In addition to my thoughts below, I'd welcome reports from other conventions around the state, either posted in the comments or sent directly to ericearling at gmail dot com.
Here's my take, in no particular order:
1) Big turnout. The parking at Jackson High School in south Everett/Mill Creek and accompanying seating in the gym, at least as originally prepared, didn't cut the mustard. Veterans of my legislative district (1st) said there were only about a third as many of the 130+ district delegates in attendance yesterday at the 2004 county convention.
2) Some candidates just have that gift. Dino Rossi connects with an audience fascinatingly well, even via video. Rob McKenna likewise has an amazing A game that differentiates excellent candidates from the merely good. That man knows how to speak to a crowd, weaving a compelling overall talk - on AG related issues that aren't exactly red meat - with all the right little touches tailored to the audience.
3) 5+ hours spent electing legislative district delegates to the state convention was, um, tedious. And chaotic as it was, that was with an essentially uncontested Presidential race. Ugh.
4) I should have made a bet with a fellow political junkie and delegate with whom I was discussing declining attendance as the day unfolded . After commencing at 9 am, the convention was not ready to discuss the county platform until roughly 5:30 pm. I predicated to my interlocutor we wouldn't have a quorum of 40%.
Sure enough. After two such calls the convention was adjourned, leaving the county platform in the hands of the County GOP Central Committee prior to the State Convention.
For my part, I would have voted to approve the document without amendment - despite a disagreement here and there. Generally speaking, it was a nicely prepared, comparatively concise, conservative document.
5) One of the best aspects of attending grassroots gatherings of either party is the chance to see the people that do fit the stereotype. When they reach the level of living editorial cartoon character it really does help ease the time spent waiting for assorted vote counts in caucus.
UPDATE: In response to a couple commenters, yes, Ron Paul supporters had a very respectable presence. From what I heard and saw his supporters were well-behaved, though somewhat easy to identify. Saying you're "uncommitted" for President but then speaking about "sound money" is a bit of a give away.
They didn't seem to do very well getting elected as state delegates, but ok at winning slots as alternates. I'm sure they'll have a respectable presence at the sate convention. I also noted that most said they would support the eventual GOP nominee.
Speaking of which, that nominee will not be Ron Paul. Fyi.
UPDATE II: comments closed due to spam.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 06, 2008 01:55 PM | Email This1. Why aren't we more organized as party members? Not in terms of the convention logistics, but in terms of party communication throughout the year and party meetings. Was there an announcement of dates and times of regular party meetings? Maybe some new people would like to attend those meetings and share their ideas.
2. Why don't we have a party and candidates that appeal to a wide range of people? Does anyone really think Larry Ismael is going to beat Jay Inslee? Let's face it, Jay Inslee appeals to much more independents than Larry could. Why don't we talk about other issues besides taxes and the military. The Democrats speak about things like global warming and poverty, why don't we take up additional causes?
3. Why don't we reach out to new groups and grow our tent as a political party? I hate going to Republican events and being able to count on one hand the number of minorities that attend.
4. Why wasn't there any active solicitation of campaign volunteers? The Democrats are going to ask their members in Snohomish County to call voters in Battle Ground states this fall. Why aren't we doing the same?
Sorry for the rant, I'm just so frustrated losing political races time after time.
Posted by: Bill on April 6, 2008 02:43 PMHere's hoping we can be even half that unified at the State convention.
Does the snohomish platform have planks supporting free markets and opposing corporate subsidies and government run monopolies?
Posted by: Lysander on April 6, 2008 03:28 PMCute try. It was very free market as well as being strongly in favor of lower taxes and spending, though I don't recall any mention of "corporate subsidies."
Tell you what, how about you propose a plank banning all publicly owned & operated facilities of any kind from which for-profit entities find benefit and we'll see how that fares?
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 6, 2008 04:07 PMNeither party wants that.
Posted by: BA on April 6, 2008 05:53 PMThanks for the rant, though I don't see where I said I had a bad impression of the convention. I said it was well attended and there were good speakers. I also stayed through the end so the impression must not have been too bad, especially since it was my first time as a delegate.
My only real complaint was a) the overcrowding, which was an obvious problem though not the end of the world (and a nice problem to have), and b) the extended time spent in legislative caucus ended up driving people away. As much as it is to be applauded that there was an orderly process, it simply took too much time. The delegates voting with their feet proved that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 6, 2008 09:26 PMYes. We also sent around a piece of paper to sign up for our e-mail list.
Why don't we have a party and candidates that appeal to a wide range of people?
We do.
Why don't we talk about other issues besides taxes and the military.
We do.
Why don't we reach out to new groups and grow our tent as a political party? I hate going to Republican events and being able to count on one hand the number of minorities that attend.
I hate it when people count minorities.
Why wasn't there any active solicitation of campaign volunteers?
There was.
Posted by: pudge on April 6, 2008 11:22 PMShrug. Our LD caucus went fine.
With 700 plus delegates in attendance an effort should have been made to organize the Sno County Republicans, but I sense that the good old boys and girls don't want to give up their control.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Who are these good old boys and girls you speak of? I am pretty well plugged in to what's going on, and I know for a fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
I still find it highly objectionable that we choose our Presidential candidates in this fashion that excludes our active duty military from having a voice.
It does not exclude them.
We take their votes for granted, and effecitvely exclude them from the canddiate selection process.
You must not be aware of the fact that a majority of our delegates are chosen by the primary, else you would not say that, unless you were intended to use misleading rhetoric.
Someone will respond that our military gets half a vote because the R's actually count the primary results
More than half.
which is better than the D's, but which is still unacceptable. Go to war and get half a vote! Nice.
What's the alternative? Tell me. Go ahead. Tell me that we should subjugate the entire process to the will of the public, instead of the party, just to include the military vote.
No one is more grateful to our military than I am, but we should not completely change how we do things because they can't participate. And the people I know who do, and have, served overseas in our military agree with me.
Posted by: pudge on April 6, 2008 11:29 PMAlso, technically, you cannot appoint a PCO or captain. :-) But I know you have done an excellent job of recruiting PCOs and captains, and I salute you for your fantastic work.
As to you guys who asked the Ron Paul question: well, since the Ron Paul supporters usually do not identify themselves as such -- this is part of their stated strategy -- how do you expect anyone to be able to say how many he had? For crying out loud! Ask them if you want to know, how could anyone else know?
But if we move completely to a primary, those military members would get LESS of a voice, since even though would be able to vote directly, their amount of influence would be diluted.
Maybe it seems counterintuitive, but it's plainly true.
Posted by: pudge on April 6, 2008 11:37 PMI guess you guys are getting ready to be seen as less extreme when Obama wins it - and no, I won't be voting for him :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 7, 2008 05:55 AMAhh.. so your counties GOP platform is like mine in opposing taxes and pro free markets.
I am curious why then you suggest that my idea of what the GOP is about is so different when I suggest that the state run monopolies and sports arenas and the taxes used to support them should be opposed?
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2008 06:10 AMThe Paul supporters are not hard to find. They are the ones asking/insisting we as a party support less government.
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2008 06:12 AMI would also be shocked if the R platforms didn't include a statement supporting lesser government.
It is obvious from the post and counter-post that the old Rs need to step aside and let the young bucks take over. But, Bob Clark says significant inroads are being made into the electorate favoring Rs. I guess the old conservative in me is taking over- seeing is believing. As pudge so frequently says- have at it.
Posted by: swatter on April 7, 2008 07:38 AMThe platfomrs from the non paul republicans do include less government planks. The difference is Paul supporters are insisting that the candidates actual promote that platform and they themselves promote that as well.
I am giving Eric a hardtime because he is saying he supports free markets and all but is at the same time trying to defend Rossi support of the state run ferry system (a government monopoly) and rossis support of a tax on small businesses to run a government arena.
In otherwords making excuses for big government while claiming to be for free markets.
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2008 08:50 AMFalse.
Lysander: your counties GOP platform is like mine in opposing taxes and pro free markets.
If your county's platform in fact does oppose taxes and is pro free markets, then yes.
