs knocked over.

Also, what you guys (Sarah and Mark) left out was that Hammond (who we consider a conservative) won due to a run-off between Franz and Hammond when Parris's 20 votes contributed to Hammond's victory. So "rejection" by the grassroots was a bit of a stretch. Also, Sotelo winning by acclamation was due to the fact that she no longer had an opponent, since with a male chairman, the 1st vice chair had to be female, thus Hammond shifting his candidacy to 2nd vice chair.

Posted by: Michelle on December 4, 2006 12:23 PM
11. Michelle and everyone else who just doesn't seem to "get it." FOR THE LAST FREAKIN' TIME, I'm not pro-gay rights and before you dig up statements from my 2004 run for office let me AGAIN explain that my views on that particular issue have changed slightly. I don't support gay marriage but I do support civil-unions because I believe in less government and I don't believe it's any of the government's damn business who gets to live with whom, who gets to leave what to whom and who gets to decide who pulls the plug when someone's on a respirator. Make it your brother, make it your attorney, make it the guy down at the corner market who you've done business with for the past 20 years for all I care.

In regards to the signs, yes, there were some off school property and some on, I was referring to the ones ON school property. But I'll concede, Michelle. I fully admit that I, along with the rest of the Young/Sotelo junta, in our diabolical Rovian, satan-worshipping ways, have access to a weather machine which we started up on Saturday morning to blow all of Ruth's signs over as well as create an evil fog on the island in an effort to supress conservative voter turn-out. We also used on election day to make sure the conservative areas of the county would be flooded so our liberal democrat candidates would win election.

As for Steve winning, part of that is due to the fact that Andrew wasn't allowed to speak (see above comment by Sarah). But no matter, I don't consider Steve part of your ilk. I'm glad you consider him a conservative but maybe you should also take a few pages from his playbook and learn to play well with others. He's a fine and decent man. After Brian Thomas tried to accost me last Tuesday at the 5th LD meeting Steve came up to me and apologized for Brian's behavior (even though no apology was necessary from Steve since he isn't really part of your group of nutroots that go around trying to defeat our Republican candidates like Mike McGavick and Dave Reichert).

Just leave, Michelle. Take your hate-speech with you and join the Constitution or Heritage Parties. If you really do represent the majority then you can crush the Republican Party and replace us with one of those parties. It worked in the 1850s, no reason it shouldn't work now. Unless of course I'm right and you're wrong. Care to place a wager on it? I'll give you the same 20:1 odds I gave Doug. (which I'm still waiting to collect on. (sound of Jeopardy Theme plays))

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 4, 2006 01:42 PM
12. Mr. Hammond has made it VERY clear to those of us who have listened that he is NOT to be associated with your group. He is conservative, but not one of your group. Don't delude yourself. You can not claim him as a "victory".

Yes, Parris looked like a Martian. He spoke a language no one understood, gesticulating wildly in a way that connected with no one. The legislative delegations re-turned more blank ballots than Parris' 20 (twenty) votes! The kind of nonsense that comes from your group (Parris, Thomas, McIntyre) was REJECTED by the grassroots in no uncertain terms.

I like FCP's idea that you find another party to annoy. The Republicans have work to do. You've worn out your welcome.

Posted by: Sarah Osborne on December 4, 2006 02:49 PM
13. Sarah & Mark

Maybe I missed something but I thought your
guys won on Saturday.Oh and Griswold before you
anything, A serious personal problem arose on
Saturday morning as I was getting ready to leave.
So do to that I was unable to attend the meeting.
I am not about to discuss with you or anyone
else here what it was.Will just leave it at that.

Sarah I don't know what your so upset about.
Why make personal attacks like that? you just
did what you accuse them of doing.What exactly
is the nonsense you were referring to?Please
do elaborate for us.If you can't or you won't
then don't make statements like that.


Sarah and Mark: you two are unbelievable just
because they don't agree with you doesn't mean
there nut jobs.I venture to say you don't them
very well at all. If you did I have a hard time
believing you would say things like that.Mark
I'm sorry I understand how the political makeup
in King County breaks down but I can't see how
Michael Young's way has worked at all.

Mark you want to criticize these guys for
the way they want to do things. Yet your
way hasn't worked. Instead all it has done
has pushed the base further and further away.
Mike McGavick defeated himself because he
talked out of both sides of his mouth. He
couldn't or wouldn't tell the truth about
where he stood on almost anything. People
were not energized to vote for him. Saying
Doug Parris had anything to do with McGavick
losing is absurd.Sarah and Mark instead of
taking cheap shots at these people all the
time. Maybe you should look in the mirror before
you do next time.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 4, 2006 04:22 PM
14. I can feel it coming. We're going to have to hear once again about the "evanites". Give me strength.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2006 04:45 PM
15. A common theme from the reagan wing supporters is that things have gotten worse for Republicans in King County, therefore the KCGOP is to blame. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact there are a lot of liberals in Seattle, and they're moving out to the suburbs. This has been happening for quite a while. What could Michael Young or anyone do to stop the spread of Seattle liberalism? It's a purely demographic issue.

We can compare the organization now to what it was before. In both '04 and '06, the party raised and spent more than $300,000. In 2000, when we had a grassroots, ideology-based Chair, the party spent $30,000 (someone can correct me if I'm wrong - that's what I've been told). Imagine if the KCGOP had spent $250k more in 2000 on GOTV. Maria Cantwell never would have stepped foot in the well of the US Senate!

Posted by: AD on December 4, 2006 04:53 PM
16. I agree AD. King County continues to have a large influx of liberals. We are a destination of choice for liberals nationwide. Couple that with an unpopular war, and a mainstream media that is a de-facto arm of the Democratic Party and suprise, surprise, we lose big time in King County. The only way Republicans win in King County and statewide is if the Democrats mess up big time.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2006 05:03 PM
17. What is really funny about the King County GOP is the lack of party loyalty among the party LEADERSHIP. We have seen some of this with GOP activist Larry Corrigan, who gave 20% to 25% of his campaign contributions to Democrats.

On Saturday, the small band of King County Republican PCO’s elected Mike Nykreim as one of their representatives to the State GOP Executive Board from the 1st CD. The state GOP Executive Board has two people from each congressional districts, with King County’s representatives being elected by PCO’s from all over King County (and not just those from the CD in question).

Believe it or not, Nykreim supported Democrat Rodney Tom over Republican Luke Esser in the November 2006 election, and donated $100.00 to Tom’s campaign on June 26, 2006. Nykreim just helped eliminate an incumbent GOP state senator, and Republican PCO’s choose him to be a top GOP leader? Incredible! Of course, they didn’t know that at the time they elected him.

Another interesting disloyalty by a GOP leader is Fawn Spady of Mercer Island. Her father-in-law, Dick Spady, started Dick’s Restaurants. Fawn and her husband Jim Spady currently run this business. The Spadys have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting charter schools. Fawn Spady was the GOP nominee for State House in District 41 to run against Democrat incumbent Judy Clibborn in 2004.

However, Fawn Spady gave $750.00 to Democrat Aaron Reardon in his successful campaign to be elected Snohomish County Executive in 2003. Fawn gave $500.00 to Reardon in the primary, when he defeated Goldy’s sister-in-law and another Democrat. Fawn gave $250.00 to Reardon in the general, when he defeated Republican Dave Earling (who happens to be Eric Earling’s father). Her husband Jim Spady gave Earling another $750.00. Incredibly enough, during the 2004 campaign when Fawn was running for the legislature, her husband Jim gave $150.00 to Democrat Laura Ruderman for Secretary of State, and $200.00 to Helen Sommers, a Democrat state representative from Seattle.

