Because of the upcoming precinct caucus in February, many new PCOs have signed up recently, and so now is a great time for PCO training. Every Republican PCO in Snohomish County -- old and new -- should come to PCO training next Saturday, January 5, at 1 p.m. at the PUD building in Edmonds.
RSVP to the county office at 360-653-1100 by January 3.
Also, there will be caucus training about a month from now for the caucuses on February 9, so stay tuned for an announcement.
Posted by pudge at December 28, 2007 07:36 AM | Email ThisI was explaining to a cubbyhole mate about the potential for a brokered convention this year. By his questions, it became obvious that neither of us knew what we were talking about. A brief discussion would be helpful and keep it in context of the potential for this convention being a historical event.
I made a statement that delegates were obligated for the first vote and then they could peel off, thusly making it brokered. I hope I wasn't too far off.
Posted by: swatter on December 28, 2007 08:48 AMMy guess is that you're right, that in most cases, delegates will be obligated for the first vote. If there is no majority, that's where it gets confusing. Do the states vote as a bloc? Does each delegate get to vote independently for whomever they wish? Is there a limited pool of choices to vote for?
Two things are for sure: if you want to get a leg up on going to the convention, you should have signed up to be a PCO, and if everyone who wants to participate -- including PCOs -- in the convention needs to show up at the caucus!
There are a lot of positives to the country that would happen if it were. And it definitely would be historical which is another positive.
Posted by: swatter on December 28, 2007 09:06 AMBush stink = massive loss. Huge. Enormous. Worse than when Watergate stunk up all the Republican candidates.
Posted by: Why bother? on December 28, 2007 09:32 AMHowever, pudge and I use the same moniker day after day so we know each other.
In my case, I have several pages on google search of things that were published,etc. and while I don't mind my name being used on blogs, I certainly don't like every little comment being plastered over the internet. It would distract from the other, more serious, postings.
Posted by: swatter on December 28, 2007 09:53 AMIn my LD, no one was excluded, although I was prepared to exclude people if their only reason to become a PCO was to support a specific candidate. Was that your reason to be a PCO? Being a PCO means being committed to supporting the party, not merely a specific candidate.
Posted by: pudge on December 28, 2007 12:40 PMThat makes me so happy. I still miss the Shark, but it will be nice to have the occasional break from Eric "The Earl" Earling.
:D
Posted by: Cydney on December 28, 2007 01:04 PMBTW why do we have a better website & calendar than you guys. We have a lot of events & picnics
Posted by: Darcy on December 28, 2007 06:01 PMI am in the 37th distric. I was prepared to support the GOP as a whole. Said over the phone I would do so. Signed a pledge saying I would support the candidate chosen.
But was told that I would not be allowed to be a PCO because of a post I made here that said that Paul is going to be the first GOP presidential candidate I have ever voted for. When I spoke to marzolf on the phone I was totally honest and told him I have voted libertarian in the past in some races. He was fine with that. When he found out via a post here that I supported Paul I was no longer acceptable.
This has really turned me off the GOP here in WA. If they are not willing to accept new people just because the new people support different candidates than the leadership, they are doomed to marginalize themselves to obscurity. Why bother with a organization that wants to do that to themselves?
Posted by: Travis on December 28, 2007 08:46 PMWell, it is a little fishy that you would say you've never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate before, and you want to be a PCO. That said, if you gave me your word, that would probably be good enough.
Also, FWIW, the 37th District is not in Snohomish County, so I can't speak for anyone there.
Posted by: pudge on December 28, 2007 09:36 PMI explained to him that because of my age, I had the oppurtunity to vote for Dole when I was 18 or 19 and generally you do not judge people by how they voted as an 18 year old. Since then I have only had the chance to vote for Bush who i admit I have big disagreements with. But more importantly there are many republicans that do not vote for republicans for president but vote the complete GOP ticket at the local and state level.
I know the 37th is not in Snohomish. It is in King. Unfortunately I have seen similar reaction to anyone suspected of supporting Paul in whatcom county as well. Hopefully these are isolated incidents of just certain GOP leaders. I have seen positive things from some in pierce county and the I beleive it is the 25th district where I was at their summer picnic. Luke Esser also appears to be open which is the most promissing. I spoke with him briefly at both the South Sound Reagan Republican picnic and the Ron Paul Rally held downtown back in September. He seemed surprised and happy to see the 800+ crowd of Paul Republicans. It just seems like at the more local level some lower level leaders are actively pushing away new supporters.
Posted by: Travis on December 29, 2007 09:33 AMIf you are really interested in the change that Dr. Paul represents, and if you think they are excluding you merely because you spport him, I suggest you run for elected PCO next time, and challenge the LD / county leadership. Not necessarily run against them or anything, but be a thorn in their side.
Don't give up on the GOP. It's your only real choice of the political parties (apologies to Bruce Guthrie, but the LP just isn't a viable option if your goal is to effect change within the system, rather than trying to force change from outside it). Work to FIX the party. That is what I am doing.
I only asked you some additional questions here because I wanted you to be sure that you were not being excluded for some legitimate reason. It appears you have thought this through and are fairly certain. And if I were you, I think I'd do something about it next time around.
A word though: I figure you probably plan on showing up to the caucus. If you do want to help fix the GOP, I suggest you don't make this about you or Paul vs. the GOP, but instead make it about the GOP, and how Paul is the best candidate for the GOP. Otherwise, people who opposed you and other Paul supporters will just say, "see, I told you so."
This issue has come up here in Snohomish County, usually coming from me, warning other chairs to be wary of supporters of specific candidates, especially Paul supporters. We don't want the party to be taken over by people who don't care about the party, who have not worked to support it and who show no signs they would support it in the future. But I was clear in saying we should welcome them as PCOs if we are fairly certain they are becoming PCOs to help the GOP, to fulfill the responsibilities of PCO, rather than just to support that candidate. There's a fine line there sometimes. But I get the feeling I would have approved your application, as I approved the application of another person who said he wanted to support a specific candidate (in this case, Romney), because he convinced me his concern was for the party, not just for the one candidate he liked.