The Paul supporters are not hard to find. They are the ones asking/insisting we as a party support less government.
False, as virtually ALL of the caucus delegates -- in the 39th anyway -- did that, and MOST of them are McCain supporters.
swatter: I would also be shocked if the R platforms didn't include a statement supporting lesser government.
Yes, in fact, ours does this. That said, it has not been approved yet, so I should say, our *proposed* platform does this.
Lysander: The difference is Paul supporters are insisting that the candidates actual promote that platform and they themselves promote that as well.
False. That is not a difference.
I am giving Eric a hardtime because he is saying he supports free markets and all but is at the same time trying to defend Rossi support of the state run ferry system...
Um. The state controls it. We could try to change that, but you don't do that by just cutting it off. Not in a democratic republic you don't; this is why Ron Paul has absolutely no chance to win a general election, because he wants to just cut many things. I agree with him probably 90 percent on what he wants to cut, but it is not politically feasible to just say "we're going to cut all of these things." If you come up with a viable plan to eliminate government control of it, fine. But there are many more important things to go after.
It is not being "in favor of big government" to mostly maintain the big government we have while trying to prevent it from getting bigger, and going after a few existing programs at a time. This sort of incrementalism is the ONLY way to reduce the size of government in our system, because we got the government this big because the people asked for it. So we need to reduce it while bringing the people along, too.
And frankly, we have not even shown we can do THAT yet, so why would anyone believe we could do it the way you and Ron Paul want to, just slashing everything at once?
It is a perfectly valid criticism against Republicans who have voted for larger government. But that does not describe McCain or Rossi, who have actually tried -- and often succeeded -- in reducing the size of government, or keeping it from growing. And McCain has had more practical successes than Paul, by working within the system rather than tilting at windmills. Paul has been a valuable voice, but he has not gotten nearly as much accomplished as McCain to the end of small government.
rossis support of a tax on small businesses to run a government arena.
False. In fact, Rossi explicitly said he would support a plan that did NOT raise or create taxes.
All that said, yes, I will comment no further on this topic here, as per swatter.
Posted by: pudge on April 7, 2008 09:43 AMAren't you generalizing a bit based on your perception of your own district? You know very well that THIS known Ron Paul supporter was elected (and btw, the top vote getter in her district) from our conversation afterwards.
And pudge, why do the Ron Paul supporters need to say who they're supporting? As you described after your pooled precinct caucuses, nobody paid much attention to that when electing their delegates at the precinct caucuses because it really didn't matter because "John McCain is the nominee". Why does it suddenly matter if "John McCain is the nominee"? (I know you're not saying it matters, but it certainly does to some of your colleagues. And you're implying a dishonesty there.) What's a few Ron Paul delegates, known or unknown? Could it be that the nomination possibly isn't actually sewn up? If not, then what are your colleagues worried about? If these RP supporters were elected based on the communication of their strongly held beliefs, doesn't that tell you something about the so called "threat" they pose to our party?
BTW, some of our party leaders were working overtime to spread a smear campaign full of lies about Ron Paul and his supporters days and minutes leading up to the convention. It included, calling and e-mailing all of the non-RP PCOs, filling their heads with lies about us and urging them to get to the convention. Just 15 minutes before the convention, we caught several of them leafleting the delegate chairs with a slanderous page full of lies about Ron Paul. I asked one of them where it came from, and he said that John Bush (Eric's district chair) asked him to hand it out. I went to the convention chairman-Paul Elvig to ask if this was the way we were going to play today, and he said "absolutely not" and gave permision for the hit piece to be removed from the chairs. However, many of the delegates were already seated and reading the filth. Mr. Elvig said that he hoped it didn't have the GOP's name on it. It didn't, but this was produced by KCGOP leadership and used there to mislead delegates.
But back to the delegate elections: In fact, a good portion of the delegates who were elected overall were Ron Paul supporters, this was based on their ability to compellingly express their strongly held beliefs which are the ideas that other Republicans hold dear (totally breaking the sterotypes), and the fact that the Ron Paul supporters knew each other and voted for each other.
I'm proud to be part of such a group!
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2008 10:23 AMNo, you misunderstand. The context of my response was @ 8, which said, "Were there any Ron Paul supporters or has this blog joined the rest of the low-life fake conservative online resources which refuse to mention him due entirely to foreign policy stance on one particular small country."
My response was, how can we tell how many Ron Paul supporters were there if they don't reveal that they are Ron Paul supporters? I was NOT saying that they should have revealed themselves. Indeed, I defended the notion, to many of the county activists, the notion that they had no such obligation. I was NOT saying this implied dishonesty. I was ONLY saying that no one but themselves can be blamed for anyone else not reporting how many Ron Paul supporters were there.
Andrew Brown @ 24: once again, you are incorrect. I am not "telling myself" anything. I am saying that you are factually, objectively, incorrect. You are constructing your own reality.
I saw the piece on Ron Paul that Michelle is referring to. It was actually not a smear piece, but a well-documented sheet (complete with footnotes) that pointed out what Ron Paul believes and included statements made by him.
It amuses me that the Ron Paul supporters cannot stand the light of truth and when they are exposed by it, go scurrying away...
Posted by: Eunice Burns on April 7, 2008 12:26 PMWho's scurrying away? I'm here but I notice the author of that smear piece did not attach their name to it. And you're right it had foot notes, but quotes were taken out of context, applying things he said to things he wasn't referring to. In our 45 second speeches, there isn't ample time to disprove any of the claims, so it's a dirty trick.
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2008 01:37 PMThe chairman of my legislative precint who conducted our caucus said he was inspired by the 64 Goldwater campaign like many conservatives in his generation. Didn't Barry Goldwater Jr. endorse Dr. Paul? You probably you care about the future of your children and granchildren: you don't want them burdened by government's ever expanding debt/deficits, oppressed and have their liberties restrained. Those RP supporters are just as passionate as any other Republicans in fighting for smaller government and defending what the founding fathers and patriots have fought for.
Think of the money bombs they can bring to the local and state GOP candidates. The party needs their monetary support, their grassroots marketing, their power, their energy, and enthusiasm. In fact, I know some RP supporters that are leaders in Dino Rossi's campaign. At the convention, I was offered to be the chairperson for my leg. district in Rossi's campaign. I've marketed Rossi to many WA students on the internet and created a buzz for him that's made him hip and appealing even beyond conservatives, to independents, libertarians, moderates, and even liberals. It would be disastrous to shun RP supporters and lose them to the Libertarian, Constitution, or some other party. Why not welcome them and respectfully debate any differences instead of demonizing them?
Posted by: jsquared on April 7, 2008 02:01 PMHe says "I just spoke honestly and passionately about my principles and values" - yet what he doesn't say is that the RP delegates are told:
1. not to mention the war as it's a polarizing issue.
2. not to mention who they are supporting.
3. be sure to mention certain issues that are buzzword issues (pro-life, homeschooling, the constitution) so that unsuspecting Republicans will vote for them.
RP people will never mention foreign policy isolation, legalization of drugs and prostitution, support of Palestinians instead of Israel, etc.
Posted by: Eunice Burns on April 7, 2008 02:54 PMgranted, 45 seconds is not an incredible amount of time, but it is a practical amount of time when dealing with hundreds of individuals wishing to make speeches on behalf of their desire to attend state convention.
ron paul will not win state convention and he will not be the nominee for the republican party
"Could it be that the nomination possibly isn't actually sewn up?" NO. IT IS SOWN UP.
"If not, then what are your colleagues worried about?" NOT WORRIED.
members from KCGOP leadership were the ones who graciously volunteered their time and agreed to bring digital scanners to the convention so that individual ballots wouldn't have to be counted by hand. we would still be counting ballots today if they had not done that.
so before crucifying an entire group of republicans from king county for a supposed conspiracy to smear ron paul, maybe you should know the facts.
btw:
ron paul doesn't need anybody to smear him or his record, he has already done that for himself
I am a true, 100% conservative and am not afraid to say exactly what I believe about every issue.