Posted by: Richard Pope on December 4, 2006 05:28 PM
18. Phil Spackman,

I think you missed Hinton from Clark County started out bashing King County GOP. His comments were not constructive.

You ask.....what nonsense?

Doug Parris and his followers using their Reagan Wing website to install on the internet some of the most incredible lies I have ever read in one place.

Reagan Wingers personal attacks on GOP Candidates and Party Leadership that have nothing to do with debating the issues and everything about obfuscating Republican efforts.

Doug Parris' constant crowing about his superior brand of "Republicanism" that excludes everyone but himself and his drones.

That nonsense!

Not to mention you and Parris' special appearance on Horses A**'s radio show bashing Republicans. Don't you realize that makes you their clown? More nonsense.

As a member of the grassroots, it is aggravating when a few malcontents kick sand in our face when we are working our tails off. We have had enough....nonsense.

If you feel that is a personal attack, so be it.

Posted by: Sarah Osborne on December 4, 2006 07:07 PM
19. Sarah,

Ok I'm going to ask you one more time. What
was the nonsense or lies on the Reagan Wing
Website? I want you to be specific. If your
not willing to be then shut up.Tell me what
is the nonsense?

Posted by: phil spackman on December 4, 2006 07:34 PM
20. FCP, You accuse ME of "hate speech"??? Just look at the poison on your posts!

No winds were blowing on Mercer Island that day. No rain. Only thugs like you trampling on free speech.

As far as your current political positions, I don't need to "dig up" your '04 campaign statements. I'll let your above statements speak for themselves. Most Republicans would call that "pro-gay-rights". Civil unions would be government getting involved and even endorsing gay unions.

You can dream on if you think I'm leaving the party...DREAM ON.....It's you who doesn't "Get it"!

Posted by: Michelle on December 4, 2006 07:40 PM
21. Mark,

I don't think your elders here on the comment thread get your unique sense of humor. I suppose you could really put them into conniptions by skateboarding in front of their homes or loitering outside the Old Country Buffet.

Here's to One Team, One Mission...

Posted by: Reporteward on December 4, 2006 08:19 PM
22. A lecture on party loyalty from Richard Pope, who RAN AS A DEMOCRAT for political office and publicly tried to paint the Republican in that race, whom we should all have a great deal of respect for, as being a racist.

Richard. Seriously.

Posted by: AD on December 4, 2006 08:38 PM
23. Does AD stand for "Anonymous Dumb---"?

In any event, I ran for office as a Democrat in 1998, which was 8 years ago. I did not receive the primary nomination of the Democrat Party in that election.

Since then, I have twice been nominated by the Republican Party in primary elections as their candidate to stand in the general election -- in 2000 for State Attorney General and in 2003 for King County Assessor.

In addition, I would also point out that I was not seeking to be elected to any Republican Party leadership position last Saturday.

But I guess AD think it is okay for Republican Party leaders to endorse Democrat Party candidates and make financial contributions to their campaigns? Or at least that it is okay for the Republican Party to elect someone to a high leadership position, when that person (Mike Nykreim) helped defeat an incumbent Republican (State Senator Luke Esser) in an election held less than one month earlier (November 7, 2006 vs. December 2, 2006).

So how in the hell can AD complain that I ran as a Democrat eight years ago?

Posted by: Richard Pope on December 4, 2006 09:53 PM
24. Michelle,

When I arrived at Islander MS at about 6:00am on Saturday in the dense fog and darkness there were signs that were down/falling over on the way in. My guess is that they had fallen overnight and might not have fallen victim to "thugs trampling on free speech". More likely they may have fallen victim to "teenage thugs who like to knock things over".

I'm just saying.

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 4, 2006 10:41 PM
25. Matthew @#24,

I think we're both right. Atleast you almost are. Have you met Mark (aka: "Full Contact Politics")? There's a reason I'm referred to as his "elder" by reporterward. After all, "teenagers who like to knock things over" are just expressing their "unique sense of humor" that escapes us "elders".

Don't get me wrong, I have no illusions that a few signs knocked over lost Ruth Gibbs the election. And news flash: none of Doug's supporters or Doug himself actually thought he'd get elected. He was the wrong gender to be elected with Ruth Gibbs and nobody would ever elect both him and Young. I say all of this to make others aware of what we're dealing with.

As I understand though, Parris arrived at the meeting and found almost all of the Gibbs/Hammond signs (that he did not put up in the first place) knocked over and began putting them back up. There was one sign on the school property vs. the rest of them that were along the road, that he picked up. Lori Sotelo (the incumbent vice chair being challenged) was the first to come and yell at him to take them down. When he asked her on what authority, she mentioned the contract. He asked for a copy of it and she did not provide it, but went to remove it herself. When she began, Doug started to take a picture, and she stopped, left and sent out Mark. No copy of the contract was provided.

Reporterward, don't you mean "Two Teams, Two Missions..."? Cheers!

Posted by: Michelle on December 5, 2006 12:51 AM
26. Ladies and gentlemen, the "swatter" has left the building. As someone standing on the doorstep looking for a good reason to enter the 'club', swatter is now gone.

Ugly!!! Ugly!!! Ugly!!! Give me an Eastern Washington Repubican anyday.

Posted by: swatter on December 5, 2006 07:31 AM
27. Michelle,

It was simply that the school said that there was to be no signs outside on school grounds, its as simple as that. We want to be able to use that space again and so we wanted to follow their verbal instructions. It just seems so damn silly that when asked to not put signs on school property everyone just assumes that it is the EVIL ADMINISTRATION that is trying to come down on the little guy. It was simply at the request of Islander MS.

Can't we all just cool it a little bit? Who's the real enemy here?

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 5, 2006 08:04 AM
28. Matthew,

Lori Sotelo was the one who said they
had a contract not a verbal agreement.
All she had to do was say it was a verbal
agreement.Instead once again she has to act
like a three year old.These people(kcgop)
have a track record of trying to silence those
that don't always agree with them.What was
Doug supposed to think? Also if Lori wasn't
worried about she said why run off when Doug
tried to take a picture of her?

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 08:24 AM
29. Phil Spackman - The entire website is nonsense. Clear enough?

Michelle McIntyre - your second hand recitation of events concerning the signs and VC Sotelo is incorrect. I happened to be walking to my car when I saw the interchange. Parris was huffy and hostile. Sotelo tried to talk to him but he was not reasonable. She went to the building to speak with Ruth Gibbs' husband, who removed the sign.

Richard Pope - You have got to be kidding?!?!? You have run for just about every office that presented itself to you - as a Democrat, Republican, or whatever else suited you. I have never seen a person who craved attention (in such a public way) more than you. Your discussion piece on party loyalty is like watching the pot call the kettle black.

You Reagan Wingers (Doug Parris/Richard Pope/Michelle McIntyre/Phil Spackman, et al) are like flies at a picnic. You make even the most beautiful setting unpalatable. I'm like swatter....leaving the building. Have fun with yourselves.

Posted by: Sarah Osborne on December 5, 2006 08:45 AM
30. Sarah,

Its people like you that come on here
and make statements like that without
ever getting specific.Its either because
you don't know or worse you have never read
anything on the reagan wing website.

Most of what Doug Parris has put on the website
is pretty well documented. If you don't want to
believe any of it thats fine. But don't come
on here and make a statement like that unless
you can back it up.