Whatever you choose to do, good luck, and keep fighting the fight.
Posted by: pudge on December 29, 2007 10:14 AMI have no doubt that you are fair about it, pudge. I know that my district chair is too. But that this is even a discussion, to be screening volunteers for PCO's because of who they support for the nomination, goes to show you that this is messed up.
I agree, that we need all of these new people to come in and work on fixing the party and this is one of the problems that need fixing. Several months ago, I proposed making a resolution in my district to change the rules to undo the automatic delegate status of appointed PCO's, making the case that some district chairs might take the opportunity to stack the deck in favor of their preferred candidate. The majority of the 10 or so PCO's at the meeting were too naive to believe that cheating might actually take place within our party.
Another PCO actually proposed making a rule that appointed PCO's must have donated x amount of money to the party or volunteered x amound of volunteer hours. I argued against that (even though I would have met that criteria myself) because it would discourage new people who come into the party because for the first time, they're excited about a candidate.
What we need to do is encourage ANYONE who wants to get involved, but not give ANYONE automatic delegate status. Let them all get elected fair and square.
Posted by: Michelle on December 29, 2007 11:07 AMI am not too naive to think no cheating happens, but I do believe that in general, it's good to have chairs appoint PCOs, and good to have those PCOs be automatic delegates. It's a good way to get new PCOs. We've greatly expanded our number of PCOs in the last few months, and this is a big reason why.
I tend to think that the PCOs have given this power to the chair (hopefully knowingly) and if the chair abuses it, then they can work to pick a better chair, or to change the bylaws if they are concerned enough, but that our system is in general pretty good.
Maybe if we had more PCOs, and less of a need to recruit more PCOs, then I would favor dropping the automatic delegate status for appointed PCOs. Although I could be convinced otherwise too, I don't feel very strongly either way. It's one of those things where it is not so much a matter of principle, as practice.
Posted by: pudge on December 29, 2007 11:36 AMSo long as nobody is turned away by their district or county chair because of who they support or how new they are to the party or even voting Republican, I agree, this is a very good thing!
Posted by: Michelle on December 29, 2007 01:32 PMOn the other hand, automatic delegate status shouldn't be handed out as an incentive for volunteering, unless it can be done evenly. For example, precinct captains (in theory) volunteer the same amount of work as PCO's. The difference: they do not have a vote in party rules, party offices, and do not have automatic delegate status. They must get elected to be delegate. I have no problem with elected PCO's having automatic delegate status, since they are elected by the voters in their precincts to begin with.
Posted by: Michelle on December 29, 2007 01:39 PMTHanks. I know we disagree sometimes but I do believe you when you say you would have not denied me. The tone of the call from Marzolf was from the very begining a very accusatory tone where he specifically asked about Paul without any mention of him from me. He obviously has a huge anti Paul bias. That is fine but it should not be a basis for denying people from being PCOs.
I agree there should not be a automatic delagate status being assinged by people in power as someone else suggested. Even when some people (like pudge) are doing it fairly, it will be unfair when looked at from the state level.
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 29, 2007 01:50 PMIf you want I can forward you my email correspondance with the LD chair. Oh and I am certianly not going to make it all about Ron Paul at the caucus, but I am going to point out the leadership aversion to new supporters hurting the party.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 29, 2007 02:00 PMI am not out to attack him. This thread is about PCOs and I am just commenting on how Marzolf is screening out anyone he thinks supports Paul from being a PCO. I think this will hurt the GOP signifigantly. I am not saying he is doing it with the intention of hurting the GOP, I am just saying he is doing it which from my discussions with him is quite clear he is doing and I seriously doubt he would deny.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on December 30, 2007 09:10 AMThe KCGOP has a certain "type" of Republican they prefer. Conservative libertarian's and other conservatives scare the Hell out of the ensconced Rockefeller/Evans Republican's leading the KCGOP.
Posted by: KitsapVoter on December 30, 2007 09:45 AM1. First, Travis said he lives in the 37th District which is one of the most ethnically diverse in the state. It is not rural Sno County or Kitsap County which has some diversity because of government installations and Bremerton.
2. I don't know that Chair of the District. But a leader that can't at the minimum say:
a. Slavery is wrong
b. Nazis, Aryan Nations types, and the KKK are not welcome in my group
has the chance of an ice cube in hell of winning in that district.
3. Urban republicans will continue to leave your party because you are clueless about what it takes to win in an urban district. Travis, may be a great guy on a personal level, but he is supporting a candidate that is poison to recruiting republicans in the 37th. Sorry Travis, I happen to like you, but I would have kicked your butt to the curb as well.
4. There is the elephant in the room, the abortion issue. Urban voters will not for the foreseeable future vote for a candidate who does not at least support the status quo. I am pro life, but I realize that a woman who wants an abortion will get one whether the procedure is legal or not. The only thing that will prevent her from getting an abortion is to persuade her that there are other viable options for her and the baby. The only laws that will really be a deterrent to abortion is to prosecute both the mother and abortionist for murder. Outside of some true wackos, no one wants to take the law that far. There has to be expansion of adoption and support for mothers and children.
So, if you don't want to be a homogenious rural party with a few outer ring suburbs, you people need to get real.
Posted by: WVH on December 30, 2007 12:19 PMAnd as bad as Aryan Nation and KKK types are, the disgusting thing is that Democrats attack evil racist ideas, but are perfectly welcoming of communist ideas which are just as bad, if not worse.
Posted by: pudge on December 30, 2007 01:34 PMPaul has gotten more support in my LD than any other GOP candidate. Not sure how that reconciles with your (false) impression of Dr Paul views on racism and slavery.
Posted by: Travis on December 30, 2007 01:41 PM1. I see you graduated with honors from the Doug Parris school of charm. Let's see the drill is to call everyone who disagrees with you a liar.