Note to all those reading: see how the RP people turn everything to their benefit, accusing me of not mentioning where I stand on an issue and attempting to diffuse the RP norm of only talking about issues that appeal to all Republicans. Notice how Michelle never mentioned the issues I brought up: foreign policy isolation, legalization of drugs and prostitution, support of Palestinians instead of Israel, etc.
Michelle, tell us where you stand on the above issues and I'll tell you how I stand on anything you want to know.
Eunice
I didn't complain about the amount of time of candidate speeches. What I was suggesting above was that RP supporters did not have adequate time to address all of the lies in that filthy rag put out by the KCGOP leadership (there, now I've clarified).
I did argue in favor of the original rules that provided a minute speech for the candidates, but happily compromised with 45 seconds. By any chance, are you the kid who argued for the 30 second speech saying "if you go over 30 seconds, then we're over you"? If so, pretty funny how you went over the 45 seconds yourself. Several in the audience noticed that. Nice start to your political ambitions as a hypocrite. I had respect for you until Saturday. I hope you get on the right path before you run for office. Or maybe your the brother who works for the KCGOP.
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2008 03:35 PMWell, no, it doesn't imply that. Implications have to come from me. People might have inferred that incorrectly, but now the record should be straight as to my intent.
Anyway, I agree with those that say we should all support our nominee, but I have no problem with people who still fight for someone else until we have a nominee. I'll be disappointed when many of those people end up not supporting McCain, but on the other hand, I don't begrudge them personally, because everyone has to follow their own principles. My disappointment will not be personal, and directed as much at myself and the party as anyone else.
When we can't come together to a significant degree, we all fail, and we all lose. It is crazy to me that Travis complains about not being appointed a Republican PCO and he not only tears down McCain -- that's understandable though unfortunate -- but goes after Rossi too. Travis is not a Republican, else he wouldn't do that, simply put. Most other Ron Paul supporters I know ARE Republicans, and are supporting Rossi and our other Republican candidates (especially here in the 39th LD), so at least most of us can come together there.
Posted by: pudge on April 7, 2008 03:54 PMYou have plenty of time to detail "all of the lies in that filthy rag". Please let us know what the lies are so we can be sure to know the truth and instruct others. If you're not willing to detail the lies, then I guess everyone will know that there weren't any.
Let's have a frank discussion about what Ron Paul believes based on that "filthy rag."
Eunice
Posted by: Eunice Burns on April 7, 2008 03:58 PMI'd wager there are many regulars here at SP who only reluctantly support the GOP nominee.
McCain is one of those "it's either him or the other guy, not to keen on the other guy" nominees, certainly not a "wow, he's right, I'm excited to vote for him" kind a guy like Reagan was.
As for the second coming of RP, it will be a cold day in hell before the GOP allows him or his followers to be the future of the party.
I don't believe you intended it that way, but it could have easily been inferred. Thank you for acknowledging the right of Ron Paul supporters to continue to support him and that most of us ARE Republicans. And I don't take anything you've said personally.
"Eunice",
I'd love a frank discussion. I've been frank all along. Here are my answers to your previous questions:
1. "Foreign Policy Isolationism": That term is baloney. I'm a non-interventionalist. I don't believe that our government should be giving all kinds of foreign aid and picking sides in every fight around the world.
2. "Legalization of drugs and postitution": As anyone here who knows me will tell you, I am a social conservative (I've been acused by some here of being on the extreme fringe in this area). But I don't believe that the federal government should overreach its power (beyond what is enumerated in the Constitution) into what is the jurisdiction of states. That is a Ron Paul position. You've mischaracterized his position.
3. Palestinians vs. Israel: I don't believe our government should be interfering or picking sides. There are guilty factions on both sides. On the other hand, as Ron Paul says, our government is giving 3 times the amount of foreign aid to Israel's enemies. If you support Israel, you should be in favor of cutting off foreign aid to both, which would have a net effect in helping Israel.
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2008 04:37 PMMy comments that you have a unqiue view of Republican ideas comes from your repeated comments in the last year on Presidential politics. It has nothing to do with free market thinking or disagreements on issues like Key Arena.
As pudge alludes to, you have flayed Republican candidates not named Ron Paul for not being Republican enough - at least for you. You proclaim that I and Dino Rossi not Republicans because you don't agree with us on one local issue (which quite frankly is pretty damn unimportant compared to most issues confronting state government). Moreover, privatization of ferris has been tried in this state at times and hasn't reliably worked. Furthermore, the Washington state electorate has repeatedly frowned on aggressive solutions like privatization of traditional state services. Having a Republican run on ferry privatization might fell nice (just like some Republicans would love to run a vocal religious conservative for statewide office). That doesn't mean it makes any sense in electoral politics.
Also as pudge noted, all that means you're not a Republican. You may think you are, but you're really just a libertarian who beats up on Republicans when they don't follow your own libertarian views (which by defintion is something conservative Republicans don't also do). Which, in a nutshell is part of the libertarian charm - interesting ideas (sometimes), but guaranteed losers by a landslide at the ballot box.
Michelle -
I think it is you who are actually generalizing based on your own experience in your LD caucus. I'm aware the Ron Paul supporters, including you, did well there. I'm also aware from watching my own LD caucus and from talking to people at the others (including pudge), that your district appears to have been an anomoly. In addition, I can confirm the idea put forward by others that the Paul supporters very frequently tried to avoid stating their Presidential preference, usually by claiming to be uncommitted while using talking points unique to the Paul campaign.
Lastly, I never saw the "hit piece" you mentioned. I sure didn't see John Bush hand it out. Quite frankly, I watched a number of people at the caucus who couldn't figure out what was going on until someone explained things several times to them, so I wouldn't be surprised if the information you received wasn't entirely correct.
As I said originally, I'm sure the Paul supporters will have a respectable contingent at the state convention (including you!). That doesn't mean, however, that they did as well outside the 38th LD as they did in it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 7, 2008 05:38 PMKCGOP does not allow either. Maybe that is why we have crappy lame leadership and no grass roots energy.
If they are mccain supporters then they are not insisting very hard that their candidate support less government. McCains voting record and promises for the future encompass more and more givernment spending and role in our lives.
I do not understand your comment that you do not cut government programs by proposing to cut them. How do you suggest we cut government? The methods of the republican over the past 20 years? At the federal level republicans current M.O. has resulted in a budget that increases more than LBJ increased it. At the state level it has resulted in the GOP being relagated to a minority party for decades.
Why has it resulted in so little success? Well because when you compromise with your candidate you end up with candidates that support more government and unsurprisingly support when in power. But even more often here in washington when you compromise and chose unprincpled candidates like Rossi, the small government voters see their choice as more government or more government and do not go to the polls.
As for more important things than arenas and ferries? I agree there are, but I am not chosing those to focus on. The arena thing was the only major policy statement Rossi said. The only other thing I have heard him talk about is critizing the ferry system management. They are not the top issues in the state but since they seem to be important to Rossi, I wish he at least came down on the side that the GOP platforms agree with. He hasn't.
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2008 05:55 PMwhen you're ready to stop blaming the deficiency of RP miserable policies on "KCGOP leadership" and "filthy rag" "hit pieces", than someone may take you seriously...
the only think hypocritical about saturdays convention was the limited, marginal support of RP by fake republicans and conservatives.
That same hit piece on Ron Paul was distributed at the 37th district caucus. I asked the chair Ross Marzolf who distributed it and he proudly took credit for printing and distributing it. He went on to say that he feels ron paul and anyone who supports him is a disgrace to the party. He admited once again (although he denied it here publically) that he took back his word that I could be a PCO specifically because I supported Paul.
He said he was so concerned because he did not want the state GOP to be embarressed nationally with any ron Paul delegates.
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2008 06:00 PMLastly, I never saw the "hit piece" you mentioned. I sure didn't see John Bush hand it out. Quite frankly, I watched a number of people at the caucus who couldn't figure out what was going on until someone explained things several times to them, so I wouldn't be surprised if the information you received wasn't entirely correct.