Some of you people that read the comments
on this blog, its time you realize that
there continue to be people like Sarah that make
these general claims about Doug Parris and or the
reagan wing. Every time there asked what it was
specifically Doug or the Reagan Wing lied about
they refuse to say what it is they are talking
about. Its because they think if they say
it enough some of you will believe it anyway.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 09:40 AM
31. Help me out Phil, I'm a little confused. How can you say anything about what happend Saturday as if it was factual...you said yourself that you weren't there!

I think anyone would run off if Doug tried to take a picture of them. It will end up on that awful website of his next to some article that is false and slanderous about them.

As for your comment about "These people(kcgop)" having a track record of silencing people that don't agree with them. Really Phil, do you think they really give any credence to what any of you Reagan Wingers say? You guys discredit yourselves and don't need any help from anyone else. Plus, after the "thumpin" as the President would call it that Ruth and the rest of the bunch got, it just goes to show that no one is listening to you guys. Take Sarah's advice and go bother some other party or join the majority and work towards a common goal!

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 5, 2006 09:46 AM
32. Matthew,

Ok then what article or articles are false?
Who did Doug Parris slander?I will give you
the same chance I did Sarah. Please tell us
all what is false and who is slandered on the
Reagan wing website. Specifics please.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 10:29 AM
33. I challenge anyone to read the "Reagan Wing" website and actually make sense of it. The main thing I get out of it is that Mr. Parris and friends don't work and play well with others.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2006 10:57 AM
34. I challenge anyone to read the Reagan Wing website
and tell me specifically who posted a column that
was lying or slandered anyone.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 12:33 PM
35. YEAH! This is the most fun I've had on SP since the hearty debate we engaged in on the "Tom Switches Teams" post back in April.

Just a disclaimer: my postings on SP of this nature (engaging in banter with ReaganWingers and their ilk) is for pure enjoyment. I know you guys are too stupid to actually "get it" and that if I was actually trying to change your mind it would be tantemount to yelling in to the wind.

Anyway, I do have to correct my good friend Matthew on one detail. I actually didn't run away when Doug snapped my photo. I proudly displayed my Deceptecon T-shirt for him to put up on the ReaganWing.com (I'm waiting, Doug.)

As far as the rest of you nutbars (and yes, you are nutbars. I'm not saying that because I disagree with your positions on the issues. As I've said before the only thing I disagree with you on is your tactics), if I wanted to silence you there would be a lot more effective ways of doing it than telling Doug to take down yard signs (and, thank you very much, I am not one of Lori's goons. I can think for myself. It just so happens that Lori and I agree on most things. She didn't "send me out" though. I got there quite a while after the incident between her and Doug. I was there on my own accord as authorized by party leadership and our agreement with Islander MS).

And Phil, so sorry you missed the meeting on Saturday. I'm still looking forward to meeting you in person. I understand those remedial grammer classes are important though and admire your commitment to wanting to improve yourself by spending a Saturday morning learning the differences between there, their and they're. Keep up the good work and you will achieve your dreams. Seriously, I have some experience doing some tutoring and would be happy to spend some extra time with you. Call it my commitment to private schooling. Heck, maybe Fawn and I will even start a school of our own if the charter school bill ever gets passed. You're more than welcome to sit in on some classes. Maybe Doug could even develop a ReaganWing scholarship. I think that would be great. What about it Doug? (Oh wait, nevermind, you need the money for your back taxes.)

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 5, 2006 01:05 PM
36. Oh, and one other thing, that double-rat bastard Mike Nykriem, who was supported by Ruth Gibbs (good one Ruth, supporting the only candidate for the office that gave money to a challenging Democrat this year, talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth), won't likely make it past confirmation. The leadership will likely have to appoint someone else. It's just too bad that all of this information didn't come to light a bit earlier, we could still have Val in the position.

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 5, 2006 01:16 PM
37. Griswold,

Enough already your guys won on Saturday
Just leave it at that.Again you don't know
these people at all and yet you continue
to make mindless childish stupid characterizations
about them. Its apparent you don't like Doug
or any of others at all. Fine I think everyone
here gets that now.

So I don't understand why you feel the need to
keep reminding all of us that's what you think
of them. Griswold you have made your point let
it go.By the way I didn't appreciate what you
said about why I wasn't there Saturday. Its was
a very serious personal matter and that's all
I'm going to say about it.



Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 01:30 PM
38. Griswold, I don't know Mike Nykriem or anything
about him. So don't lump me into the crowd that
supported him. Yeah I know you were kidding
about him so what.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 01:36 PM
39. Phil,

Was the serious personal matter kind of like the MAJOR annoucements about big things at your blog that never EVER happen. By the way, what happened to your blog?

FCP - The last paragraph was priceless...

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 5, 2006 01:59 PM
40. Matthew,

It had nothing to do with the blog.As to what happened
with the blog its still there. I simply haven't
had the time lately to devote to working on it.
Now to your comment about announcements. I assume
your talking about Susan Hutchison and what I
said about the King Gop. Look Susan decided not
to run. At the time I wrote that every indication I
had suggested to me that she would. As for The
King Gop it became more and more apparent that
the majority of pcos lap up whatever the Young
administration shovels. No matter who would have
ran against Michael Young it would been a tough
battle to win. When you have a large group of
people who believe everything he says and thinks
everyone else is lying its difficult to overcome
that.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 02:23 PM
41. Matthew,

I'm still waiting for you to tell me
what articles are false on the Reagan wing
website and who was slandered.Please enlighten
us all.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 02:25 PM
42. Repeated claims that The Reagan Wing contains "incredible lies," or slander. Never a specific instance. Not one. They can't quote, from thousands of words in hundreds of articles, one falsehood.

Repeated claims that we are trying to exclude people... followed by repeated invitations for Reagan Wingers to "leave the party." Hello.

Repeated claims that we are uncivil... followed by calling us "Martians, nutroots, extreme, poison-spewing, thugs and flywheelies."

Constant distortions and fabrications:
1. When I challenged Griswold on his 20:1 odds he backed out. He wouldn't put up the money. Now that, in retrospect, he would have won the bet, he claims he took it. Brave, Mark.

2. There was only ONE sign on school property when I arrived at 7:00 AM and it was still standing. I had not posted it, or any of the downed signs. Lori ordered me to remove it as if I were her servant and claimed it was in a CONTRACT, which she refused to produce. Griswold and I never discussed it. ALL the signs on the road, in the public right of way, were knocked down, some destroyed. I will be posting the photos on www.TheReaganWing.com. As soon as I started to put them back up, Griswold, speaking from the driver's seat of a pickup, exceeding any possible authority of the KCGOP, ordered me to take them down. He shouted. "I AM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS!!" He spun his wheels as he left. He repeated this confrontation with Ruth Gibbs and her husband. NONE OF THIS took place on school property. The entire issue with Griswold was about signs on public property and his position violated Washington State Law. I have no doubt that he was the one who tore them down, because he asserted to me, repeatedly and loudly, that he had the authority to do so as SERGEANT AT ARMS. There were FIVE witnesses to these events. Mark Griswold, his passenger, who had ducked so low in his seat I was unable to identify him, Myself, and Mr. and Mrs. Gibbs. Mark is the only one of that group I know to be a habitual liar.

I went inside and sought out Michael Young. I repeated Griswold's defiance of Law and asked if Mark were acting on behalf of the Young administration or alone. Young did not answer the question, but said he would have Griswold removed as Sergeant at Arms.