Now, this is my exact quote:
. I don't know that Chair of the District. But a leader that can't at the minimum say:
a. Slavery is wrong
b. Nazis, Aryan Nations types, and the KKK are not welcome in my group
has the chance of an ice cube in hell of winning in that district.
I was speaking generally, but here is an opinion which examines Paul's Meet the Press Slavery comment:
"More Than Historical Stupidity in Paul's Slavery Crack
Posted December 27, 2007 | 11:11 AM (EST)
No shot GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul tossed out yet another juicy zinger this time on Meet the Press when he said that Lincoln was a bad guy for fighting the civil war. Paul's solution: simply shell out some cash, buy the slaves, and set them free. One would like to believe that Paul is just jerking off the press and the public with his shoot from the lip, loose brained, solutions on everything from taxes to ending the Iraq war. And that his dig at Lincoln for fighting the Civil War is the latest in the train of dumb wit Paulisms.
But the Civil war and the Lincoln jibe needs a response for two reasons. The first is for its idiot read of history. Lincoln as an Illinois Congressman in 1849 proposed a bill for voluntary and gradual emancipation of the slaves in the District of Columbia. Lincoln toyed with the idea of offering compensation to get the slavemasters to go along with it. Congress dominated by Southerners and the slave owners showed absolutely no interest in tqking a government bribe to give up their slaves in D.C. Lincoln didn't give up the idea. In 1861, Lincoln, now president, dangled the carrot of federal dollars in front of the slaveowners in the Border States. He'd pay them $400 per slave to free them. There were no takers. The next year, Lincoln, even arm twisted Congress to pass a resolution providing for paynment to the slaveowners in the Border States and elsewhere. That went nowhere too.
The slave masters understood something that Paul doesn't. Slavery was not an aberrant, patchwork system that consigned a few million luckless blacks to hard, unpaid labor. Slavery was a cornerstone of the Southern economy. It wove personal lifestyle, custom, and comfort together for the benefit of the slave owners. Slavery was slyly encoded in articles in the Constitution, protected by court decisions, and bolstered by the full force of federal law (the enforcement of the fugitive slave law). Lincoln had a better chance of dismantling slavery with dollars than Paul has of winning the White House.
The other more compelling reason to take on Paul's dumb crack is that while the North may have won the war, the South won the peace. No other region has so dominated national politics--the military, the courts, Congress, the White House--as the South. It retooled slavery into a iron clad sytem of Jim Crow segregation, economic domination, and state government sanctioned violence to maintain power. No amount of money could have changed that.
The South maintained political dominance for nearly century after the end of slavery by forcing every Democrat or Republican that wanted to bag or stay in the White House to do and say as little as possible about race and racism, slavishly adhere to states rights, and pander to Southern politicians. When the civil rights movement momentarily changed this neat political formula white Southern Democrats simply swapped their Democratic political pin for a Republican one. In the eyes of many white Southerners, the Democratic Party became the hated symbol of integration and civil rights...."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/more-than-historical-stup_b_78423.html
That is another view, care to call the writer a liar as well?
2. You said this:
"And as bad as Aryan Nation and KKK types are, the disgusting thing is that Democrats attack evil racist ideas, but are perfectly welcoming of communist ideas which are just as bad, if not worse."
Since you are comfortable with racists, then why don't you welcome ALL Paul supporters into your district. Maybe the Nazis, Aryan Nation types and KKK would feel right at home with you as the party leader. Meanwhile, you idiots won't be winning any elections any time soon.
Either the republican party leadership stands up to the racists, Aryan Nations types and KKK or you will never attract or retain the kind of candidates that will help you win.
Slavery and racism are the equivalent of Communisim, well you are spouting the talking points from one of the Ron Paul forums:
#41 12-05-2007, 09:36 PM
ThePieSwindler
Senior Member About:
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,532
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettwombat
true communism is the belief that everyone is equal... that everyone believes in hard work for the benefit of society(not government or people higher up than you)
everyone has there place but no one is better than anyone else...
you still have freedom and liberties in true communism, there is just no social classes.
the only way true communism could work is to bring about a radical change of thought to people, which i think would be extremely difficult to do.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=47982&page=5
To equate oppression of races and religious groups with an economic system shows what your real feelings are regarding any type of diversity in the republican party and the fact that you are just a Paul hack in a leadership position.
Whatever you say about me, you're the one who is a proven liar.
Posted by: pudge on December 30, 2007 03:40 PMSince you are comfortable with racists...
Again, you are a liar. I never stated or implied any such thing. I still don't understand how you, as a professing Christian, can maliciously lie about people so comfortably.
Slavery and racism are the equivalent of Communisim, well you are spouting the talking points from one of the Ron Paul forums
I have never been to such a forum, so I wouldn't know, and I couldn't care less.
To equate oppression of races and religious groups with an economic system
To say that communism is an economic system exposes your ignorance. Communism is not an economic system. Communism -- when done at a state level, where it is not voluntary such as in some parts of Pennsylvania -- in fact, oppresses ALL people. It makes ALL people literal slaves to the state, taking away all their literal property and all their literal liberty and literally forcing them to labor at gunpoint.
Forced communism IS slavery. It denies EVERY individual right, and when you have no rights, you are a slave.
WVH, you are a liar and a hypocrite. You are totally ignorant about communism. Until recently, you had no idea what the 10th Amendment said or meant. Your opinion is worthless.
I won't be responding to you again.
Posted by: pudge on December 30, 2007 03:49 PMLet's see call everyone a liar and then decide not to resspond, like Bruce G. There you go again. I guess libertarians of a feather flock together.
Funny you should use Pennsylvania as an example.
Poster Atheist used the address Atheist@freethought.org which is an actual atheist organization in Pennsylvania. Wonder if you resemble that poster?