Eric, I did see what was going on. I didn't say that John Bush was handing it out. I said the person who was handing it out told me John Bush asked him to hand it out. (If you want a name, it was Tom Dyer--and I was disappointed about that, and he was one of 3 that I saw doing it.) Perhaps he wasn't telling the truth, but I don't have any reason to believe he was lying. Why don't you ask John and Tom yourself if you want to get the truth of the matter?
snoco,
im not sure that the "respect" of RP conspirators is something that should be valued.
Suit yourself. You won't win the 38th district without our help and name calling won't get it.
when you're ready to stop blaming the deficiency of RP miserable policies on "KCGOP leadership" and "filthy rag" "hit pieces", than someone may take you seriously...
When you're ready to stop fighting straw men, someone might take you seriously. Maybe when you grow up a little bit too.
the only think hypocritical about saturdays convention was the limited, marginal support of RP by fake republicans and conservatives.
Now you want to call us "fake republicans and conservatives"? WOW.
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2008 07:01 PMYes, I'm well aware of Ross Marzoff's responsibility for the hit piece. I have reason to believe that he and "Eunice" might be one in the same. I also have reason to believe "her" friends who did are Ross's apprentice and replacement as KCGOP Executive Director and his brother ("snoco") who has political aspirations and got off to a great start on Saturday, and the young KCGOP "leadership" who "so graciously volunteered" to bring scanning machines and help us out. The same volunteers, who while running the machines were heard by witnesses to be bashing Ron Paul. Of course, I could be wrong about the identities of these commmenters, but if I'm wrong, they are close to the folks I named.
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2008 07:12 PMI have been talking about nothing but Rossi's positions on ferries and the arena not being republican for the past two weeks, it was quite clear when you said my ideas of what are republican is not in line with what really is republican was dealing specifically with those issues. Since I have now shown two platforms to be prefectly inline with what I think is republican you want to try and distract and say it is everything else and not that.
I did not chose to make the arena or the ferry system a big deal. Your pseudo conservative candidate did. THose are really the only two issues or at least the first two issues where he made a clear stand. They individually are not important but the message is clear. He is going to side on the side of taxation, spending, and government monopolies. He is going to try and better manage the beuarcracy rather than reduce its size. That is not what I want nor is it what the GOP platforms say.
What I find amazing is that in the same post you say that because I expect republicans to follow the platform when it comes to major ideas such as free enterprise and lower government spending, you think that makes me not a republican. I fail to understand the logic.
Anyways keep up with the excuses. I think you will need to be very quick with them the closer we get to election day. I personally would get tired of making up excuses for my candidates if I were you.
Posted by: Lysander on April 7, 2008 08:58 PMI fear you are confused about the platform. I said it was a free market platform. It didn't make any mention of stadiums or privatizing ferries so you can't hang your hat on that at all, as you appear to be doing.
Also, platform are statements of belief. They aren't concurrently a full outline for a campaign. The platform favors school vouchers, for example. Yet, running on that issue in a state where even charter schools have repeatedly been shot down by the state's voters would be fantastically stupid. So, just because something is said in a county GOP platform, doesn't mean you can automatically define a Republican based on whether or not that individual agrees with a specific point in that platform.
Finally, if you believe Rossi is "on the side of taxation, spending, and government monopolies" then you're part of an even smaller minority - including based on your definition of a Republican - than I first suspected.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 7, 2008 09:14 PMFalse.
I do not understand your comment that you do not cut government programs by proposing to cut them
I made no such comment.
How do you suggest we cut government?
I already said. Perhaps you missed it, and should re-read.
The methods of the republican over the past 20 years?
Few people -- including yourself -- have been as critical of our federal Republicans over the past several years. So, no.
At the state level it has resulted in the GOP being relagated to a minority party for decades.
Not really, no. What has hurt the state Republicans the most was ignoring the "social conservatives" once they got into the majority, which turned many natural Republicans off to voting for Republicans. Once this happened, yes, many elected Republican officials did become more like Democrats, but that was only because they had already lost their base. This, of course, accelerated further the voter drain.
Well because when you compromise with your candidate you end up with candidates that support more government and unsurprisingly support when in power.
False. Without some significant compromise, your candidates cannot get elected. However, yes, they should still fight for their principles, and many of our Republican candidates have not done so, because they took their social conservative base for granted, and went after moderates, and in the process lost everyone.
The correct way to do this is as I said in my last post.
unprincpled candidates like Rossi
You're a liar.
I am not chosing [arenas and ferries] to focus on.
That too is a lie.
Posted by: pudge on April 7, 2008 10:04 PMI DO call Travis/Lysander, in particular, a fake Republican, however. As you know, I really hate it generally when Republicans call other Republicans not-Republicans. I think that should be reserved for only the most egregious of cases where people claim to be Republican, but literally have no claim to the name, like former Senator Lincoln Chafee, a leftist who was only a Republican because his father was.
At least Chafee tried to help other Republicans get elected: Travis has never shown any support for any Republicans other than Ron Paul. I consider "supporting Republicans" (as opposed to "supporting one Republican in particular") to be necessary, though not sufficient, for being called a Republican.
I have no doubt that Travis is what I would call a conservative, and I share many of his views and concerns, if not his methods or, IMO, naivite (especially since he apparently thinks it is possible to win elections without majorities). But Travis is no Republican.
As to Ross Marzolf, I don't know what he did or didn't do, or who he is or isn't pretending to be. If anyone put out a hit piece on Ron Paul, I find that to be unfortunate, and if it was misleading, doubly so; if intentionally misleading, quadruply so. That said, I am personally very grateful for the electronic tabulation machines: they were a huge help.
As to platforms, I fall somewhere in between where Eric is, and where Travis is, I think. Yes, we cannot expect our representatives to adhere slavishly to our platform. On the other hand, we must hold our elected officials accountable to our conservative Republican principles, because when we don't, we get the greatest increase in discretionary spending the federal government's seen in decades (something that wouldn't have happened under a President McCain!).
Republicans are exceptionally guilty -- for good reason, and bad -- of not keeping an eye on our own people. We follow principles, we get people in office who agree with our principles, and then we think our job is done. The indolent become slaves to the active. The work is NEVER done.
Posted by: pudge on April 7, 2008 10:19 PMBased on your comments, I think we might be closer than not on the topic of how the platform should be used when relating to GOP candidates. I think the real question just ends up being the means by which said candidates and elected officials are held accountable.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 7, 2008 10:37 PMI am not saying anyone here is not a republican. Nor am I saying that McCain or Rossi is not a republican. I am just holding people both here and candidates views to the fire so to speak.
It is unfortunate that this results in you saying I am not a republican. Rossi does not have my support and it is unfortunate that also seems to make you think I am not a republican. A republican should not in my opinion support any candidate the part choses. That is in my opinion why we end up with so many candidates that stray not just a little but a long ways from our platform.
You, Eric, and I all seem to have similar views in terms of both what we want to see on the platform and how much we need to see from candidates in keeping with the platform. Our difference is how we view the actual candidates and treat each other. For the most part you and I have generally been accepting of each other. This last post of yours seems to be the first I have seen where I am not republican enough for you either which is a bit troubling. Eric however has from the begining decided because I support a republican candidate he does not like I should be shunned. I think we all should support each other and the candidates from the party we like. When we do not like a candidate that wins such as McCain and Me, we should accept that they will not get that persons support but still support the person being a republican.
Ross Marzolf however has gone beyond what Eric does and is actively not trying to push all Ron Paul supporters away from the party. He in my opinion is doing far more harm to the party than good. His idea of the party is the smallest tent I have ever seen.
As for winning an election without a majority, I have never said that it is possible or expected (although it is technically possible!) My point has been that we will never become the majority by trying to present ourselves as the party that can better manage the huge bueacracy rather than the party that will reduce the size and scope of the bueacracy. That in my opinion is the central idea behind republicans that unites us. Rossi is demonstrating that he does not want to reduce the size and scope and that is a show stopper for me. If it was a show stopper for enough others we could start selecting better candidates that would attract and keep the support of most the quiet conservatives in this state. There already are tons of us, just no candidate that excites us. That type of campaign would actually show a new option to all of washington and with time we would have many new converts as well. If we just keep trying to be democrat lite, we will keep getting less votes than the democrats.