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 5, 2006 02:28 PM
43. Regarding "Sarah Osborne's" post at 4 claiming that a by-law change was "unconstitutional." That is totally bogus. None of the attempts to bring the KCGOP bylaws in line with State Law were unconstitutional. The claim was that all State Law structuring the Republican Party is unconsitutional because the State has no business running the Party. But this is enormous hypocrisy. The requirement that the chair and vice chair be of different sexes, that our State Committee be composed of one MAN and one WOMAN from each county, that we are run by PCOs who are elected in their precincts and even that we hold the re-organization meeting in which we were participating are all the creations of the same State Law that was being called "unconsitutional."

So why do we follow it when it calls for gender quotas and not when it calls for democratic process?? Hmmmmmm?


Even if we are to assume that the law requiring election of district leaders is "unconstitutional," it does not make our agreement on such a rule, by a vote of the PCOs unconsitutional. That is ridiculous.
It remains a fact that the King County Republican Party is operating with a structure of increasing top-down dictatorial procedures, in violation of State Laws that no Court has overturned.

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 5, 2006 03:17 PM
44. The number of people who voted for at least someone in each race diminished all day, as is normal for conventions. The first race, Young/Gibbs drew 370 votes, the third race, "Second Vice Chair" drew 350 votes and the last contested race of the day, Irons/Opple 282 votes. Blank ballots werre not reported. Where does a non-participant like "Sarah Osborne" get her figures?

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 5, 2006 03:24 PM
45. Guys - You all need to calm down.

So, you elected a few people to head the King County GOP. Yippe. That's like winning a bar fight while the battle for control of the state rages on outside.

You guys are all so caught up in who belongs in which corner, that you have forgotten that the Democrats are resolutely united against us right now. We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Mark - KNock off the immature behavior. You should act older than your age so people will actually take you seriously. You have a seriously problem with credibility. People just don't like you.

Doug - You lost. Deal with it. Move on. People will get behind you if you are a united, not a divider. This is not your party, nor is it Michael Young's. We're all members of the GOP and you need to put personal ambition aside for the good of the GOP.

WHAT exactly are you all fighting against each other for? The right to brag in front of a few hundred PCO's??? There are millions who live in King County. They could care less about who is heading up our shrinking party.

Posted by: James Holmes on December 5, 2006 04:08 PM
46. Mr. Holmes, personal ambition has absolutely nothing to do with any action I've taken. I am well aware that the way to win Party Elections is to do what Young and Company have done, to spout some version of "Everything is Beautiful in its own way" and assure everyone that we are a "winning team." But the fact is we are following a formula for destruction and are led, not by those with whom we have minor disagreements, but philosophical Democrats who care nothing for the objectives of conservatives.
I have known from the beginning that I would be reviled for telling the truth; that is not a course of personal ambition. Steve Hammond, by contrast, did the things one does to "go along to get along" and got elected, but it leaves in place an an unethical administration that worked, and is working to turn us into a copy of the Democrat Party. We are NOT all on the same side. That delusion, as long as you care to indulge yourself with it, will ruin us.
King County is larger than 13 States. It is not a small affair that it is being run into the ground by Decipti-Cons. It is the biggest single reason why Democrats rule Washington.

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 5, 2006 04:36 PM
47. I was told that both Ruth Gibbs and Michael Young used the phrase "the winning team".

Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on December 5, 2006 04:44 PM
48. I only know of Young using that slogan. "Winning Team" alright...for the Democrats.

Posted by: Michelle on December 5, 2006 05:46 PM
49. Hello All,
THIS MESSAGE IS DIRECTLY TO BEEVIS AND BUTTHEAD:
After several very long, very stressful days and nights, I have had the time to read this unbelievable stuff communicated by you, Mark Griswold.
Following are the true facts surrounding my signs, and the horrible events that have followed for my family and still continue.
A) Mark, you are a liar. My husband and I were coming down the city streets where my yard signs and Steve's were posted at approx. 7:22 AM. I know because someone called me and I looked at the time on my cell phone. You were in your truck coming towards us. You stopped the truck, got out, and yanked one of my signs out of the ground. My husband Jerry stopped our car and got out, as did I. He told you to put my sign back in the ground. You screamed several 4 letter expletives at him and said you had authority to do whatever you wanted. You started towards my husband. He knew to get back in the car. I told you to put it back and leave us alone or I would call the police on my cell phone. You screamed and swore at me, got in your truck and drove off. My husband and I saw who your passenger was. It was Phil Bevis, member of the KCGOP Finance Committee, 43rd District Chair and the person who got elected as 7th Congressional Man Saturday unfortunately because Dino Rossi and Rob McKenna endorsed someone who would participate in such disgusting behavior.
Last week, I sent the following email to an elected official in the KCGOP because I was concerned by what I read of ravings about what you intended to do as sgt at arms and asked that you be removed. The email gives valid concerns, and I will follow up at the end of this email with more information that everyone needs to know.
Subj: From: Ruth Gibbs
Date: 11/30/2006 12:16:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: REGPC3
To:

Junta is a Spanish word that means a tribunal or military dictatorship.

Griswold is the one whom I told last night that he could not videotape my speech. I told you Ross demanded I let him, and when I refused he told me maybe I could not speak then, and I had to be firm and say I would speak. Ross has never treated me like this. Why are they all so hostile at the prospect of losing?

As I said, the whole thing is creepy. It will not deter me from coming or running, but I do not like it. My arm is almost healed (the muscles, tendons and ligaments). I have almost full range of motion. My bone doctor warned me to try to never fall again. He says if I break something, I could die because I cannot take pain meds and the stress is so horrendous. He almost cried when we got rear ended by the car and it rebroke the weak arm that was barely healed. I am not trying to make a big deal out of this, but you can see why I am uncomfortable. I think this sgt at arms thing should be quashed and each district should provide a sgt at arms.
Ruth

What I did not convey, because I thought this was enough reason to remove you, was the fact that my husband Jerry has an artificial heart valve. He has had it replaced twice since he was 34. Because it is artificial material, he has to take blood thinner (coumadin). That means that if someone hits him or he gets injured, he bleeds internally and could die as a result. There is more. It is common for people who have had bypass surgeries or heart valve replacements to have a difficult time with being forced to do things in a chaotic, stressful environment. These are the reasons that Jerry got back in the car, to get away from YOU, and why I told you I would call the police. You were out of control, and we could not risk a physical attack by you. I have not communicated this information to people by and large, because it is somewhat humiliating to my dear husband and we just try to avoid dangerous or stressful situations.