Now let's get down to your comments. You said:
"Communism -- when done at a state level, where it is not voluntary such as in some parts of Pennsylvania -- in fact, oppresses ALL people. It makes ALL people literal slaves to the state, taking away all their literal property and all their literal liberty and literally forcing them to labor at gunpoint...."
Here is the link to the elections department for the state of Pennsylvania:
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=19&ElectionID=26
What Communist takeover are you referring to?
No dude, you won't be responding because you can't. You have no facts and never had.
Until there is a group of younger republicans who are conservative, but want to win elections, your fat a$$ will remain in leadership. Party purges happen in both parties when the yungins get tired of losing. So, Sno County will become more diverse and eventually you will be replaced by someone who really is a leader and sees that the way to victory is not bigotry and wingnut ideas. Parties like people grow or die. In your county, you are part of the death spiral.
Posted by: WVH on December 30, 2007 04:33 PMThis is getting so old!
Ron Paul DID say slavery is wrong. But you continue to lie. He even went so far as to say that neo-Nazi's and KKK members are not needed or welcome in his campaign. Check out the interview on the PBS special on him. You can view it here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/161207Revolution.htm Skip ahead to about 10:30 to hear the discussion on the independence of supporters and to 12:30 for his statement that white supremecist philosophy is immoral. But I bet you still won't give it up.
But WVH, I'm troubled with your statement:
There is the elephant in the room, the abortion issue. Urban voters will not for the foreseeable future vote for a candidate who does not at least support the status quo. I am pro life, but I realize that a woman who wants an abortion will get one whether the procedure is legal or not. The only thing that will prevent her from getting an abortion is to persuade her that there are other viable options for her and the baby. The only laws that will really be a deterrent to abortion is to prosecute both the mother and abortionist for murder. Outside of some true wackos, no one wants to take the law that far. There has to be expansion of adoption and support for mothers and children.
I wonder if you would have taken the same pragmatic attitude when slavery was still legal. How hypocritical of you.
Posted by: Michelle on December 30, 2007 05:02 PMMore traditional Republicans (of the Lincoln type) would say that slave-owners did not deserve any form of compensation for their slaves, as their slaves were already free men and women by virtue of being HUMAN BEINGS. wow. Is anyone a little surprised that these issues are being discussed in 2008? Thanks ron paul. :)
The KCGOP makes judgment calls on who to appoint as PCOs. ANYONE who wants to run for PCO in the 37th LD only needs $2.00 and a pen. They would be almost guaranteed of election. Obviously that wasn't important to Travis back then. That said, it will not be difficult to get a slot at the LD convention. My precinct caucus in 2004 (36th LD) had only two attendees, so we were both elected. :)
Here's a substantive question: Delegates to the state convention, I've been told, are elected at the Leg District convention, not at the county convention. Does anyone know when the LD conventions are? In 2004, if I recall, they were held at the county convention, prior to the county business... My recollection is hazy though.
Posted by: AD on December 30, 2007 06:26 PMAlso, RP did not say they DESERVED payment, only that this would be a less expensive way -- in money and lives -- to end slavery than the Civil War was. And he has a point, has he not?
On the caucus, AD, 2004 has NOTHING to do with 2008, because there was not a contested primary in 2004. This year can only be comparable in recent years to 2000, 1996, and 1988.
As for delegates to state convention, in Snohomish County, the Legislative District elections to the state convention happen at the County Convention. They are not separate events. Well, technically, they are separate, perhaps, but they take place during the adjournment of the County Convention.
Posted by: pudge on December 30, 2007 06:42 PMYes, in Snohomish Co., and probably most others, the LD caucuses are held at the county convention. However, King Co. typically holds them separately from the county convention, due to the size of the county. Typically they are held about a month before the county convention.
Posted by: Michelle on December 30, 2007 07:03 PMAlso you should note Lincoln did not care at all about slaves freedom. He defended slave owners in cases where they were trying to retrieve their run away slaves for gods sake! He even stated he would save the union even if it meant not a single slave was freed. Slavery was not a big issue with him.
With Paul, he is just as opposed to slavery as everyone else is. He just does not see the need to have a civil war over it where habesus corpus was suspended, where congressman that disagreed with Lincoln were thrown out of the country, where jounralist that disagreed with him were jailed, and where 600K americans died. instead he wanted to buy the slaves to have them freed like nearly every other country did.
But why are we discussing a war over 140 years old when there is one going on now that was also not declared and does not have the support of the people?
Oh... that is right because people are looking for any excuse to discuss the reasonable policy positions of dr Paul.
Posted by: Travis on December 30, 2007 08:10 PMIt is true that Lincoln viewed negroes as inferior to whites, and that he was willing to compromise and keep slavery if it meant preserving the Union. But it is not true that he didn't care about their freedom: indeed, it was something he cared deeply about, and he devoted himself to what he called "the eventual abolition of slavery" because he did care.
And as to Iraq: we care about the Constitution, right? Ron Paul is wrong: the Constitution does not, in any way, require a declaration of war in order to use the military. Period. A declaration of war is a political move, and not directly related to the use of armed forces. Further, as far as Constitutional government is concerned, the will of the people is expressed through the election of their representatives. I frankly couldn't care less what the people think they want on such issues, except at the moment they vote for their representatives.
But I agree with you about Paul being against slavery. :-)
Posted by: pudge on December 30, 2007 08:39 PMIs this week's buzz word from the team to call people liars. Last week it was Pharisee, at least you guys present a unified front.
1. I will view the PBS interview. If this was the case, I have been asking the same set of questions for weeks along with Medved and others. Guess all the media attention is making even Paul respond.
2. There are really two different issues on the issue of slavery and abortion. Both deal with the rights of persons. But, governmental action can affect the treatment of slaves and government action is effective in eliminating the condition of slavery. Government action will never be effective in totally eliminating the individual decision to committ murder. Further, unless you plan to prosecute both the woman and the abortionist, you don't have a deterrent for the act. Maybe, you and your group feel that women should be prosecuted. That is a position that few in this society would support, even those who are prolife.
