Sound Politics: King County GOP Organization Meeting

December 02, 2008

King County GOP Organization Meeting

This coming Saturday is the KCGOP Biennial Organization Meeting. Officers elected, conspiracies hatched, etc, etc.

Two friends of mine, Steve London and Phil Bevis, are running against each other for the position of 7th Congressional District Representative to the State Executive Board. So I invited them, and the third contender for this race, Scott Shock, who I've yet to meet, to post statements here for the benefit of Sound Politics readers. Only PCOs are eligible to vote. But others with an interest in the King County Republican Party may be interested in reading what these folks have to say.

Statement of Phil Bevis

Statement of Steve London

Statement of Scott Shock

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 02, 2008 05:13 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Phil Bevis has talked the talk and walked the walk and deserves to be re-elected. As a small business owner in the heart of Seattle and a tireless supporter of Republican causes in downtown Seattle, he has proven to be unafraid to represent the party in an ever increasing hostile environment.

I strongly encourage all PCOs in King County to join me in re-electing Phil Bevis to another term on the Washington State Republican Executive Board.

Posted by: theyellowdart on December 2, 2008 05:14 PM

2. RE-ELECT PHIL BEVIS - HE ROCKS!!! No one in this race has worked a tirelessly on the behalf of all republicans this year than Phil Bevis. Phil is generous with his time (he spent over 2,000 hours this year alone volunteering his time), fundraising, and he is the master at making poltics fun. And this makes him the most qualified candidate for this position.

Phil brings an energy and enthusiam to grassroots politics that is unmatched in Seattle.

Phil has my vote...and I hope he has yours too ;)

Posted by: Kristi Brown on December 2, 2008 05:21 PM

3. I am a newly elected PCO in the 36th LD and I fully intend on supporting Phil Bevis. Although I am a new PCO, I have been involved in Republican politics for a while, and I have seen Phil Bevis work tirelessly for the betterment of our party and our cause and our ideals.

I ask that all PCOs put their support behind Phil.

Posted by: Jill on December 2, 2008 05:21 PM

4. RE-ELECT PHIL BEVIS - HE ROCKS!!! No one in this race has worked a tirelessly on the behalf of all republicans this year than Phil Bevis. Phil is generous with his time (he spent over 2,000 hours this year alone volunteering his time), fundraising, and he is the master at making poltics fun. And this makes him the most qualified candidate for this position.

Phil brings an energy and enthusiam to grassroots politics that is unmatched in Seattle.

Phil has my vote...and I hope he has yours too ;)

Posted by: Kristi Brown on December 2, 2008 05:22 PM

5. There is only one qualified person for this office and that is Phil Bevis. He has proven himself over the last two years! Phil gets things done and is willing to give of his time, money and energy to make sure they get done.

Steve was involved in the past in a peripheral way but has not been active in the last two years.

Scott has mainly been involved with and donated to Ron Paul and other Paul endorsed and backed candidates.

Phil Bevis is the one we want to represent the 7th CD at the State Party level. He's a doer and is an inclusive person - welcoming ALL REPUBLICANS to be involved with our party.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 2, 2008 05:24 PM