When you drove off, we saw Doug Parris out there in the road trying to pick up my signs and we thanked him. I am not part of the Reagan Wing. My husband is not part of the Reagan Wing. But if they want to support a candidate, that is their business. Lori Sotello had no business yelling at Doug Parris to remove my signs from school property. They were not his, they were mine. Secondly, those signs were put out by members of my committee at midnight the night before, and no one ever contacted us to say we could not put any on the school property. The ones along the road were none of your business, or Lori's business or anyone else. I happen to know that there were only 3 small signs on the school property, because I called my people and they told me so later; and by the time we got there, I am not sure any of the 3 small ones were still standing. The two large ones had been taken inside.
It gets worse. The nightmare started next. My husband dropped me off and I went in and credentialed and went inside the room. I found Monica Tracey, told her what you had done, and told her you needed to be removed as sgt-at-arms, because I was by that time concerned for my husband's safety, as well as mine.
Jerry, meanwhile, parked the car and came inside the hallway. As soon as he did, the head Sgt-At-Arms, Jim Clingan, got in his face and started yelling at him to get my signs down. My husband repeated that we have every right to have them on city street right of ways. Brett Kappenman, also a sgt at arms, came over and agreed with Jerry. He explained an agreement with the school, and asked Jerry politely if he could get the ones off school property. My husband is a very nice man and a gentleman, unlike you and others. He had no idea how many signs were on school property, or where they were. He walked outside to get the car and drive around the parking lot to find the signs and put them in the car. Lori Sotello accosted him and nastily demanded that he get the signs off school property. He told her to back off, and that he was already doing that.
This whole chaotic, rude, illmannered confusion put my husband into a state where he felt he had to hurry and get the signs that he could find so no one would jump all over me, and so that no one would do anything to hurt me. He had read the email too last week and was concerned for my safety.
The next thing that happened as he drove around the lot was this:
He saw a sign knocked down in the middle of the approach parking lot drive on the school property. He stopped the car, put his foot on the brake, put the car in park (or so he thought), opened the door and stepped out with his right foot to get the sign in front of the car. As he let his right foot off the brake and swung it out of the car also, the car lurched backwards. He tried to get back in, but the doors on our Lincoln Towncar are big and heavy. The car was moving slowly, and his left foot was stuck under the door and he could not get loose. Then the door knocked him backwards onto the ground. His right foot was turned out and the tire caught the sole and ran over his foot and twisted the foot all the way around backwards, twisting his right knee.
He knew if he didn't get out from under the door he would be killed, so he twisted onto his left side to try to roll loose. In so doing, the car kept dragging him back, and his left arm bicep was injured. Fortunately, there were cars behind about 10 feet, and our back bumper came in contact with the front bumper of a parked car and the car stopped.
That is why he came in to find out who the car belonged to at the microphone. I still did not know what was going on. He talked to the person whose car his rolled into, then he found me and said he needed to take himself to Overlake in Bellevue to the hospital. At this point, he could walk and drive.
I went outside and started to cry, because I knew what this meant. He would bleed internally and they would not be able to stop the bleeding.
He came back sometime in the middle of the voting and was in a sling. He said he needed me to take him home because they wanted him to get the arm up and ice it.
I took him home and in less than a half an hour, I had to take him back to hospital because the arm was bleeding so bad inside that it was swelling up like a balloon. His right knee had also bled, and by that time he could barely walk to get back to the car. When I got him to the hospital, they had to take him in a wheel chair. He had to stop the blood thinner and did not get out of the hospital until yesterday afternoon (Monday).
This afternoon I took him to the Orthopedic Doctor. The doctor says he is sure that one of the two tendons that attach to the bicep from the elbow popped loose at the elbow, and that he will have to have surgery on Friday. That means he took blood thinner last night and will tonight, then he has to stop until Friday or perhaps Saturday if it is still too thin, then stay off the thinner after the surgery for 2 or 3 days afterwards. This means he is at high risk for a stroke because platelets of blood collect on the artificial valve, which is why the thinner is necessary. It will take 4-6 weeks to heal, followed by physical therapy.
In addition, we were scheduled to go to Cancun next Monday for a week vacation for our 45th Wedding Anniversary. That is cancelled.
I hope whomever reads this gets a clue. My husband and I are not now, nor have we ever been nutaroonies. We are sane, polite, refined people who both deal in our professions in solving problems and bringing people together. We come from families where everyone treats others with respect. This was the most disgusting display of rudeness I have ever seen. I hope you're happy Mark. My husband has instructed me to tell you the following: A) His name for you Mark and Phil Bevis is the TV Show - (Beevis and Buthead). B) As far as he is concerned, your behavior exactly mirrors the actions of the move on dot org people of the far left 'nutaroonies'!!!! C) Jerry says that he has been involved with me helping candidates including being the 11th District Chair for Nethercut for Senate, stayed up nights decorating and afterwards tearing down for King County Conventions, put out hundreds of Rob McKenna and Rossi signs all over the place and many other things. He has seen a lot of rudeness in the party, but this takes the cake. He will never put out another yard sign or attend a Republican function or help in any way again. C) He says: 'Have a good life!'
Furthermore, you are a liar twice over. You stepped down from your position as sgt at arms because you were ordered to do so. Michael Young came personally to me and told me you had been releived of your responsibilities. Monica Tracey personally removed the sgt at arms sign from your clothing at the instructions of Michael Young.
As far as I am concerned, my husband is twice the man and more that you will EVER be unless you get a clue and get your act together. You owe him and everybody in this party a big apology.
Ruth Gibbs

Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on December 5, 2006 07:39 PM
50. Ruth,

Wow I'm really sorry to here about what happened to you and your husband
last saturday. I hope he is feeling better.I will
keep him in my prayers.I knew the King Gop were
capable of a lot of things but this really takes
the prize. Don't expect Mark Griswold to apologize
for anything though he hasn't an ounce of integrity in him.I wouldn't be surprised if
Michael Young put him up to that crap anyway.
Its unfortunately the kind of thing Michael Young
is known for.I know he had Griswold removed
from being sgt at arms but what was he supposed
to do. I mean think about it when Doug Parris asked
Mr Young if what Griswold was doing was on
KCGOP's behalf he refused to answer the question.
Those of you that voted for Mr Young well I
hope your happy.The victory was certainly won
with honor. As of now I wash my hands of this
of this joke of a county political organization.


Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 09:11 PM
51. Phil,

Well it's nice to know that we won't EVER have to hear your commentary about the KCGOP or its officers again.

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 5, 2006 09:22 PM
52. Ruth,

God speed to your husband. I pray he has a full recovery from the incident and his previous ailments.

"Beevis and Butthead", how appropriate. However, knowing Mark, he'll take that as a compliment!

Posted by: Michelle on December 5, 2006 10:09 PM
53. If you guys are going to join in the childish name calling, at least spell it right:

"Beavis and Butt-Head"

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 5, 2006 10:15 PM
54. Matthew,

Ruth and her husband went through a terrible
ordeal this past weekend and all you can say
is something as stupid as that. That takes a
lot of nerve. By the way I'm still waiting
for you to tell me what articles are false
on the Reagan wing website and who was slandered.
I know you can't because like the rest of the pco
robots in king you believe whatever Michael Young
says about the Reagan Wing and never looked
at the website yourself.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 5, 2006 10:43 PM
55. The incumbent state party representative from the 1st Congressional District was unseated by Mike Nykriem. Afterward I heard a rumor that he supported newly converted Democrat Rodney Tom in the last election over incumbent Republican Luke Esser. I checked the PDC, it is true. I think he will have some explaining to do!

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to do just that! Rodney is a dear old friend of mine. We climbed 5 mountains together with a group of buds from work over the last 10 years. Rodney has represented some of my work when I first met him in the late 80's. You are welcome to check out our web site at kirklandbuildersgroup.com.

When I ran for Kirkland City Council, last year against the liberal, unemployed, homeless (try finding her address!) city council woman Joan McBride, I asked Rodney and Luke Essor for endorsements. Luke turned me down, stating: "I can work with Joan and I'll be working again with her, so I better not." Well, Luke won't be working 'with her' now, will he? And Rodney is and hasn't shrinked from endorsing me, last year, and he still smoked Luke.

I do have to admit, it was a bit of a joke on my part. I was with a group of business associates and friends at one of Rodney's fund raisers (I've made every one of them!) and was flippin them some grief about Rodney still being more of an R then Luke, regardless of party title, and flipped Rodney a c note, just to make my point. Everyone got a pretty big laugh out of it. Even with the current flack that I am getting for this, I'd do it again. My priorities are God, Family, county, friends, business, and politics in that order. And if someone out there has heart burn about this, then you can just get over it. But just about all my business associates are also close friends AND we ALL have the same politics!