Pragmatism is the only way you will deal the abortion issue. A woman who is bound and determined to get an abortion will get one whether it is legal or not. She has to be persuaded that there are other options.
The abortion issue, while it is an issue of morality, just as slavery was an issue of morality is not a perfect comparison to the issue of slavery where government action really can prevent the immoral act. Gee, I thought you didn't care about how Paul felt on slavery.
I guess that the question to you is whether you just want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which will be ineffective, or you want to reduce the number of abortions? Reducing the number of abortions will require different strategies than passing a law.
So, if you want to advocate prosecuting the mother for murder, few would support that position.
Posted by: WVH on December 30, 2007 09:41 PM"It is true that Lincoln viewed negroes as inferior to whites, and that he was willing to compromise and keep slavery if it meant preserving the...."
I believe even Robert Byrd uses the term Blacks or African Americans. I former KKK member can at least get it right most of the time when representing his party.
Posted by: WVH on December 30, 2007 09:45 PMI went to the PBS site. You will be pleased to know that it is the top video. I will have time to study it on Wednesday. A couple of questions and no I don't plan to give it up.
1. The broadcast was aired on December 14, 2007.
2. Medved's letter, the Houston Chronicle piece and other media were in October for Medved and November. If the tape says what you purport that it says, is this a campaign conversion? Still, any statement condemning hate groups is welcome.
3. Paul's associations go back about 20 years. What I will be listening for is whether he specifically condemns the activities of hate groups. What I will be listening for is whether he understands the symbolism of accepting and keeping money from those associated with hate. As we are told continously here that he is the top fundraiser. So, why does he need to keep money from racist losers.
So, liar, I think not. I think he is feeling pressured because bloggers and the media are digging in and around him. Other top tier candidates do not have his associations, so when they make statements of what you purport, they are at least believable.
What is the buzz word for nest week, you've done Pharisee and liar? I hope that the word is something cute.
First, it's a little naive. What about the holdouts slave owners who didn't want to sell? Can we ignore that the entire economy of the south was dependent on this free labor? And they would have handed over every slave for 19 pounds (the price the british government paid)? Not likely... In fact, I think slave-owners would have resisted such a plan very actively. They might have even... tried to secede. :)
More importantly, it shows Ron Paul's real concern. Doing things cheaply, even if it's clearly wrong. I'm in the Army and we get told all the time: always choose the hard right over the easy wrong.
Ron Paul looks at the War on Terror the same as the Civil War. He views it as VERY expensive. Certainly it is. But some would say that doing the right thing should be our primary concern, regardless of cost. We could always sit down with AQI, talk about what they want, hammer out a "treaty", retreat, and pretend the war is "over." And maybe (MAYBE) it would be for a bit. That would be the easy wrong. :)
And listen, this war is different. Al Qaeda doesn't care if you're a 65 year-old grandmother, or a 5 year-old kindergartner. They don't even care if you voted for John Kerry or if you caucus for RP. They're not waging a war with our military. They want to kill every free man and woman (has this been forgotten?). If we fail, the life you lose may be your OWN. Maybe that sounds melodramatic... I kinda wish it was. :)
Posted by: AD on December 31, 2007 12:16 AMYou are like talking to a brick wall. I suppose that is why others choose to ignore you. You refuse to get it. The man has continued to say that slavery and racism are wrong. I have just offered you proof that happens to be dated in December. I had come across it and thought of your continued pestering, and so I provided it for you.
You have absolutely no idea what I am all about if you think that I don't care what Ron Paul thinks about slavery. Like every other presidential candidate, he's against it. Probably more so than some. I merely said that I don't care what his *supporters* think about it. Besides, this is NOT a current issue.
I don't subscribe to your idea of "symbolism" of accepting their money either. You should hear what he has to say about it. Now, if he were accepting money from an organization, interest group or corporation that was involved in immoral activity, that would be different, because they usually have strings attached, and will lobby for those immoral purposes. Good luck finding that on Paul, but it would be very easy on just about any other candidate. When individuals donate, however, there is no way they can expect that the candidate, once in office, will be beholden to an individual's agenda.
On abortion, I advocate prosecuting the doctor whose job it is to preserve life, not kill it. But first, I advocate amending the Constitution to recognize that life begins at conception. That is where to start. I also support Ron Paul's proposed legislation (that doesn't need a constitutional amendment and doesn't need to wait for the Supreme Court) to say that life begins at conception and remove the power from the Supreme Court interfering with the states' right and duty to protect life. The states could then choose the penalties for abortionists.
Civil War? Hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and millions in spent wealth. Allow the South to secede? Risk permanent dissolution of the Union, jeopardizing the liberty, prosperity, and security of every American. Go back in time and abolish slavery at the forming of the nation? No nation is ever formed, and Europe controls this land to this day, or we have another bloodier revolution later.
Now that I think about it, RP's idea may be the most "right." Although allowing the South to secede was risky, it probably would have worked.
That's not to say I agree with RP on the War on Terror. I very much do not. I believe that this fight is coming to us whether we want it or not: regardless of what we've done in the past to make them hate us, we are here now, and while more people die from car accidents terrorism, that doesn't mean terrorism is insigificant. It's a poor measurement.
RP's views on Iraq and terrorism are my biggest reasons for not supporting him ... apart from belief that he would get absolutely killed in a general election. Despite the claims of Bruce and Travis, I firmly believe RP has the WORST chance of any Republican in the general, not the best.
Posted by: pudge on December 31, 2007 12:34 AMBonehead is cute.
You said:
"You are like talking to a brick wall. I suppose that is why others choose to ignore you. You refuse to get it. The man has continued to say that slavery and racism are wrong. I have just offered you proof that happens to be dated in December. I had come across it and thought of your continued pestering, and so I provided it for you"
I suppose it seems like a brick wall to you since I have been asking for weeks and you just came up with a statement on December 14. Prior to your posting, neither Benton nor any other Paul supporter could provide a response. I suppose I could call your side tardy. If people were ignoring bloggers like me, Paul wouldn't have responded and neither would you. We are hitting the mark and asking questions about where your candidate really stands.