6. Phil and Steve are also both friends of mine and I have a great deal of respect for both. They've both given tirelessly both their time and their money to the GOP and if Steve were running against anyone else I'd happily endorse him. I do have to throw my full support behind Phil though. Phil has been incredibly active in Republican politics, especially for the past two years. As he's stated, he's been to every Exec Board meeting, quite a commitment, since before he was elected chair. He's got a ton of energy. I regularly receive emails or phone calls from him at all hours of the night. He's done a great job getting our Republican message out with the Downtown Seattle Republican Club and its documentary series. He's got a lot of connections not only in the Republican Party but also among non-partisan and Democratic elected officials, which can often be very useful when things need to get done to benefit our party and our state. He's also done quite well for himself professionally, which is important because it allows him to take time and a lot of money too, to do all the things required of the job.
Most importantly, he knows what's going on in the party today. Unfortunately there is a group of people that are wanting to take over and radically change things. Not that this is a bad thing, per se. But I know these folks, Phil knows these folks, and many of you all know these folks. While some of their ideas are good and while, to some extent, we do need some new blood to "shake things up" as Steve pointed out, these folks are going to do a lot more than just shake things up. They've proven themselves to be divisive, conniving and not at all interested in party unity. As an example, one of these people I happened to chat with during the RNC Convention stated that Cindy Sheehan was one of her heroes. A couple of others paraded around the State Conventions Hall carrying a sign that stated John McCain was a communist and when they were approached politely and were told their sign was not appropriate at that venue and that they were welcome to take it outside the hall, they went ballistic, using some very hostile language. And before anyone brings it up, I'm not referring to all Ron Paul supporters. Many, probably even the majority, joined with us in support of our nominee, John McCain, once his nomination was inevitable. I'm referring to those types that refused to support him and actively spoke out against him. People like Doug Parris, Michael Thompson and the other person in this race, Scott Schock, who openly endorsed a third party candidate for President. To those folks my question would be, if you're so gung-ho about those third parties (and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, by the way) why don't you put your energy into building those third parties up instead of trying to tear the Republican Party down?
Anyway, I've said enough. I encourage all of you PCOs to support Phil Bevis' re-election. He's stated that, if elected, it will be his final term so my hope is that Steve will stick around, hopefully attend some, if not all the Exec Board meetings and other WSRP events to become more familiar with how they work, and run for the open seat in 2010.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 2, 2008 05:32 PM

7. Interesting thing about Scott Shock. He claims to have contributed 10's of 1000's of dollars to Republican candidates and causes, but I can only find evidence of $5306, mostly to a Libertarian candidate, two Ron Paul campaign for liberty candidates, Ron Paul, a couple of hundred to PACS, and $400 to Rossi.

$5000 is impressive, but I'd have been more impressed if $4100 hadn't gone to Ron Paul.

Posted by: Camille on December 2, 2008 05:48 PM

8. Scott Shock deserves the support of PCO's. Phil Bevis represents more of the same old, same old. Its time to head towards Conservative Candidates and Conservative ideals.

Scott will help to rebuild the Republican Party, Phil will leave it in shambles.

Posted by: Michael Cathcart on December 2, 2008 05:59 PM

9. I beg to differ with Michael Cathcart. If Scott had actually supported Republicans (he admitted to voting for Ron Paul for President), I might believe that he was going to rebuild the party. It seems he wants to rebuild the wrong party. He should be rebuilding the Libertarian Party of which he claims to be a member on his Meetup site.

Phil is the candidate for those who are forward looking in the party.

Anyway, Michael lives in the Spokane area.

I'll make a deal with you Michael, you butt out of King County's Organization Meeting and I'll butt out of yours.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 2, 2008 06:10 PM

10. wow - such choices!
Do I vote for Phil Bevis who thinks Sarah Palin is a reformer and doesn't lie (what a joke!)?

How about London? He wonders what to do with the young bucks in the republican party (both of them in king county). Hey, you guys are at what - under 40% in King county? Maybe you should just give up here an concentrate on the empty wheat fields in Eastern Washington and the uneducated areas of the state.

I actually think London is right about republicans saying one thing (small government) and doin' another (running up the largest deficit in history and voting to keep earmarks).

But I recommend the last guy. He is for ideological purity and will run the party into the ground so it bottoms out under 30%.

Posted by: correctnotright on December 2, 2008 07:15 PM

11. correctnotright, echoing Ross's comments to Michael above but even more so, you butt out of Republican politics and we'll butt out of left-wing nutroot politics. Deal?

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 2, 2008 07:28 PM

12. Last I checked, Ron Paul is a Republican and has been elected as one for more than 20 years. Ron Paul headed up the Texas delegation for Ronald Reagan. "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" - Ronald Reagan.

Let me see if I have this right, our GOP both locally and nationally got our butts kicked, and now we're attacking republican representatives that have the necessary principles and conservative beliefs needed to rebuild the party?!! We lost because the party leadership dumped conservative principle and everything that made our party strong due to Goldwater and Reagan.

I suggest we face facts and welcome every Republican into the fold regardless of whom they supported in the primaries and general election. We will need their votes and financial support in the future.