As I noted in my statement, I'm not some Johnny-come-lately. Rob McKenna was my corporate attorney in the early 90's. He ran my business partner's (Ron Smith) Bellevue City Council campaign as his first political foray. We met Dino Rossi, shortly after Ron's election, when Dino wanted to know how to mix business and politics. We said, don't do it, it isn't worth it. Commit to business, your family depends on you. Well, Dino didn't listen, did he?

And, on that note, Hans Dunshee was my college room mate. He was the last heavy weight wrestler that the UW had, prior to Title IX shutting down that program, when I was playing football. We spent quite a few PM's talking politics, we have remained good buds since. I donated $25 to his first campaign.


So, if you have anymore questions, call me. I've been in the book with the same phone # for almost 30 years. However, I'd rather only speak to PCO's that have been as active as long as I, in the same Precinct, and that started in 1979.

With that I'm done for now, but if you all don't want me working for you, then fine, I've got plenty of other stuff to do. However, good luck finding anyone, competent that will want to pursue R politics in this County.......

Posted by: Mike Nykreim on December 5, 2006 10:44 PM
56. Before I hit the sack tonight, I'd better clarify what I just posted.

Luke Essor is a fine Conservative. In NO WAY can Rodney Tom hold a candle to Luke as a Conservative. When I flipped Rodney a c note, it was a sarcastic statement that Rodney was more of an R then Luke. Everyone in the group that I was standing with understood that and that was what was so funny.

I'm realizing that the casual reader of this note may not understand that. Rodney did the right thing in posting my $100 as a 'campaign donation' since he has to report to the PDC.

So, I've given my last donation to a D, as long as I hold any leadership role in Republican Politics. I'm sure the d's won't be too sorry.

So, folks, let's go to work and Get After These SOB's and take our County Back!

Posted by: Mike Nykreim on December 5, 2006 11:17 PM
57. Ruth,

One more thing in regards to Ross Marzolf.
If you won he was scared to death he would
be fired. Then he would have to go look for
a real job something he doesn't know how to do.
Thats why he acted liked such a jerk. Although
thats par for the course from someone like Marzolf.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 6, 2006 12:06 AM
58. Phil Spackman,
Where do you live? Have you been a PCO? Please email me the info at regpc3@aol.com.
Ruth Gibbs

Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on December 6, 2006 12:13 AM
59. I will have to give Mike Nykreim credit for being a honest man and for admitting to and explaining an apparent error on his part. Perhaps not too big of an error, given the context at the time, but certainly a major faux pas given the current context. The Republican Party doesn't seem to have enough honesty and principles these days, and Democrats would say there is hardly any at all. So one would hope that Mike sticks around in a leadership role.

That being said, the King County GOP really screwed Mike over last year when he ran for Kirkland City Council. Esser should have endorsed him. Esser is establishment GOP, while Tom was outsider GOP. The King County GOP didn't given any money to Mike's campaign.

But they managed to give roughly $6,000 each for four city council races in Issaquah and one city council race in Sammamish. For this $30,000 investment, only one of the five was elected, and two of the candidates lost by bigger margins than Mike did.

Posted by: Richard Pope on December 6, 2006 12:18 AM
60. Richard - Are you just really bitter because the KCGOP would not endorse you in your last race?

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 07:57 AM
61. Ruth, first let me say I am sorry that your husband was insured on Saturday morning and I WILL keep him in my prayers. That being said, I'm not going to apologize for anything because I have nothing to apologize for. YOU are the LIAR! The other person in the car wasn't Phil Bevis. It was a fellow YR who will go unnamed and isn't really involved in KCGOP politics to the extent we are. He ducked down because he didn't want to get involved. Phil Bevis is the last person I know who would shy away from confrontation. I also didn't use any expletives so don't even go there. The worst thing I said to you was to go ahead and call the police. As far as me being recused of my Sergeant at arms duties, yes, technically Michael and Monica "removed" me from that position but didn't do so with force and did so reluctantly. They ASKED me to step down because of the conflict it was cause so I willingly did because I care more about getting things done than raising conflict.
As far as "juntas" are concerned I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Phil Spackman, please go sit in on an 8th grade English Lit class and learn about something called sarcasm. Doug and Co. seem to think that Young and Sotelo are some kinds of evil despots so, for my own amusement as well as that of several other SP readers, I use sarcasm and play along with Doug's accusations. It's a common political strategy: sarcastically admit to the ludicrous accusations of your opponent to make him look like an idiot.

Phil, I echo Matt's exlamation and wish you the best in your new endeavors. I am going to miss your raving ramblings, but not too much.

And Richard, believe it or not, I actually agree with you to some extent. I applaud Mike for having the honesty and character to clarify his actions. I may get crucified for this comment, but I have no problem with Republicans giving money to good Democrats (i.e. Brian Sonntag, Tim Sheldon). I even know some prominent Republican electeds who donate to prominent Democrat electeds campaigns just out of a long standing friendship, as Mike apparently did. So, Mike, now that you have explained the situation I take back everything I said about you and wish you the best in your new leadership role. Although you should probably take calls from PCOs that have served less than 26 years, not all of us have that kind of record (and that wasn't meant to be sarcastic).

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 6, 2006 09:28 AM
62. Phil,

I just noticed that you are on the list of elected PCOs for 2006-2008. When can I expect to see your letter of resignation come into the office? Since you have "washed your hands of this
of this joke of a county political organization", I can't imagine that you would retain that post.

In case you don't have it, our mailing address is:

King County Republican Central Committee
845 106th Ave NE, Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 09:58 AM
63. Griswold @ 61

Your "roommate" may have a lot of things in common with Phil Bevis. However, I am sure that Ruth Gibbs and her husband can tell the difference between a 45 year old man who they have met many times and know pretty well, and your 24 year old "roommate".

Posted by: Richard Pope on December 6, 2006 10:49 AM
64. FOR THE RECORD:

I have never pulled up one of Ruth's signs - or for that matter anyone's sign - in my life. Nor have I been in the company of those who have done so.

I was NOT the person in the car with Mark Griswold - who was in fact a much younger person who in no way resembles me.

I realize that Ruth has had a difficult week with the election and her husband's injury and I hope and pray that he is recovering.

And I have also asked her to retract this entirely false statement.

Posted by: ReaganROCKS!!! on December 6, 2006 10:51 AM
65. Richard,

What is this talk about Mark's roomate? I don't see that anywhere but in your post?

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 11:00 AM
66. Interesting blog by Matthew Lundh. Who are you? You are speaking officially for the KCGOP. Who ARE YOU? By what authority do you make this request? In case anyone is confused, Spackman is an ELECTED PCO by the September Primary on the public ballot. He does not have to resign. He was not appointed by KCGOP, and the KCGOP cannot remove him.
Ruth Gibbs

Posted by: ruth gibbs on December 6, 2006 11:02 AM
67. In response to Reagan Rocks: What makes you think my husband is recovering? He is keeping his arm iced and up to get ready for surgery on Friday (or maybe Saturday) if his blood does not thicken enough by then. Then he has 4-6 weeks of recovery IF he does not have a stroke because platelets of blood form on his artificial heart valve while he is off the blood thinner for 3-6 days starting today or he dies. You people don't seem to get it. This is a potentially life threatening or totally debillitating from a stroke situation. We are not happy campers.
Ruth Gibbs

Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on December 6, 2006 11:08 AM
68. I was not speaking officially for the KCGOP. Phil stated in an earlier post that he had "washed his hands" of the KCGOP. That statement caused me to believe that he should resign as a PUBLICALLY elected member of the organization that he had PUBLICALLY "washed his hands" of.