You said:
"Now, if he were accepting money from an organization, interest group or corporation that was involved in immoral activity, that would be different, because they usually have strings attached, and will lobby for those immoral purposes."
I suppose it depends on what the definition of immoral is. To me, Nazis, Aryan Nations and the KKK qualify.
I think that there are people that would agree that life begins at conception, but they are not single issue candidates because they realize that there are other issues as well. You and the team have put all your chips on Paul and he has some major issues. It is doubtful that he will get the nomination and even if he does, you will simply hand the election to whatever dem. It will simply be a replay of the Edwards vs. Duke election. People will not vote for a lunatic, they will vote for the crook, even a lot of your fellow republicans. A lot of republicans voted for Edwards in Louisiana because they saw Duke as just too dangerous. You guys really have a problem with your own base as they know that Paul is more oportunisitic than republican. I guess that it really will get nasty until Paul is totally out of the picture. But bonehead which means a low opinion of a person's intelligence really refers more to you and the rest of the Paultards, don't you think? Fighting against Paul is really a very intelligent thing to do, a bit like fighting against Duke.
Posted by: WVH on December 31, 2007 01:04 AMYou constantly twist what others say. I was referring to the fact that the donation didn't come from a group (it came from an individual), not that what those groups do is not immoral.
And you have not hit any mark. He was asked a question directly and he answered it directly.
I don't know why you want to label me as one issue either. You looked at my blog and see that it is well, gee, a pro-life blog. I happen to believe that the right to life is the most important issue, because with out it, none of the other rights matter. I consider it a non-negotiable, as I do with racism as well. American sovereignty as well.
Posted by: Michelle on December 31, 2007 01:22 AMBeing appointed as a PCO is a privilege, generally conferred upon long-time activist Republicans. These are people who have volunteered in the past, by making phone calls, attending meetings, waving signs, knocking on doors, pollwatching, donating money... doing something.
So, before demanding privileges, how about actually volunteering for the Republican Party?
Show up at a phone bank and make some ID calls to find existing Republicans who we don't know about, or recruit new ones! Walk a precinct! Donate or raise a few bucks! Volunteer to work an event!
Or, in other words: show just a little respect and pay your dues before demanding privileges in an organization you have to all appearances - never supported.
Work first, reward second. Kind of a core Republican principle. People who show up demanding entitlements without having put in any work are usually called... Democrats.
Posted by: Rights vs. Privileges on December 31, 2007 01:23 AMGlad you consider racism a non-negotiable. Yes, I have said plenty of times and posted information that the $500 donation which came from an individual with an association with David Duke. The last report to Lonestar.com per Benton was that Paul had no intention of returning the donation. Has that changed?
There are plenty of people that believe that abortion is wrong, but the approach is different. I don't care what laws are passed, it is convincing each woman that there are other options such as adoption. There has to be support for both the mother and the baby. No law will stop abortion. There were abortions when it was illegal. The question is whether one wants to stop abortion or one wants to pass laws. Women must be pursuaded that abortion is wrong.
Yes, the bloggers and MSM that have been questioning Paul have hit a mark. Medved asked questions in October and Paul has been forced to respond in December.
Even your pal, Pudge says:
"RP's views on Iraq and terrorism are my biggest reasons for not supporting him ... apart from belief that he would get absolutely killed in a general election. Despite the claims of Bruce and Travis, I firmly believe RP has the WORST chance of any Republican in the general, not the best."
You have an uphill battle, girlfriend. I, for one, am thankful for that.
Posted by: WVH on December 31, 2007 01:32 AMAs someone who has "paid my dues", I can say that you demonstrate exactly my problem with the idea of giving automatic delegate status to those who have "paid their dues" and refusing it to those who haven't. This is not a club. This is not even a university. It's a political party. Our votes should be equal.
Elected PCO's are representatives of the Republicans in their precinct and are the only ones who arguably have the "right" to automatic delegate status. Nobody should be "privelaged" with more voting power because they "payed their dues" when it comes to electing a president.
Posted by: Michelle on December 31, 2007 01:54 AMOn abortion, nobody here is proposing that we abandon the supporting of mothers and babies or informing and convincing the mothers of their options. That's what I do as a private citizen. I have spent countless hours in front of the abortion mills doing just that and have been able to redirect women to a better option. But that does not mean that we should not protect the God given right to life in our laws like our Declaration of Independence says. We used to until the Supreme Court invented the so-called "right" to abortion.
Posted by: Michelle on December 31, 2007 02:07 AM1. Believe it not or the bloggers refer to others regarding Paul. The definition of blogger is:
A weblog.
intr.v. blogged, blog·ging, blogs
To write entries in, add material to, or maintain a weblog.
I add material to this blog and I am glad to add material which illuminates Paul's history. I don't maintain my own blog.
2. There is an example of the ineffectiveness of government action regarding abortion, if the principle aim is to reduce the number of abortions and reduce harm to the mother. It is called the country of Romania. Here are a couple of articles which raise some interesting questions:
a. http://www.globalgagrule.org/caseStudy_romania.htm
b.www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/romania.doc -
We disagree, he was forced to respond because bloggers started asking questions and the lamestream media is slowly picking up the story.
A December 14 interview and he has been running for election, how long?
You are right Lincoln probably fell on the side of not wanting slavery around but it was not something that he felt strongly about (given that he defended slave owners in run away slave cases). And certainly it was not a motivation whatsoever in the war he waged against the south.
But as for Iraq, I have to strongly disagree with you. You need a decleration of war for the president to have power to send troops anywhere for a long period of time. The war powers act was unconstitutional and has eroded the seperation of powers put in oplace by our founding fathers.
I never said it was my right to be a PCO. In fact I immediatly conceded to Marzolf that it was his right to deny me for any reason he wants. My arguement is that it is a poor decision on his part that is hurting the party.