We must stand for something as a party, and I think it will pay dividends to return to our first principles of limited government, individual liberty, and free markets. We need to get off our asses and start practicing what we preach. If we don't, we'll be in the wilderness much, much longer and to the detriment of our free republic.

Posted by: Kirk Smith on December 2, 2008 07:29 PM

13. This seems to be going on throughout the State. Ron Paul supporters have been organizing and doing everything that they can in order to get Ron Paul activists into Republican office. I know that now I sound like a Ron Paul conspiracy theorist, but there is an organized effort to increase their power in the Republican Party, nation wide. I have met Phil and have seen him walk the walk with in the race for the 8th. If I could I would support him over any candidate. If he wasn't running, I would support the one NOT linked with the Ron Paul organization.

While I have nothing against the majority of Ron Paul supporters, I have had a few to many negative run ins with the Fringe group of his Ronulans. Added to that, the fact that Cong. Paul accepted money from the American Nazi party, to me should disqualify him from ever having an "R" next to his name.

Posted by: IAFF Fireman on December 2, 2008 07:57 PM

14. Kirk, almost everything you say is correct. Small "l" libertarianism is at the core of what this country and what the Republican party was founded on and we do need to return to these core principles. You're probably even right that part of the reason we lost the election is that'd we'd lost these principles. You're also right that we need to welcome anyone who holds these princples dear into this party. And of course you're right that Ron Paul is a Republican in so much as he caucuses with that party and even holds most of our party's beliefs. But may I remind you that he ran as a Big "L" Libertarian in 1988 and then wouldn't support incumbent president Bush "41" in his re-election for president, instead throwing his support behind Pat Buchanan (who is now no longer a Republican). Part of being a Republican doesn't just mean holding many of the views of your fellow Republicans or even sticking an "R" next to your name. Part of being a Republican means supporting fellow Republican candidates once they have secured the nomination. This is the entire reason for the Reagan's "11th commandment". Furthermore, it comes down to this: would you rather win or would you rather be right. You can't effect very much change if you're sitting on the sidelines throwing a temper tantrum and accusing the people who you agree most with, i.e. John McCain, of being a Communist.
I'll state again what I said in my first post, if being a purist is so important to you and you supported Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin or whomever else this time around instead of supporting the Republican Party's nominee, maybe you should focus your efforts on building up the Libertarian, Constitution, Heritage or Reform Parties. Frankly, I'd welcome it and it would probably do more to return the Republican Party to its core values than what many of you folks are currently doing by throwing tantrums on the sidelines. And, if that didn't succeed and your values were really that of the majority in this country then you'd see the Republican Party relegated to history and the Constitution Party becoming one of the two main parties.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 2, 2008 08:01 PM

15. To those that are seeking to malign and discredit me in the above comments, it appears that they have neither read my statement or my bio, nor bothered to talk with me.

I would ask that people such as Mr. Marzolf accord me and others the basic respect of not misrepresenting information.

Posted by: Scott Shock on December 2, 2008 08:04 PM

16. Spoken like a fearful democrat who can't separate conservative principles and ideas from unfounded and inaccurate ad hominem attacks. How weak.