Posted by: Lysander on April 8, 2008 05:52 AMIt is unfortunate that you pretend to be a Republican while not supporting any Republican candidates. You have never voted for a GOP presidential nominee, and I've never seen you say one word of support for ANY Republican candidate ever, except for Ron Paul.
Our difference is how we view the actual candidates and treat each other.
Yes. You hold Republican candidates up to an impossible "standard" and you harass and misrepresent people who disagree with you.
For the most part you and I have generally been accepting of each other. This last post of yours seems to be the first I have seen where I am not republican enough for you either which is a bit troubling.
Not nearly as troubling as the fact that you claim to be a Republican, but do not support Republican candidates.
As for winning an election without a majority, I have never said that it is possible or expected (although it is technically possible!)
You have absolutely implied that. You said you oppose Rossi because of his stance on FERRIES, and if he took your stance, he would not be elected (indeed, you went so far as to LIE about Rossi by saying he is unprincipled). So yes, you do absolutely think you can win without a majority ... or you don't care about winning. Or you don't understand the issues.
I can understand how many Republicans would be upset with McCain over various issues, like tax cuts, campaign finance reform, immigration, and so on. But to oppose Dino Rossi? Over ferries? That is, frankly, nothing short of stupid.
My point has been that we will never become the majority by trying to present ourselves as the party that can better manage the huge bueacracy rather than the party that will reduce the size and scope of the bueacracy
And Rossi HAS DONE THIS, AND CONTINUES TO DO THIS.
That in my opinion is the central idea behind republicans that unites us
Then you should support Rossi.
Rossi is demonstrating that he does not want to reduce the size and scope
You're a liar.
Posted by: pudge on April 8, 2008 10:52 AMOthers, like my own wonderful 39th District reps, if they do something I disagree with, I simply let them know, or let others know to let them know. In fact, all three of them have told me that they WANT Republicans to hold them accountable by talking to them.
And of course, there are various things to do in between. Travis, for example, chooses to tells lies about Dino Rossi to keep him accountable!
Posted by: pudge on April 8, 2008 11:02 AMAs a Ron Paul supporter, I support this platform and will remain in the party to further its stated purpose. That does not require me to vote for any Republican, but instead, requires that I work to replace Republicans who don't stand for the principles contained therein with Republicans who will. I look forward to helping to elect Republicans who are committed to these principles. And Snohomish Co. Republicans who know me, know that I will.
Posted by: Michelle on April 8, 2008 01:23 PMMcCain's nomination (and I agree that it is inevitable, barring a miracle, and I do believe in miracles) is dividing the party. He disagrees on many of the major issues our party stands for. His nomination will ensure defeat for our party the way Bob Dole did. Mark my words. BTW, what's up with the snocogop website?
Posted by: Michelle on April 8, 2008 01:32 PMSo while we carried about 9 delegates from the 1st district (if you need to go breathe into a paperbag) of the 24 (and nearly every alternate) I would call that success. You see, we were organized, thoughtful and worked on a grassroots level. We also taught our activists the rules of party involvement and behaved during the meeting despite being lectured by so-called established experts that we needed to be unified and encouraged to work in the trenches. It's funny that in all likelihood the established GOP that has seen so little success in our state should take a few lessons from their new, organized and committed activists...I remember the GOP picnic we attended that had poor attendance and it was mostly just the dreaded Paulites who set up tables and set things up. I guess we have so much to learn from the party organizers that have won so many state-wide elections...so we'll stick around and not ruin the good time you establishment GOP'ers love so much at your gatherings...and we'll probably put up a few Dino signs and canvas neighborhoods while we're at it. Let us know if you need any pointers.
Posted by: Tracy on April 8, 2008 04:01 PMSo did Reagan's. And far moreso would a Ron Paul nomination.
He disagrees on many of the major issues our party stands for.
Not really, no. I can't think of any offhand, except for campaign finance reform. He is and has always been for low taxes and small government and originalist judges and protecting the border and property rights and gun rights and civil liberties, and against abortion.
Now, he does disagree on how to GET to some of those goals. For example, he was in favor of the Gang of 14 to get our judges. He was in favor of cutting spending first, before cutting taxes. But the same can be said of Ron Paul, of course, who would surely divide the party FAR more than a McCain nomination does.
His nomination will ensure defeat for our party the way Bob Dole did.
Nope. McCain will win.
Mark my words.
And you mark mine!
BTW, what's up with the snocogop website?
Temporary downage. Will return!
Posted by: pudge on April 8, 2008 04:07 PMIt is not your committment or organization we dislike, it's your candidate.
Let us know if you need any pointers.
Back at you.
The us-vs-them I see here -- on both sides -- makes me a bit ill. From people like Travis who will not support Republicans, I expect it. The rest of us should be able to come together where we can agree, which is on most things. Almost everything, really. When Michelle switched to Ron Paul, I didn't start treating her like some outsider. She's not. She's a Republican PCO and activist who happens to like Ron Paul. Big deal.
I understand what's going on. Most Republicans are offended because they expect Republicans to support the Republican nominee. And that's a valid point. And Ron Paul supporters are angry because they are treated like enemies storming the gates. That's a valid point too ... except for when you act like such enemies (looking at you again, Travis).
Ron Paul supporters: accept that there's just no way that many Republicans will ever think not supporting McCain is OK. Everyone else: accept that these people support Ron Paul, and that as long as they help out with our other candidates, then that's fine. Agree where we can agree. Hang the rest.
And both sides realize that you will never win a single point with me, or with most people, by acting superior and self-righteous, let alone by attacking other people for things you don't understand.
Posted by: pudge on April 8, 2008 04:18 PMAnyway, I admit it. I'm the one who said I supported sound money and was 'uncommited', since I was yelled at by the back of the crowd until I did so. I guess it didn't matter that much, since I was elected first alternate at least.
I am looking forward to the convention. I support the platform for the most part (a couple of wierd wording issues on a couple of items), and honestly this is the first election that I have been involved with since...well since kindergarten, when I choose Jimmy Carter in my Weekly Reader poll because I recognized his face. (Ronald Reagan won in my class).
Thanks to the Snohomish County Republican Women for the lunch on Saturday. I hope to be able to help stuff boxes with apples and sandwiches next time around.
Posted by: Amber on April 8, 2008 04:21 PMI just saw some of the same garbage I had seen back in the '88 convention with the so-called "unity" slate of delegates which the committeeman indicated had Paul supporters on it. (but again...we were organized and knew who we were and not a single Paul supporter was on it...but maybe he misunderstood and was ducking sniper fire after getting off the plane or sumthin'...I dunno) I was squeamish back then when I was young and inexperienced and sadly assisted black-balling Robertson delegates and I swore I'd never tolerate that type of ugly politics again.
Sorry we're not that excited about the war and stuff...but we still like small government and a dollar that's worth something so maybe we can get along after all? Please?
Posted by: Tracy on April 8, 2008 04:55 PMYou hold Republican candidates up to an impossible "standard"
I have been holding them to the KC and SnoCo GOP economic platforms.
Not nearly as troubling as the fact that you claim to be a Republican, but do not support Republican candidates.
Actually I support nearly all the GOP candidates that support the message conveyed in the GOP Platforms. What is troubling is the disconnect between the typical GOP candidate and the platform.
I am not sure where you are getting the idea that Rossi is supporting cutting government in any signifigant way. He has talked about how he can better manage the budget but I have not seen ONE SINGLE proposal to elliminate any government programs, monopolies, or agencys. Can you point to some evidence show he is in fact looking to cut government not better manage it?
You have absolutely implied that(winning without a majority)
I am sorry for any miscommunication. THat is not what I intended.