With that said, some might make the arguement that since the state pays for the parties primaries, it loses the right to be picky about its PCO. I have long advocated that the state cut all funding to the primaries since political parties are private organizations and should be funding primaries on their own.
Posted by: Travis on December 31, 2007 09:46 AMAnd no, there is nothing in the Constitution that states or implies a declaration of war is necessary to "send troops anywhere for a long period of time." It's just not there. Perhaps you mean "without Congressional approval," but that's moot, since Bush DOES have Congressional approval. The War Powers Act and separation of powers is irrelevant to this discussion, because Bush has explicit Congressional approval. There is no separation of powers issue at hand.
Posted by: pudge on December 31, 2007 09:50 AMI think his actions speak louder than his words. Beleiving in the rule of law is one thing, but defending slave holders is another.
It either shows his principles rank second to money, or he had no principle against slavery.
His speeches against slavery were a way of appeasing republicans in his quest for power. Once elected he became far more concened with waging war than freeing slaves.
Posted by: Travis on December 31, 2007 01:49 PMI have come across a number of PCO-related posts from other Paul supporters like this while looking at Ron Paul meetup sites. One of my friends is a huge Paul fanatic and talks to me about him just about every day. All I can say to her is that I will think about it.
I asked her a question that she hasn't answered yet. It works for you too.
If you all are really committed Republicans, where in tarnation were you during the election we just had? There were a lot of important races and issues at stake.
I asked her at least a dozen times to help do something, and she never made the effort.
Did you do anything to help last month?
Posted by: D's Friend on December 31, 2007 02:34 PMRead Douglass' speech upon the occasion of Lincoln's death. He concedes readily that Lincoln was ready to use the sword to preserve slavery in order to preserve the Union and defend the Constitution and the law. But then in the next breath he gives Lincoln the deepest praise. "Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed," Douglass said.
"Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery."
Lincoln was a complicated man. But one thing is clear: he strongly cared for and believed in the cause of liberty for all, including negroes.
Feel free to continue to disagree, but again, I'll take Frederick Douglass' word over most anyone else's. :-)
Posted by: pudge on December 31, 2007 03:17 PMI based my decision on this post from Sound Politics because it appears from it that Travis has not been a Republican:
48. I am voting republican for the first time in my voting career because of this lone shark. He beleives in smaller government and the constitution and has the intelligence to recognize that troops stationed holy lands probably has more to do with 9/11 than the fact that we let women vote.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 22, 2007 12:16 PM
I never saw a signed pledge stating that he would support the nominee and I DID NOT base my decision on his support for Ron Paul. I DID appoint other PCOs who are Paul supporters.
My decision was based on the fact that PCOs need to be supportive of our nominee, they need to be working for all our candidates. The appointment to PCO is reserved for those who have demonstrated these qualities.
I told him he could still participate in the caucuses and be elected a delegate. He also has time to burnish his Republican credentials by volunteering at the Seattle phone bank.
Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 31, 2007 03:30 PMAbolitionist at the time including Lysander Spooner opposed lincoln.
Lysander Spooner was argueably the most vocal opponent of slavery in the decade before the civil war but despised lincoln so much he wrote a book "no treason" that pretty much did nothing but debunk the myth that lincoln was trying to free the slaves.
Posted by: Travis on December 31, 2007 03:45 PM1. It sounds like you have not ever read the PCO application form. On it asks me to sign agreeing to following "I agree with theprinciple of Ronald Reagan's 11thCommandment and will be guided by it with regard to Republican candidates,particularly those emerging from the Primary into the General Election."
2. I stated on the phone when you called me the same again.
3. If you do not want to give the appearance that you are screening for Paul supporters, you should not call PCO applicant and ask them if they will support the candidate even if it is not Ron Paul.
4. Also if you do not want to give the appearance of screening for Ron Paul supporters you should not take back your word when you find out a PCO you appointed is a ron Paul supporter.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on December 31, 2007 04:03 PMThat is cool. I fall on the side of Spooner not just for his views on Lincoln. If my wife had not overridden me I would probably have named one of my kids Lysander! I love that guy!
Anyways Lincoln has much less disputed traits to dislike the man such as arresting journalist in the north and running congressman that disagree with him out of the country.
Posted by: Travis on December 31, 2007 04:19 PMAnyhow, just thought I'd interject on that point. I know some of you are from rural areas and probably shoot at anyone that doesn't look like you, but Negro, pleeeze.
Happy New Year and best wishes to the GOP on expanding its base with a leader who call Blacks, "Negroes." You might as well say the "N" word as that is what you really mean, isn't it?
Posted by: WVH on December 31, 2007 05:00 PMPudge said this:
"He lost a Senate election BECAUSE he stood up for the endowed rights of negroes."
This is the statement that would be made by some person who insensitive to racial matters at minimum. More likely it is the statement of a racist. In this country, racists are entitled to lead and run for office. David Duke certainly is an example of that. At some point, I suppose, republicans, not outsiders like me, will have to ask themselves is this the type of person we want in leadership. Perhaps, the answer is yes, at present. In the future, well....
Sno County will become more diverse. Just as Fred Jarrett felt that he no longer fit. Other candidates will either leave or refuse to run. Eventually, the KKK element was dislodged from Louisiana. It appears there is a war for the soul and direction of your party, at present. I would hate to have this become a one-party state because you become the party of bigots and those who simply are too extreme, but that is your call.
No more posting for me until after the New Year. Best wishes to all.
Posted by: WVH on December 31, 2007 05:20 PMI have been looking for a reply to #60.
Did you do any volunteer work for the November 2007 election?
Have you signed up to do any volunteer work for the Republican Party in 2008?
I was just curious, because with all the blog posts you have been putting up, you seem to have a LOT of free time on your hands and we sure could use your help.
Please do let us know where and when you will be volunteering.
I'm still trying to get my friend D to help out with something. Maybe if I can tell her you will be there it will encourage her.