Posted by: GOP County Chair on December 2, 2008 08:07 PM

17. I am of course referring to IAFF Fireman.

Posted by: GOP County Chair on December 2, 2008 08:09 PM

18. I am of course referring to IAFF Fireman.

Posted by: GOP County Chair on December 2, 2008 08:09 PM

19. My information is a little dated, but I have worked closely with Steve London and Phil Bevis. Both men have contributed in their own way to the Republican party for years.
Steve set up a weekly phone bank at his own business establishment with at least 10 lines, and re-energized the 43rd District organization when he was first ratified as Chair. As he mentions, his focus is to be inclusive of everyone who wants to be a Republican, and not exclude Ron Paul supporters. But this does not tell the whole story: while Chair of the 43rd District, Steve was a coalition-builder, and it produced results: McCain supporters from the 2000 primary campaign (that is, those who were new Republicans) were made to feel welcome, and the number of active PCOs increased dramatically during his tenure. Later, he was asked to step in as Chair during a period when his business demanded more of his time and his ability to work on party activities was diminished. But over the years, Steve has donated many hundreds of hours of his own time and thousands of his own dollars to Republican causes: setting up sound equipment for King County picnics, organizing phone banks, etc.
Phil is an idea guy. Countless would-be party leaders have ideas, but Phil is one of the rare people to actually work toward accomplishing them, both with his own time and money. In addition to countless in-kind donations for party activities, Phil has donated generously to Republican candidates. Others who have known him for some time (Kristi, Ross, Mark) have already painted a fairly accurate picture of his involvement with the party, and his energy and hard work have clearly been noticed (e.g. Jill's comment).
I do not know Scott Shock. Then again, my knowledge of Seattle grassroots GOP politics ended when I moved away 18 months ago. Personally, I hope to infuse the concept of limited government back into the Republican Party, so I have no problem with former Paul supporters that are active in the party, and even in leadership positions. But I think Scott needs to establish his party bona fides first: if he demonstrates a commitment to the Republican Party that extends beyond one election cycle, and simultaneously abandons the Libertarian Party, perhaps he ought to seek a GOP leadership position in 2010. Some of our greatest leaders and activists once belonged to other parties.

Posted by: Tim B. on December 2, 2008 08:21 PM

20. I have seen Phil Bevis volunteering at every single King County party event for the last two years. I can't say the same for Mr. London or Mr. Shock. I have also seen Phil Bevis on TVW countless times hosting the Downtown Seattle Republican Club TV series. The man is committed, tireless in his service to the Republican Party and deserves reelection.

Phil walks the walk which is a strong indication of his commitment to our Party and its future.

We can't afford to elect officers of the Republican Party who do not support our nominated Republican candidates (reference to Mr. Shock, not Mr. London). PCOs, please come show your support for Phil Bevis and other fantastic Republican (underlined and bolded) leaders on December 6th.

Posted by: KCRepublican on December 2, 2008 08:25 PM

21. Mark Griswold,

Are you familiar with the statement: conservative first, republican second?

Conservatives are called such out of the belief of "conserving" republican principles. IMO, Ron Paul conserves and represents these foundational principles best and with the greatest integrity. Why are you afraid of the principles of a constitutional republic? Look where its got the party by taking out any shred of principle, integrity or of defending free market capitalism. Big government fascism is not a direction that will benefit our party or our country.

The mainstream republicans must admit that by watering down the party to supposedly appeal to all, it destroyed our base of support based on principle that conservatives admire. The mainstream way failed with Bush and McCain.

The GOP no longer excites, it no longer provides a logical contrast based on the moral principles which made this country strong and catapulted our party to success and our country to prosperity. We must make the bold steps necessary to recapture our past support and that includes reimbracing the ideas and principles we actually used to practice.

I have no problem welcoming the libertarian republicans to take part in rebuilding our party towards future success. They were a foundational part of our party in its beginning and we're going to need them now more than ever to find our way out of the wilderness.

I am a republican in the mold of Goldwater & Reagan. I believe those were much better years for our party and our country than what we've had these past 8. I welcome a return to the classical positions of our party so as to broaden our appeal to the benefit of all.

I will stay on working to rebuild the GOP as an elected member of the party. Third parties are passe' and don't really accomplish squat. Your stuck with me :)

Posted by: Kirk Smith on December 2, 2008 08:30 PM

22. By the way, Scott, I am impressed by your bio. Anyone who cites Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Ronald Reagan, and Austrian economics has the whole package right, in my book. If you do not win this time, just hang in there, stay active in the party, and run again in 2010. I believe Ross Marzolf did not support Phil Bevis two years ago, but Phil has earned Ross' support this time around (I believe Ross supported Sound Politics contributor Warren Peterson).

Posted by: Tim B. on December 2, 2008 08:36 PM

23. @11 Mark
Hey, just because the republican party left me - the lying, corruption (Abramoff), unnecessary wars and endless spending doesn't mean that I don't want a competitive republican party with real ideals - not vacant phrases.