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 11:19 AM
69. Matthew,

So that explains it you work for KCGOP.
When you were saying that the Reagan Wing
website made false statements and slandering
others you were just repeating the Young
adninstration's defense. As to whether or
not I will resign that is up to me. I will
decide that when I'm ready to.

Griswold,

Just leave Ruth Gibbs alone alright.Its
apparent you don't think you did anything
wrong that day. Ruth is going through
a difficult time right now and yet you
continue to throw dirt on her.What's
wrong with you anyway?You say you pray, is
this really how you think God wants you to
treat people?

Posted by: phil spackman on December 6, 2006 12:40 PM
70. Okay Phil, are you saying you don't want me to pray for Ruth and her husband? Just because I know Ruth is a lying deceitful nutroot doesn't mean I want her husband to DIE! What kind of sicko do you think I am? There are only a few people on earth that I'd like to see dead and none of them reside in King County. And I'm not throwing dirt on her. I'm just calling her out for the lies she's propagating. Sorry, but I think I know the difference between Phil Bevis and the person that was sitting in my truck better than Ruth Gibbs, who wasn't sitting in the truck.

And counselor Pope, I strenously object! Stating that the person in the car with me was my 24 year old roommate is hearsay! You weren't around that day. How do you know who it was? All I said is that it was a fellow YR who's not involved in politics to the extent I am. For all you know it could be someone from the Young Republican club of Jefferson County, MO.
(The court reporter will strike the witness's last statement from the record - Heck, the court reporter will strike every statement the witness has made in the past 20 years from the record - and the jury will disregard. Oh wait, never mind. What jury? I forgot, the Young/Sotelo "administration" is a military tribunal. It's true! Michael Medved was talking about it on "conspiracy day" today. We actually have secret torture camps in Asotin County where we conduct mind control experiments on ReaganWingers and seek to bring about the New World Order. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. If you look closely at the World Trade Center tapes you will see Michael Young parachuting from the rear of one of the planes shortly before it hits tower #1. And Lori Sotelo's husband single-handedly funded the attacks on the London subway in July '05. Furthermore, secret KCGOP documents in my posession reveal that board members are all required to join the Builderbergers and the Bavarian Illuminati. I'm serious! I've been to their meetings at the Carlyle Hotel in New York along with RINOs like Rudy Guliani and George Pataki. Each meeting begins with a reading of the Necronicon followed by praise and worship of Chuthulu. You really should have been at last month's meeting though. We gave away door-prizes to anyone who brought in proof of an abortion or gay-marriage within the past year then listened to a key-note speech by past-president Leonid Breshnev. It was good times.
(Special note for Phil Spackman: the entirity of the last paragraph was sarcasm. Notice the use of outlandish statements to key the reader in to it. And keep up the grammer lessons. I can already see a marked improvement. When I feel you have mastered grammer we can start the lesson on saracsm that Richard and Ruth are now taking. It's lots of fun and will do wonders for those SAT scores. (And this last parenthetical statement was call facetious patronization. But that's a lesson for much later)).

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 6, 2006 03:21 PM
71. Phil,

Wow. I am amazed that you can make a totally unfounded judgement about my ability to form an opinion of my own simply because I work for the Party.

How about lecturing Mark on how God wants him to act?

How about slandering Ross @ 57 when you have no idea about his skills and abilities or saying that being the Executive Director of the party is not a REAL job?

I guess that must be the way that God wants you to treat people.

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 03:23 PM
72. I just found this touching and a little bit creepy post over at the "Stories of Hope and Inspiration" blog that I is a must read for all Susan Hutchison fans:

http://storiesofhopeandinspiration.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 03:31 PM
73. Griswold,

First of all I never said you shouldn't
pray for ruth's husband. I think you
and matthew both misunderstood what I was saying.
Griswold in your case I was trying to point
out that ruth is going through a difficult
time and what you were saying to her isn't
a christian like thing to do. But I never
said you shouldn't pray for husband

Matthew, Where to begin If I was so wrong
about your view on The Reagan wing website.
Then why wont you tell us all what is false
and who was slandered on the website?
An opinion is just that, it has no basis in fact.
Since you wont say what it is you think
there lying about or who there slandering.
Its not much of one.

In regards to Marzolf it was not an attempt
to slander him in any way.Based on what I
know that's how looked to me.If he had shown
common decency to those don't agree with
everything young does. Then I wouldn't have
said anything at all. I already apologized
to Marzolf about the job crack.Enough said.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 6, 2006 03:48 PM
74. Matthew,

So you don't like what I said on my other
blog. Big deal,I will tell you what I told
Griswold. Please leave Susan out of this
She has nothing to do with any of it.

Posted by: phil spackman on December 6, 2006 03:56 PM
75. Phil,

It's this simple. I don't feel the need to waste my time documenting all of the filth on the Reagan Wing as everyone else on here except for the handfull of you that believe the crap on there already know.

Michael Young is not a Democrat or a liberal sympathizer. He does not intentionally find PCOs who are liberals or are pro-abortion, gay rights or the other nonsense. He does not recruit liberal candidates unless he considers folks like Luke Esser, Toby Nixon, Jeffrey Possinger, Steve Beren and Donna Watts (just to name a few) to be liberals.

I am confident that Lori Sotelo does not believe in fluid borders between the United States and Mexico nor are she and Diane Tebelius in some kind of romantic relationship.

There was no campaign or "21 part program" to get Larry Gossett re-elected to the County Council as not endorsing Brian Thomas does not constitute support for his opponent. If Doug really believes so I would like to see his evidence and a list of the 21-parts.

All of the ridiculous accusations of assault and stalking, etc. what a bunch of garbage that is. If one of the members of the leadership simply brushes up against one of them in passing they claim it is assault.

To be blunt, Doug must think we are all stupid. He says that the KCGOP/WSRP are all "stealth liberals" and we are just sheep being hearded around and can't see them for who they really are. What a load of crap! If the election on Saturday didn't show how the majority rejects the RW's extreme and ridiculous views, I don't know what will. It just showed that you guys are totally insignificant and represent a fringe group of people in the party and certainly don't represent the views of any significant number of people.

Why not try to get along with everyone instead of trying to divide everyone? Deep down we all have the same goal, even though some might not believe it.

Finally, to be clear, a lot of what Doug says does not really have basis in fact nor does it need to because they are his opinions. He just rants about a bunch of stupid things and puts some dumb doctored picture next to it. If he isn't out to libel and slander people all the time, why does he stalk them at events all the time trying to catch them at unflattering moments and put that in the posts?

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 6, 2006 04:31 PM
76. Wow. I missed this thread. Reminds me picking sides in the Iran/Iraq war ... if you catch my drift.

And we wonder why not only are we getting blasted in races in the crescent, but have absolutely no strategy for getting them back. Oh, wait. We do. Apparently has something to do with signs posted outside of a school.

Party politics. Can't live with 'em; pass the beer nuts.
/Norm Peterson

Anybody catch Griswold 'singing' at a Grays Harbor County Lincoln Day a couple years ago? I'll burn you a copy for a small fee. :)

Posted by: jimg on December 6, 2006 04:56 PM
77. Oh! I was SOOO there at the grays harbor dinner! Me and a friend drove Nethercutt to it. That, was QUITE the spectacle. Memories!

Posted by: AD on December 6, 2006 05:26 PM
78. Phil, okay, so you didn't say I shouldn't pray for Ruth's husband. But does that mean that I shouldn't call her out on her lies? Again, I'm sorry she's going through a tough time but that doesn't give her the right to lie about the events of Saturday morning.

And jimg and AD, glad you enjoyed my performance. I had a blast doing it. I'm curious, who are you two? Do we know each other?