. You said you oppose Rossi because of his stance on FERRIES, and if he took your stance, he would not be elected
No. I have said I oppose Rossi and it is because of things like his stance on ferries. It is not his stance on ferries alone. It is just that those are so far the only two issues I have heard speak in any detail on and both are examples of him going AGAINST the republican platform on. I am amazed that I am getting so much resistance for wanting my candidate to support free markets and less taxes!
(indeed, you went so far as to LIE about Rossi by saying he is unprincipled). So yes, you do absolutely think you can win without a majority ... or you don't care about winning. Or you don't understand the issues.
I did not lie about Rossi. I said my opinion which is that he is unprincpled and supported my opinion by showing how his stances oppose the principles of the GOP.
You're a liar.
Can we please keep it civil? I am not lying. Even if you disagree with my opinions, it is no reason nor even accurate to say that I am lying. You think Rossi wants smaller government. I think he does not. neither of us are lying, just interpreting his statements differently or perhaps interpreting the meaning of smaller government differently. You have always been polite in the past to me and i appreciate that. I am hoping we can continue that level of discourse. Thanks in advance.
I
I have
Pudge,
I am unclear why you feel I am acting like an enemy in your eyes. I am merely asking for our candidate to follow the GOP platform.
Not remotely. Each candidate was very different on major issues.
The GOP will benefit in the next decade from the sober reminder that the constitution is not just a good idea...it's the law.
You obviously say this with the extremely mistaken impression that you somehow care more about the Constitution than Republicans who don't support Ron Paul. This is the sort of thing I was talking about above, in terms of superiority and self-righteousness and attacking what you don't understand.
I just saw some of the same garbage I had seen back in the '88 convention with the so-called "unity" slate of delegates which the committeeman indicated had Paul supporters on it. (but again...we were organized and knew who we were and not a single Paul supporter was on it...but maybe he misunderstood and was ducking sniper fire after getting off the plane or sumthin'...I dunno) I was squeamish back then when I was young and inexperienced and sadly assisted black-balling Robertson delegates and I swore I'd never tolerate that type of ugly politics again.
My district's unity slate DID have Ron Paul supporters on it. I chaired the 39th LD caucus and everyone got a completely fair chance to speak and vote. There was no blackballing or ugly politics of any kind whatsoever.
Sorry we're not that excited about the war and stuff...but we still like small government and a dollar that's worth something so maybe we can get along after all? Please?
Sure, as soon as you stop demonizing rank-and-file Republicans who don't support Ron Paul as not caring about the Constitution, maybe we can.
Look at the man in the mirror, Tracy.
Posted by: pudge on April 8, 2008 05:37 PMFalse. For example, you do not support Dino Rossi.
Can you point to some evidence show he is in fact looking to cut government not better manage it?
I already did, the last time you lied about him. I am not going to indulge you further.
No. I have said I oppose Rossi and it is because of things like his stance on ferries. It is not his stance on ferries alone.
Then what else?
It is just that those are so far the only two issues I have heard speak in any detail on ...
So you admit that you are lying when you say that you don't oppose him only because of ferries, since you don't KNOW any of his other views.
I am amazed that I am getting so much resistance for wanting my candidate to support free markets and less taxes!
I am amazed that you think anyone will believe your implied lie that Dino Rossi does not support free markets and less taxes.
I did not lie about Rossi.
False.
I said my opinion which is that he is unprincpled and supported my opinion by showing how his stances oppose the principles of the GOP.
You stated it as fact, and it is a lie. Either you know he is principled and you are intentionally saying something you know to be false, or you do not know whether he is principled and you are intentionally saying something you know that you are ignorant about. Either way, you are lying.
Can we please keep it civil?
Yes, it was civil until you started making personal, unsubstantiated, and -- by your own admission -- ignorant attacks against Dino Rossi.
I am not lying.
False.
Even if you disagree with my opinions, it is no reason nor even accurate to say that I am lying.
False.
You think Rossi wants smaller government. I think he does not.
You are incorrect.
neither of us are lying, just interpreting his statements differently or perhaps interpreting the meaning of smaller government differently.
False. It is a fact that Rossi is for smaller government, as has already been proven to you on another occasion. You either know this and are lying, or you are claiming something that you don't know one way or the other. Either way, it's a lie.
I do not accept the insipid claim that anything that can be couched as an "opinion" is acceptable to say. Some opinions are verifiably incorrect. If I were to say, "in my opinion, Ron Paul is unprincipled and doesn't want smaller government," you would be justified in calling me a liar, and don't believe for a second that many Ron Paul supporters would not say such a thing. It is just as much of a lie to say that about Dino Rossi.
You have always been polite in the past to me and i appreciate that. I am hoping we can continue that level of discourse.
As soon as you stop lying about Dino Rossi, sure.
Travis: you know quite well that I am fair. I've been plenty fair to you and everyone else I disagree with. This has nothing to do with you. It has to do with what you are saying. You are lying, and I won't let personalities or decorum get in the way of me pointing that out.
Civility is very important to me. But truth is far more important. And you are ignoring truth, subsituting your own reality.
Posted by: pudge on April 8, 2008 05:52 PMPlease point me to the portion of the proposed Snohomish County platform where it says that no public money is to be used to pay for the improvement of publicly owned and operated stadia and arenas. Also, please point me to where it says the state's ferry system should be privatized.
Thanks.
...
Oh, wait. You can't. Because they're not in there.
If those planks get into the state platform then beat the crap out of Rossi all you want. In the meantime, you just might want to consider that Rossi's campaign has some of the most obvious, visible grassroots enthusiasm in this state's recent political memory because large numbers of Republicans like the guy and what he stands for. If he was even half of what you claim then that sort of enthusiasm wouldn't be there. But, it is.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 8, 2008 06:00 PMI do not have the specific planks from the Snohomish county GOP platform. I have posted the relavant planks of the KC GOP platform. I have been relying on your statement in post #4 above when refering to Snohomish counties platform.
Here is your quote again, "It was very free market as well as being strongly in favor of lower taxes and spending.
Supporting a tax financed arena is not in my eyes my idea of a free market in the entertainment industry. Nor is it an example of lower taxes or spending.
The same can be said even more so for the tax payer subsidized government protected monopoly in ferry service in the sound.
Posted by: Lysander on April 8, 2008 06:26 PMPerhaps in the barrage of posts I have miscommunicated my point. Here is a quick summary that will perhaps clear up some confusion between us.
1. The GOP platform in at least King COunty supports free markets, less government spending & less taxes.
2. I agree with those planks and feel those are crucial in earning my support.
3. Rossis stated positions on both the state ferry system and Key Arena are in my opinion directly opposed to the stated princples in the GOP platform.
4. I have not come across anything on Rossis webpage or in any articles I have read of a single government agency or program that he would cut.
5. Because of 1-4 I can not support Rossi.
What part of that makes me a liar or a non republican?
Posted by: Lysander on April 8, 2008 06:39 PMAnd the part where you NEVER support ANY Republicans except for Ron Paul makes you a NON-REPUBLICAN.
I don't see where any of this should be hard to understand.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 07:36 AMWhat are you talking about? Demonizing? I didn't demonize anyone and didn't characterize anyone personally as against the constitution. I'm adult enough to know the difference between purism and pragmatism...why do you insist on reading my words and characterizing me somehow and some crazy dissenter?
Back in '88 abortion was a big deal and it was debated fiercely whether or not a pro-life stand should remain in the platform. Now it's a given and not debated seriously even for a minute. Did that same sober reminder back then benefit the party now? Of course!
If your district caucus had Paul supporters on it then it was a better list of names than ours and I think that would've been fair and would've considered supporting it.
What now? Are you going to read my words and blame me for Hitler or something? Sheesh, I'm trying to point out common ground and you're trying to put a tie-dye shirt on me and turn me into a Nader supporter...but what do you expect from people (here comes the cheap shot...duck if you want to) who think Ludwig von Mises is a classical composer. I'll wait while you check wikipedia.
Posted by: Tracy on April 9, 2008 08:21 AMLOL! All in good fun.