Posted by: correctnotright on December 2, 2008 08:41 PM

24. I have worked with Phil Bevis for the last four years. We have worked on many campaigns and issues together. He has never once failed to come to any and every event. His involvement has been stellar. I was happy to endorse him in 2006 and I am honored to have the opportunity to endorse and support him in his re-election bid. I look forward to two more years of working with him.

Posted by: Lisa on December 2, 2008 08:54 PM

25. If Ross Marzolf is opposed to Scott Shock then Scott Shock has my 100% support. Ross Marzolf and it sounds like Phil and Steve represent more of the same. Ross Marzolf did everything in his power as a LD chair and more to ensure that all Ron Paul supporters (primarily new young energetic volunteers) were felt as uncomfortable and unwelcome as possible. That is NOT the leadership we want or need in the GOP if we are ever going to become relevant.

Posted by: Lysander on December 2, 2008 09:13 PM

26. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/running_out_the_clock_in_spoka.html

I was not able to attend the state convention but according to the above report Bevis was instrumental in the successful attempt to delay proceedings in order to stop the will of the majority of delagates.

Again I have to ask, do we really want leaders that do not want to hear from the rank and file? Whether you agree with Ron Paul on all issues or not, the man is a republican as are his followers.

We as a party can not afford to have leadership that spends more time working on alienating new members than welcoming and encouraging new members.

Scott Shock understand this. Phil does not.

Posted by: Lysander on December 2, 2008 09:22 PM

27. Wrongnotright, why would anyone give a rat's ass what you think one way or the other? Since you showed your ignorance on the Obama vote split, clearly, facts have no place in your considerations and since you're a leftist moron, why do you care one way or the other?

And if Marzolf made the Paulbots "feel unwelcomed," then so much the better.

Good on ya, Ross. Reminds me of the "good old days" of '00 back in the WSRP.

Posted by: hinton on December 2, 2008 09:29 PM

28. Ron Paul has "followers" like some kind of prophet? What is he? The apostle Paul from Texas?

Most candidates have supporters.

Posted by: Camille on December 2, 2008 09:31 PM

29. Camille,

People follow movements. Ron Paul is leading a conservative movement. People are following that movement because movements inspire. We haven't had any candidates lately that inspire, so I understand your admiration.

Find your inner conservative and be inspired :)

Posted by: Kirk Smith on December 2, 2008 09:49 PM

30. Camille:
Supporters would be a better word for most of Pauls supporters, but followers is correct for many as well. He has led MANY people in this campaign to the ideas of limited government and he has led many people to the republican party. In that regards his supporters are followers.

Unfortunately after being led to the GOP by Apostle Paul :) the local GOP leadership essentially told them all that they were not welcome and to leave. Many people in this very thread are doing the same.

I again must reiterate. Whether you like doctor Paul or not, his ideas are for limited government which is what the Republican Party supposedly stands for. Yes there may be a few things you disagree with him on, but I am willing to bet there are such issues with every other Republican candidate. GOP leadership should be encouraging ALL members that favor a smaller government to be involved. The current leadership has been doing the EXACT OPPOSITE!

Disagree with Paul all you want, that is not what this election is about. This election is about whether you want leadership that tries to encourage new members to contribute or tries to turn them away. Scott Shock will try to recruit new members to contribute.

Posted by: Lysander on December 2, 2008 09:52 PM

31. Camille:
Supporters would be a better word for most of Pauls supporters, but followers is correct for many as well. He has led MANY people in this campaign to the ideas of limited government and he has led many people to the republican party. In that regards his supporters are followers.

Posted by: Lysander on December 2, 2008 09:53 PM

32. 15. Posted by: Scott Shock on December 2, 2008

" I would ask that people such as Mr. Marzolf accord me and others the basic respect of not misrepresenting information. "

Scott:

Don't hold your breath.

Ross Marzolf has a history of lying and using innuendo, slander, intimidation and physical violence against anyone in the 37th District that did not support the dictates of King County Chair Michael Young and the fascist leadership of the King County Republican Party.