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 6, 2006 06:22 PM
79. It seems reasonable to me that Ruth might have been mistaken on the identity of the mystery passenger. These were bombastic encounters at high volume. Following my top-of-his-lungs encounter with "Full Contact" on the road where I was putting back up the signs, I went back towards the parking lot to the sign Lori had ordered me to remove. (I thought I might photograph her or someone else removing it, but it was already down.) But from about 200 feet away, I heard very loud shouting. I broke into a jog to get to the scene. It was the confrontation between Full Contact Griswold and the physically-recovering middle-aged woman who was just about to be defeated by his Boss for County Chair. He really was shouting. I'd call it screaming, but it was at a low, masculine pitch. Full Contact was so loud and threatening I thought it likely that violence would follow and broke into a sprint to support Ruth. He sounded like a man about to swing a club or throw punches. That's when he floored it and screeched away. Most women would be thoroughly shaken by that experience. Did Ruth misidentify someone as Phil? I can't say who it was, as I said. But even in that circumstance, I'm quite certain she didn't "lie". I interviewed her before she wrote here and she was quite sincere about it being Phil and she knew I had seen the man. The Bush administration fully expected to uncover caches of WMDs in Iraq and their failure, by their own standards, to do so does not make them "liars."

How long will this person (who, by sharing a front seat, was, by Full Contact's own definition, locked, thereby, in a "Civil Union" with Mark Griswold) remain in the closet? Why is his identity being kept secret? Will he ever attend a Republican event again? Or will he join ranks of the thousands of potential activists driven from the Party by the Decepti-Cons?

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 6, 2006 11:28 PM
80. Maybe Mark Griswold and his friends could form the "J. Edgar Hoover Wing" of the Republican Party. Perhaps that is what Griswold actually meant a few weeks ago in his Doug Parris campaign speech video posting, when he said "Herbert Hoover" Wing. I can see how the younger generation could get their Hoovers mixed up.

Posted by: Richard Pope on December 7, 2006 12:15 AM
81. And jimg and AD, glad you enjoyed my performance.

Enjoyed is too strong of a word. Entertained would be better.

I'll admit, it's the only time I've ever seen or heard somebody make mistakes while trying to sing along to a song ... and blame the song.

Posted by: jimg on December 7, 2006 10:41 AM
82. Well, it actually was pretty good - just needed to be rehearsed a little more. I respect Mark for getting up and singing. That takes a lot of courage. As someone who wants to run for office in the youtube age, though, it's a big no-no. Remember Alfonse D'Amato's song on the Senate floor about pork? It lost him his seat.

Posted by: AD on December 7, 2006 03:09 PM
83. CORRECTION TO BLOG #49 from Ruth Gibbs:

I read over my entire blog last night, which I wrote late at night. I made an error. In the body of this blog, I said that the Head Sgt at Arms Jim Clingan got in my husbands face. That was an error on my part. It should have said that 'an unidentified sgt at arms' got in my husband's face. The person was not Jim Clingen.

Ruth Gibbs

Posted by: ruth gibbs on December 7, 2006 05:57 PM
84. I just read the "Matthew Lundh" post that says there was no 21 point program, nor any incidents of violence.

Aparently, Matthew, you haven't read Michael Young and Larry Gossett: a Republican Race Card where I specify EACH of those 21 points.

Matthew, Those claims are literally true and I can document them several ways, including sworn affidavits, if necessary. The worst of them, the slanders, can be documented by going no further than googling Sound Politics.
Would you care to make a wager?
In five figures?

Lori wouldn't.

And her advocacy for the guestworker amnesty program can be confirmed, not only by her work on the County Platform Committee, her draft Immigration Plank, her ownership in 4 FOUR businesses designed to profit from Illegal Immigration and the positions of her Illegal Immigration Activist Husband, but also by her debate on the floor of the State Convention, which is available in audio and video at TVW.

I never made any claim of a "romantic" relationship between Lori and Diane Tebelius, though I can see where someone with a severe reading comprehension problem might make that mistake. I used their physical embrace at the State Convention as a metaphor for their POLITICAL relationship, something that is crucial to understand if we are to prevent the Washington State Republican Party from working to accellerate the NeoCon plan to open our borders to Mexico and give amnesty to the illegals already here. Diane and Lori are on the same page on that and it's not hard to trace.

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 7, 2006 08:19 PM
85. Doug,

The picture that accompanies the Sotelo/Tebelius post is of two women in wedding dresses marrying each other. When you put out inflammatory stuff like that, in addition to making you look ridiculous, it completely undercuts every argument you make.

There's a proverb that says "in the counsel of many there is wisdom." A great many people got together last week, there was quite a bit of wisdom in the room, and they thoroughly rejected you and your tactics.

People know you. They know what you're about. They know what you stand for. They reject it.

So, as a post on your site says "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." It doesn't matter who left whom. Just leave.

Posted by: AD on December 7, 2006 08:34 PM
86. 1. Who are you? Why are you and "Matthew" and "Sarah Osborne" and "AliciaCR" always anonymous?
"Cowards," (In Warren McKenzie's description of unattributed attacks) are we?

2. When you ask me to leave isn't it because you have a narrow political agenda that must exclude those who don't agree with you 100%? Isn't it true that you are guilty of the very things you accuse your opponents of?

3. I stand for , the principles of freedom and justice and prosperity that that founded America, the principles that your friends now call "extreme." I don't think the 170 people who voted against me were rejecting those things. Certainly those 160 who voted in that same 3-way race for Steve Hammond were not rejecting them, since Steve and I are in substantial agreement. I think you and Mike and Lori and Ann and Diane and your inside circle, like Griswold, do reject them, but the rest, to some degree or other, actually voted, instead, on lies they've been fed by your side.

I'll give you a specific example. Ann Adams made phone calls into her district to property rights-supporting PCOs right after the County Convention, telling them that Lori Sotelo had "fought to get a strong property rights plank" in the Platform. The reality is that Dave Marks and I led that fight and our main opponent was Lori Sotelo. She voted against property rights on the platform at every level, every time. But neither Marks nor I spent hours on the phone telling our story to PCOs. Ann Adams spread politically potent lies empowered by the censorship rule imposed on the Platform Committee, and her district was the most represented at the meeting.

You stand for Secret Meetings and Slander. No, I won't leave you to your own devices.

Posted by: Doug Parris on December 7, 2006 09:38 PM
87. Hey all you "full contacters". I've noticed you do quite a bit of riduculing Phil Spackman for his grammer, homophone and punctuation errors. By the way, if you ever talk to a secretary who's worked for a CEO or two, they'll be the first to tell you that the most intellegent CEOs commit a high amount of these errors too. That doesn't excuse a grown man for poor writing, but I'm just sayin'...

But Phil has given you a simple challenge that as of yet, you have failed to meet, but instead you shift the argument. In this case, I'd say he has you beat rhetorically. His challenge: Which articles on The Reagan Wing website are false and who was slandered? (Keep in mind that slander means using FALSE statememnts that defame someone's charactar). One of you mentioned the two women in wedding gowns, if you read the article, you'd know that while yes, it was intentionally provacative, it was an ANALOGY. And a much better one than the attempts at "satire" by Griswold. Hint: In order for satire to work, there has to be an element of truth in the satirical statement, Griswold. Did you miss that part in your English Lit. class? But answer this question, those of you who have a problem with that particular article: Which of the claims in the article is false and what evidence do you have to back it up? And another of you mentioned "there is no 21 point plan", but failed refute any of the 21 points.

Posted by: Michelle on December 8, 2006 07:02 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?