My district "unity" slate had Ron Paul supporters on it too. But most people didn't vote for it, and in fact spoke out against it. I stood up and said that it was the district chairman's right to put out a slate, but nobody had to follow it. I later learned (and this was confirmed by Paul Elvig--the convention chair) that promoting any slate from the position as "caucus chair" (or in any position that has unique access to speak to the floor) is actually against Roberts Rules of Order and unethical. So wherever that was taking place, it was taking place illegally. Just FYI.
Posted by: Michelle on April 9, 2008 09:57 AMShrug. You said, "The GOP will benefit in the next decade from the sober reminder that the constitution is not just a good idea...it's the law." That directly implies that a majority of the GOP does not already firmly believe that. Yes, you didn't characterize anyone personally, but I find that to be irrelevant, as the brush you used was broad. It was an untrue and low blow, and I stand by my criticism of your remarks.
What now? Are you going to read my words and blame me for Hitler or something?
Hm. From here, it seems you're the one doing that to me.
Sheesh, I'm trying to point out common ground ...
By claiming that a majority of the GOP cares less about the Constitution than you do? That's not a very good way to start.
but what do you expect from people (here comes the cheap shot...duck if you want to) who think Ludwig von Mises is a classical composer. I'll wait while you check wikipedia.
See, exactly my point: superiority, self-righteousness. and attacking what you don't understand.
I'll try not to act self-righteous about the constitution
You have ZERO justification for acting self-righteous about the Constitution. You do not respect it any more than the McCain supporters here (and in fact, Ron Paul has his OWN problems with the Constitution, for example, his false claims that a declaration of war is constitutionally required for military action). Again, this is the point: you are acting like you have some reason to be superior. It is not logical to do that while claiming you are trying to find common ground. Those two things do not go together.
That said, there's a difference between acknowledging a slate and promoting it officially as a motion of any kind. I welcome the opportunity to be shown otherwise, but I see nothing in Robert's Rules that prevents anyone, including the chair, from informally providing a slate of recommendations.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 12:16 PM1il·le·gal
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal
Date: 1538
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
From www.parlipro.org referring to RONR 10th Edition:
Can the chairman enter into debate?
In small boards of not more than about a dozen members present, yes. In larger assemblies, if the chairman wishes to debate, he/she should relinquish the chair to the vice president or another member, until the matter is disposed of, before resuming the chair. For more information, refer to RONR 10th ed. pp. 470-471, 382-383.
Also, promoting a slate of candidates was not on the specified agenda ("orders of the day"), and therefore any discussion of one is considered out of order unless it is being done so by a motion. And if the chairman (presider of the meeting) was doing it by motion, he or she must temporarily reliniquish his or her position as chairman to enter the debate.
CALL FOR THE ORDERS OF THE DAY
A Call for the Orders of the Day (which, in an ordinary assembly, is a demand that the assembly conform to its program or order of business) can be made at any time when no other privileged motion is pending and the order of business is being varied from, and only then. It requires no second, and is in order when another has the floor, even though it interrupts a speech, as a single member has a right to demand that the order of business be conformed to.
You have no idea where I am in regard to Ron Paul's campaign position. You have no idea where I agree and disagree with him. I told you I understood the difference between purism and pragmatism and I meant it. I heard many other people at the convention who believed just as I did and they supported other candidates for different reasons. Pretty cool huh?
You are a guy that is just upset that you can't get that much of an argument from me. I'm a Ron Paul supporter and will be helping campaign with other GOP candidates (and not for the first time) and for you...it's just not good enough unless there's a fight because you wanted some other electable candidate to confirm what poor stewards of the constitution the RNC has been for many years...but alas no one else showed up except for Dr. Paul.
Yes, you're right it is illogical. I guess it couldn't be irony could it? COULD IT? Did you notice the next person in the thread responded with laughter? See dude, it's a joke. You don't get it because you're whipped into a frenzy and the rest of us are sort of snickering a little bit...but still c'mon man...all in fun.
There's no fight here big boy, just calm down and quit trying to troll for fights with Ron Paul people...you presume to know things about me in order to fight against this 'monolith' but you just come across as bitter...and frankly weird. (gasp, another attack..boo hoo)
Posted by: Tracy on April 9, 2008 04:14 PMYes, I know "illegal" does not refer to laws always. Context determines, and "illegal" is uncommon usage for whether Robert's Rules are followed.
In larger assemblies, if the chairman wishes to debate, he/she should relinquish the chair to the vice president or another member, until the matter is disposed of, before resuming the chair.
Yes, IF there is a debate. One does not need to enter into debate or offer a motion in order to acknowledge the existence of a slate. Furthermore, this is specific to the chair alone, and you said it was broader.
Also, promoting a slate of candidates was not on the specified agenda ("orders of the day"), and therefore any discussion of one is considered out of order unless it is being done so by a motion
Again, it depends on what "promotion" means. I already said it should not be promoted officially, but that is NOT the same as acknowledging its existence.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 07:03 PMI also couldn't care less. So what?
You are a guy that is just upset
False.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and will be helping campaign with other GOP candidates
So? It gives you license to slander other Republicans?
... because you wanted some other electable candidate to confirm what poor stewards of the constitution the RNC has been for many years
False.
See dude, it's a joke.
So you say. And yet, you still did not take back your slander.
There's no fight here big boy
Little weasel, you sure are arguing a lot for saying you aren't "fighting."
just calm down
I am. You're not.
and quit trying to troll for fights with Ron Paul people
I never did. I simply pointed out the fact that you slandered other Republicans. And then lied about it. Shrug.
you presume to know things about me
False.
you just come across as bitter
I wish I knew what you thought I had to be bitter about. The fact that you've not given any sane reason for me to be bitter is instructive in determining whether or not I seem to be such.
and frankly weird
Shrug, I'm not the one supporting Ron Paul.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 07:13 PMI hereby apologize to all Republicans (moderates, liberals, paleo-conservatives and libertarians) who were slandered by my careless broad brush and apparently slanderous remarks.
There, I take it back and hopefully your delicate sensibilities and the good name of all Republicans has been restored...except Ron Paul supporters who apparently can remain weird and unwelcome.
I realize now at this point I'm the one doing the trolling since you're an easy target. I'll stop now. Shrugs infinity.
Posted by: Tracy on April 9, 2008 08:46 PMFalse.
Ron Paul supporters who apparently can remain weird
True.
... and unwelcome.
False.
you're an easy target
False.
I'll stop now
Unlikely.
Posted by: pudge on April 9, 2008 09:14 PMTravis: You did not miscommunicate.
I know. I was trying to be nice and offer an oppurtunity for you and I to start over and be polite.
You are almost totally ignorant about him, by your own admission,
False.
but you still have the nerve to claim that he is unprincipled and doesn't care about free markets or small government. That is LYING.
No, I have provided specific points showing how he his proposals violate principles in the GOP platform.
And the part where you NEVER support ANY Republicans except for Ron Paul makes you a NON-REPUBLICAN.
False.
I don't see where any of this should be hard to understand.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. What I am having a hard time understanding is why you chose to mischaracterize me and Rossi.
Posted by: Lysander on April 9, 2008 10:25 PMThe disconnect seems to be what the grass roots support, what the voters hear and what actually occurs.
Previously posted the losses suffered by the Republican Party when the stadiums that were turned down by the voters and not supported by the grass roots were ultimately accepted (as an emergency) by the Republicans in office at the time. The grass roots moaned, voters remembered and many of the Republican office holders of that time are past memories.
It is difficult to renew energy lost in the eighties and nineties. The big tent at all costs produces chaos which is so visible in the Democratic Party and their chaos is the Republican Party's salvation. You can't please all of the people all of the time.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 10, 2008 09:17 AMI need no such manufactured "opportunity." As I've said -- whether you believe it or not -- this is not personal for me. My demeanor toward you is based strictly on what you say and do. If you say or do something that makes me "impolite" toward you, the only solution is to stop saying or doing it, and, optionally, to apologize.
Of course, I am fallible, so if I am incorrect about something, then I could be corrected. But if not, then "starting over" is no solution. FIxing the actual problem is the solution.