Ask Ross about the police (the same police who removed me from Leschi Park, for flying the American flag with Support Our Troops signs, at the request of Suellen Roche's uber-liberal friend and grocer who Suellen, when I told her she should shop somewhere else, defended with " .... but his wine is so cheap and his sausages are sooo... good" and who had contacts in the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct) that Ross brought into 37th District meetings to remove anyone who argued with Katy Corl on her interpretation of 'Republican' or the 'skinhead' Ross brought into a 37th District meeting in an attempt to intimidate me into not speaking by having him stand so close to me that he had to step back when I turned and when that failed, forming the '37th District Club', made up of members of his and Suellen Roche's choosing whose secret meetings where held behind the locked doors of his condo association building.

It is understandable that Ross Marzolf would support Phil Bevis, Ross and Phil Bevis have a lot in common.

Lying?

Ask Ross Marzolf about his telling people that I "had a problem with Jews" when I ran against Michael Young's candidate of choice, un-repentant Communist, avowed Socialist and single issue racist Larry Gossett, Ross knowing Seattle's largest Jewish community lived in the District.

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 2, 2008 10:17 PM

33. The Creature From the Black Lagoon Surfaces!

Posted by: Golly Gee on December 2, 2008 10:52 PM

34. We have Brian Thomas and Travis Pahl.. now all we're missing is Doug Parris and we can commence with Reactionary Kook Fest 2008!

I thought Brian Thomas slinked away when the contents of his police file got out... well now that he's back, let the fun begin! :)

Posted by: AD on December 3, 2008 04:47 AM

35. AD:
It would be nice if we could have a civil discussion without rude name calling. Even if you think I and others that disagree with you are kooks, I have to ask... what value to the GOP do you get by calling us that rather than addressing the arguments we make? What value do you get in calling us names rather than explaining to us why Scott Shock would not be good for the party?

Posted by: Lysander on December 3, 2008 05:34 AM

36. In reply to Scott Shock:

I'm confused about your comment that I misrepresented your information. On which point did I misrepresent?

1. you voted for Ron Paul for President
2. you supported and donated money mainly to Paul and Paul endorsed candidates
3. on your meetup site you claimed to be a Libertarian.

I'm glad to post a retraction of any of the above, if you evidence that differs.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 3, 2008 08:11 AM

37. Ross Marzolf you are just a thug in the old line "Mafia" enforcer type.

You think that physical violence and threats of such is going to allow you to get your way. Well someday you are going to meet your match and then you will get what you deserve you punk.

Either that or you will be arrested for assault. And when you are a lot of people are going to spread that information ruining any credibility you think you have.

So, go to hell you skinhead. Your gangster like tactics will not work anymore. In fact you might soon get a taste of your own medicine.

Posted by: J. B. on December 3, 2008 08:55 AM

38. In response to Number 37 - at least I've made my comments under my own name and am not hiding behind a pseudonym.

I stand behind my earlier posts unless proven otherwise and I'm proud to defend our party against those who would seek to enter and destroy it to fulfill their own twisted logic.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 3, 2008 09:17 AM

39. You want to push around old ladies.

Well this time someone might just be there to defend them and punch your lights out.

At the very least you WILL be arrested for ANY violence you do.

Posted by: J.B. on December 3, 2008 09:47 AM

40. Hey J.B., does Ross drink puppy blood and sacrifice young children on the altar of Kuthulu too?

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 3, 2008 10:23 AM

41. To ALL:

Am I the only person comparing the posts of Brian Thomas and "J.B." who thinks they are one and the same?

If I'm wrong, and someone is parodying the prose style of the scowling Man in Black... take a bow, you've come pretty close.

But perhaps you should stop. For all Brian's venom, his paranoia factor is higher than usual and he doesn't seem to be in a very good place.

So, however tempting the target, have a heart.

Golly Gee

Posted by: Golly Gee on December 3, 2008 11:00 AM

42. Ross,

Yes I donated money to Ron Paul, but Rossi was the second highest recipient of my donations, and I encouraged Ron Paul supporters to vote for him.

My meetup info says "libertarian", not "Libertarian". Just for your edification, there's a difference between "libertarian" philosophy and "Libertarian", as in the Libertarian Party. Small "l" libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism, like the philosophy of the founding fathers (e.g., see: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html). Our vocabulary has been warped to where "liberal" means something quite different these days.