Posted by: D's Friend on December 31, 2007 08:42 PMYou are on a witchunt. There was nothing racist in what pudge said. You constantly see racism where it doesn't exist. You've even accused me of it. Please, have a glass of champaigne or something tonight and do try to relax. The world is not as gloomy as you see it, not even in the GOP.
Posted by: Michelle on December 31, 2007 09:58 PMIt is reasonable to question lincolns views on slavery. there are many respected historians that fall on both sides of the issue. I recomend 'The Real Lincoln' by DiLorenzo if you are interested in an opposing view point. I can lend you a copy if you would like, although by the sounds of our legislative districts it might be difficult to meet up easily any time soon.
Posted by: travis on January 1, 2008 07:36 AMHey man, how come you reply to Pudge, you reply to Ross, you reply to R&P, but you never answer my questions about actually doing some volunteer work?
Travis, is my faith in you misplaced? Are you not going to volunteer? For anything?
Volunteering your time is what being a PCO is all about. And we need your help.
Set a good example for my friend D.
Posted by: D's Friend on January 2, 2008 01:04 AMI was willing to help the party. I offered to help. I looked forward to being a part of the republican party.
The party leadership however has told me they do not trust me, believe me, nor even take the time to read their own forms that I took the time to fill out. The party leadership has excluded me based on my support of a particular candidate. I find it hard to give any time to such an organization. Until leadership changes thier tune or changes to new people, I am not going spend my limited time supporting people that do not trust nor beleive me. I hope you can understand this.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis on January 2, 2008 05:28 AMThanks for taking the time to reply.
I am not sure if you saw my post @#60, but I am still curious if you have EVER done one lick of work for the King County Republican Party.
Have you, and if so, what?
I don't like being a skeptic, but is it one big empty ZERO?
Own up Trav!
Posted by: D's Friend on January 2, 2008 10:59 AMIf Ross just wanted me to demonstrate this, then he should have said so the moment he called me. He never once asked what work I have done for the republican party. He never asked for any proof that I would support any candidate. He quite frankly immediately asked if I would support the candidate if it was not Paul. I said yes. I was willing to do so. After a few other questions such as if I have ever voted libertarian which i said yes. He said thanks. I asked what is the next step. He said he was going to sign the form and send it in making me a PCO.
He then a few days later emailed me showing me in writing where I said I supported Paul and said that he was not going to let me be a PCO.
For the primary reason that he is not a man of his word, I do not trust him. I also question any organization that choses to put him in a position of power. But most importantly I question the value of an organization that choses to turn away volunteers that share basically 100% of their views on state and local issues (where things really matter).
Quite frankly... I do not care if he gets my trust or not. I will however work to correct the organization and make it meaningful.
D's freind:
Yes I have worked from conservative party and republican party candidates in NYC and NY state when I lived there. I also worked on some campaigns not associated with those parties to prevent things like the smoking ban, cigarrette tax increases, gun bans, toy gun bans, etc.. while living there.
Here in washington I have worked a little on a couple initiative projects but nothing major. I have two small kids (2 years and 4 months) and have before that I had just started a new job that has taken up most of my time. I was looking to get involved in local politics again recently since the Ron Paul campaign had inspired me to get involved again. I however have been very turned off by the local leadership. Further south where I have attended a couple events this past summer in Pierce county I have not found that to be the case.
Anyways I will am sure continue to try and find to work on things locally and maybe some local republican candidates, but I do not think I will be working for Marzolf in anyway until I am elected PCO so that I can vote against him in the future.
Posted by: Travis on January 2, 2008 08:58 PMI DID NOT have a litmus test designed to weed out Ron Paul supporters. As I posted previously, I have appointed Paul supporters who demonstrated prior Republican credentials.
The only litmus test that I had and that the KCGOP had was whether someone was a Republican.
Travis did not meet that definition for me, based on his SP post which I reprinted in my earlier post.
I regret that I told him that I would appoint him, but I reserve my right to change my mind based on new information - which was provided to me.
I welcome Travis's participation in the KCGOP and the 37th LD and his running as a PCO this August. We also need his help working for Dino and our other Republican candidates and I have forwarded his name and phone number to our Seattle phone bank coordinator.
I further welcome supporters of every Republican Presidential candidate - may the best man win.
Ross Marzolf
PS my reason for asking whether Travis supported Ron Paul was that the KCGOP was warned by other counties that Paul supporters who were not Republicans were attempting to be appointed PCOs.
Posted by: Ross Marzolf on January 4, 2008 08:02 AMCheers!
Posted by: pudge on January 4, 2008 08:12 AMRon Paul's campaign web site openly encourages Democrat supporters to switch parties and caucus with the Republicans. While we welcome everyone to participate in the February 9th caucuses, being appointed a PCO is a much higher calling and requires a certain degree of commitment to the party as a whole. Many Republicans who happened to be Ron Paul supporters have been appointed over the past year and we are excited about their commitment to this Election Cycle, not just for their Presidential candidate, but also for Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna and the strong field of candidates we will have in 2008.
All PCO applicants who were denied appointment this year have been encouraged to participate in future campaign efforts and in so doing, prove their level of commitment to the party. We welcome Travis' involvement and any others who were not able to achieve PCO status this year.
Posted by: KCGOP on January 4, 2008 02:43 PMRon Howard and Paul Dean
Our item yesterday speculating on who would be the Howard Dean of 2008 brought this response from reader Brian Liston:
"I live in Brookline, N.H., a small town that voted 60% for Bush in 2004. In this town, there were a few very vocal supporters of Howard Dean. They were easily identified (among other means) by the 12-foot signs they displayed in their front yards.
I found it interesting that you say Ron Paul will be the Howard Dean of 2008. Presently most of these same households have huge Ron Paul signs in their front yards (I can get you pictures if you like). The slogans have gone from "Dean for America" to "Hope for America," but the sentiments have stayed largely the same.
"Hope for America"? Hope is dead!"