You are almost totally ignorant about [Rossi], by your own admission
Not at all. You said there are only two (very unimportant) issues you know about his stances on. That is what YOU said.
You are, in fact, ignorant about Rossi, and, in fact, you are the one who said so.
If you are NOT ignorant about Rossi, then are admitting you are a liar, because you said he is not in favor of small government, because no one not-ignorant about Rossi could possibly think that. And you are further a liar because you DID say you were ignorant about Rossi, and now you say you are not. Perhaps you'd rather be ignorant than a liar? Just a thought.
No, I have provided specific points showing how he his proposals violate principles in the GOP platform.
No, you have not. You have brought up two (very unimportant) issues and ASSERTED they violate principles in the GOP platform. You showed nothing at all.
I understand perfectly what you are saying. What I am having a hard time understanding is why you chose to mischaracterize me and Rossi.
You're a liar. YOU claimed to be ignorant about Rossi, and YOU are the one lying about Rossi. I never said a single thing that mischaracterized either you, or him.
Until you stop lying, I am done with you, except to point out your lies. I will not respond to anything else you have to say until you choose to stop lying. And on any articles I post, your comments will be deleted until you stop lying.
HTH HAND.
Posted by: pudge on April 10, 2008 10:40 AMMcCain is not splitting the party. The voters are splitting the party. He has served, and served honorably for years. He was not my first choice, or my second choice, but he was the majority's choice in the Republican Party, and, last time I checked, this is a democracy where the majority rules. The system is not perfect.
What aggravates me the most is this "us and them" mentality that the Ron Paul people brought to the convention with your whisperings, snickers, glares, and secret slates. At least the other slates were out in the open. It was the county's "republican" convention, not the us vs them convention. I am a Thompson supporter, but he's not in the running anymore, so I'm backing the republican candidate. There were dozens of Romney supporters there who intend to vote for McCain in November, as there were Huckabees, Duncans, and Tancredos.
I asked a young man, who was a Paul supporter, in my caucus if he would vote for McCain and he flatly said no. Unfortunately, any way you slice it, a vote for anyone other than McCain is a vote against McCain and the republican party. Do the research and do the math. Perrot split the party years ago, and we suckered ourselves into electing Clinton #1. Ron Paul has a lot of great qualities, and I frankly like the guy, but let's not make him the next Ross Perrot.
I admire the loyality, but don't let that loyalty slap you in the face.
Perhaps if we worked as a team we could make some progress. I'd love to see as many Ron Paul fans volunteering at the County Party as I see attending your secret meetings. We're supposed to be working together not against each other.
Posted by: Olga on April 10, 2008 01:30 PMExcellent points. McCain is worthy of a vote for people who love free trade as his record is better than any president the last two decades and obviously better than both Hillary and Obama who lean protectionist. Taxes can remain low and go lower if federal receipts are bolstered by fair, low uniform tariffs. McCain has always understood that...which should give any serious free market voter some consideration.
Posted by: Tracy on April 10, 2008 01:49 PMYou want to lecture Ron Paul supporters about "secret meetings"?! Come on!
Posted by: Michelle on April 10, 2008 03:04 PMI never said that all I know about Rossi are those two issues. I said those are the only two issues Rossi has bothered to go into any amount detail on this election cycle. I have actually read quite a bit on Rossi hoping to find good examples how he would decrease government. I have not found any. I am left with a bunch of vague promises for one thing and two issues where the specific show his promises are not likely to be kept.
You can claim these are unimportant issues and I would tend to agree and in fact that is in my opinion another strike against Rossi. It was not me that chose to highlight those two issues. It is the issues that appearantly Rossi feels are important since they are the only two I have seen him go beyond vague promises on.
But the issues when viewed from a step back can show where he will go on other issues as well. On things as unimportant as the ferry system and the arenas he think it is a legit role of government, then he certainly is not going to question other somewhat more borderline agencies like state department of education.
If you say or do something that makes me "impolite" toward you, the only solution is to stop saying or doing it, and, optionally, to apologize.
There is not an option for you to just disagree with me but remain civil?
Posted by: lysander on April 10, 2008 03:41 PMI was told by my LD district chair that I am an embarresment to the party because I support Paul. He said without any qualifications that he did not want any Ron Paul Supporters active in the Washington state GOP.
But you suggest that I am the one being devisive?
Posted by: lysander on April 10, 2008 04:12 PMI am not concerned about the good of the party so much as I am concerned about the good of the idea of limited government. I feel the GOP is the best vehicle to promote that but I do not think voting for McCain furthers that agenda. Nor does it appear that voting for Rossi this time around will help promote limited government either.
That is not to say I will not eventually support either of these men, but they have alot of work to do convincing me that they are going to bring us smaller government (note I said 'smaller government', not 'smaller government than the democrats'). Until they do I think the good of the party is served by exposing whenever they deviate from the GOP platform.
Posted by: Lysander on April 10, 2008 05:04 PMThere is not an option for you to just disagree with me but remain civil?
Not while you continue to lie, no, that is not an option.
But you suggest that I am the one being devisive?
Even if you WERE told that, how could it POSSIBLY mean that you are therefore NOT being divisive? Maybe BOTH of you are being divisive. I know you are being divisive; lying about GOP candidates you don't like is divisive, by definition.
I am not concerned about the good of the party so much as I am concerned about the good of the idea of limited government
You could have stopped after "I am not concerned about the good of the party." You've never shown the least bit of interest in the good of the party.
Nor does it appear that voting for Rossi this time around will help promote limited government either.
You're a liar.
Tracy: I know both dogs and five-year-olds, and you don't reason as well as any of them. Well, I had one dog that was particularly dense, so maybe him. See, kids that age would never throw around insults and then claim to be trying to find common ground with the people they just insulted. They are way too smart for that. You, on the other hand, obviously ... aren't.
Which do you think is more important, the good of the party or promoting the idea of limited government?
Posted by: Lysander on April 11, 2008 07:55 PMI am still despite the cold shoulder I have recieved from my LD chair very interested in becoming a PCO. My precinct still does not have a PCO despite being the most crowded precinct at the multi precint convention we had in downtown Renton. Ross Marzolf feels it is best for there to be no PCO than an embarresement like me who happens to like Ron Paul and small government.
So if you can arrange for me to become a PCO before waiting for the election I am still open to it. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on April 11, 2008 09:48 PMUntil you stop lying, I am done with you, except to point out your lies. I am not interested in answering your questions, as long as you continue to tell lies.
I am still despite the cold shoulder I have recieved from my LD chair very interested in becoming a PCO.
Another lie. The job of a PCO is to support the party. You are not, in the least bit, interested in becoming a Republican PCO.
Ross Marzolf feels it is best for there to be no PCO than an embarresement like me who happens to like Ron Paul and small government.
Also a lie. Ross doesn't care if you support Paul, and is in favor of small government (and has done far more than you to actually try to GET small government, as John McCain has done more than Ron Paul).
Ross wants someone who will support the party. You do not, and by your own admission, will not. He even asked you to volunteer, and you refused (this further rebutting your claim that you are interested in becoming a PCO).
I have approved many people, including Ron Paul supporters, as PCOs. And I will continue to do so ... if they are here to support the party. Otherwise, they, like you, have no place as a PCO.
You see, I do not beleive the job of the PCO is to support the party. I beleive PCOs job is to support the ideals of the party. You say you do not want to answer my question which is more important because you are 'done with me' but your description of a PCOs job answers it quite nicely.
It is that party uber alles attitude that will keep the GOP in the gutters in elections in this region. The people support the ideals of republicans, they just do not like the republican leaders being offered (both within the party and the candidates).
I really do not care what you think Marzolf did or did not say. I have had multiple conversations with him and he has said straight up that he decided against me being a PCO because I support Ron Paul.
I am glad you are not as petty as he is and have appointed Paul supporting PCOs. I
Posted by: Lysander on April 12, 2008 06:47 PMAlso, I'd say this argument has run its course.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 12, 2008 07:37 PM