The Republican party has lost its way, in part because of the exile of people of libertarian (classical liberal) philosophy. The Ron Paul candidacy rekindled hope in many people for restoration of our republic and classical liberal ideas.

I suggest that instead of attacking people and labeling them in an attempt to box them in and shut them out, that you actually try talking with them about issues and find common ground. Maybe we would actually GROW THE PARTY, instead of consigning it to perpetual loser status.

Best regards,
Scott

Posted by: Scott Shock on December 3, 2008 04:02 PM

43. Ross,

Yes I donated money to Ron Paul, but Rossi was the second highest recipient of my donations, and I encouraged Ron Paul supporters to vote for him.

Best regards,
Scott

Posted by: Scott Shock on December 3, 2008 04:03 PM

44. O-my God. The Ron Paul Bots are back. 0-:

Look guys, for what ever reason, your guy 'never' caught on.
Gezzzz get over it.

Yes. I voted for McCain, didn't want him, but I damn well knew he would get a-lot farther then RP.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 3, 2008 04:21 PM

45. Ao Army Medic/Vet, how'd that work out for you?

How come the McCain followers aren't showing up in droves? Oh that's right - the moderates who voted McCain in the primaries went for Obama. Great plan, that was. Next time, vote for a conservative, would ya?

Posted by: Andrea on December 3, 2008 04:43 PM

46. Scott,

Thanks for the explanation. You left out one of my points - who DID you vote for President?

I acknowledge that I misspoke regarding small l vs. large L libertarian. However, you did not say anywhere on that site whether or not you are a Republican (large R).

See you Saturday,

Ross

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 3, 2008 04:52 PM

47. Wow, Andrea, that's quite an accusation. Any proof?

Posted by: Jim Johnson on December 3, 2008 04:57 PM

48. I will see you on Saturday too Ross.

You won't be able to mistake me. I am not like the old ladies you like to manhandle.

You will know exactly who I am. People say I generate quite a presence.

Posted by: J.B. on December 3, 2008 05:01 PM

49. Army Medic @44:
Yes our guy lost and you know what... We are over it. WE are however not giving up on the ideals that he and his supporters share. That is what you seem to be missing... it was not about Ron Paul, it was about the idea of limited government which Ron Paul championed.

Ross:
Who Scott voted for for president is not really important since we did not really have a candidate that supported the GOP platform.

As an example, here is the 2008 GOP platform position on bailouts and the economy (the biggest issue of the election):
"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all."

Where was McCain on the bailouts? That is right... suspending his campaign to work directly against the GOP platform.

McCain on Taxes? When it mattered, he voted against it twice.

The Border? In favor of the amnesty plan.

Education? Worked with one of the most liberal senators in the country to expand the federal role in education.

Using the presidential vote this year as a litmus test for ones 'republican creditials' is a very poor way of testing that. In fact the same can be true for all GOP presidential candidates in my voting lifetime (My first chance would have been Dole). I explained this to you when you took back your word and refused me being a PCO. Appearantly you are still resorting to trying and proving that no one is a republican unless they do as you say. It is this reason that I oppose any leadership position for you or anyone you endorse. I hope others will do the same!

Ross, why do you insist on trying to exclude people from the GOP rather than include them?

Posted by: Lysander on December 3, 2008 06:14 PM

50. So I'm spending this week trying to do my research. Too bad we can't just elect all three of them and harness that power! As a new PCO I really like "The Contract With Grassroots Republicans" that Scott mentions. I hope everyone on the executive board will eventually get behind this or something like it because it sounds like the power infusion we need, biggest return on investment (teach a PCO how to fish), and a board united on something like this would be a tremendous check and balance against a chair ever thinking about going in the wrong direction because the executive board could have the courage to say "no" because they have the full strength of the grassroots at their back and in their hearts. Have faith in us, and we can return the love 100 fold. I am working towards the day that I can confidently say my precinct is fully connected with the party through my position and can call in for air support or get the message through formal channels when necessary. I also hope that someone else in my precinct can eventually take my position and it will be turnkey for them, and that I might be able to find some other way to make an even greater contribution to the cause. But for now I'm just treading water. My precinct isn't where it needs to be because I'm brand new, making mistakes, and starting from scratch, but I'll get there eventually. I want to be self-sufficient, don't want to be a whiner, but I'm going to gladly accept and give big thank you's to anyone in a leadership position or with experience who gives me tips and support and tools to do my job.

http://wsrpreform.blogspot.com/2008/11/republicans-do-you-know-when-and-where.html

Posted by: New PCO on December 3, 2008 09:55 PM

51. New Pco @ 50:
This contract with the grassroots Republicans sounds like a great idea. Thanks for sharing it. I noticed it in Scotts page above but it is not hyperlinked and I did not bother to look it up. It sounds like what I am looking for... Party officials that recognize they serve the PCOs and members, not the other way around!

If our party officials do not understand their role in the party, then they are certainly not going to think of politicians as servants to us either!

Ross Marzolf and people he supports like Phil (unless he wants to publicly disassociate himself from Marzolf) treated me and many others that were trying to get involved not just indifferently (which would have been bad enough) but outright hostilely.

Posted by: Lysander on December 3, 2008 10:18 PM

52. Unfortunately, the links seem to have been removed from my candidacy statement. Since I wanted to share these with people, here they are:

Liberty Compact for candidates
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libcomp/index.htm

A Contract with Grassroots Republicans
http://wsrpreform.blogspot.com/

EFF Candidate Briefing reference
http://www.waeagles.com/?q=node/367

Property Rights
http://www.proprights.org/

Health Freedom
http://www.healthfreedom.net/

Free Market Environmental Solutions
http://www.perc.org/

Posted by: Scott Shock on December 3, 2008 11:17 PM

53. Lysander, quit your whining. While your problems with the KCGOP leadership don't fall 100% on you, they do not fall 100% on Phil, Ross, Lori or anyone else in the KCGOP. The fact is you and your ilk showed up late to the party (the time to get involved wasn't on the day of the precinct caucuses, it was at least a year before that) and when things didn't go your way you all started throwing temper tantrums. If you all would stop playing the victim card for one minute you'd realize that most of us who have been around for the past two years or longer agree with you 80% and would like to be 80% your friends, not 20% your enemies, But unfortunately, you all demanded priviliges from the start (and yes, going to the WSRP convention is a privilge, not a right, that comes with putting in your time and supporting the whole team, not just Ron Paul) and when you didn't win you resorted to infantile outbursts (calling John McCain a communist and Luke Esser a fascist is NOT appropriate behavior). You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. My advice to you all would be to quiet down for the next six months to a year, let people forget your immaturity, and then come back, get involved BEFORE the next election begins, treat those who have been around a bit longer with a little more respect and plead your case in a well-reasoned and rational manner without the chanting and without the name calling. If you do this, and focus on the issues that we can all find agreement on (smaller government, not bashing the military and proudly comparing yourselves to Cindy Sheehan as one Ron Paul supporter at the RNC did) I think you'll find a whole lot more support.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 12:05 AM

54. Mark:
Again... I am not whining. Ron Paul supporters did not demand the privledge of going to the convention. We understand we did not have enough organization or numbers to win. That is not what I or anyone else that supportered Ron Paul is saying here.

I agree that most in the party agree with Ron Paul supporters 80% of the time. That is why we are upset at the party officials treating us the way they did. And again the bad treatment was not us losing the primary or caucus but being made feel as unwelcome as possible.

I am not saying party officials are 100% at fault, but enough of the blame lies with them and they are doing things that warrant them to lose this weekend elections. If you agree we are 80% friends, then you agree we should have been included by party officials rather than pushed away right? And by included I do not mean given the nomination at the caucus or all of us given delegate status at the state convention. I mean at a minimum given a welcome rather than a boot when we joined. Just a reminder... GOP officials went as far as saying we are not needed and are an embaressment. Is that really what you want in your officials? Is it the path to victory?

I submit the answer is no, it is not the right way to run a political party and is a primary reason why we are the minority party.

Therefore Scott Shock and other non established candidates have my support and I hope they will have yours too!

Posted by: Lysander on December 4, 2008 06:03 AM

55. some of Travis Pahl's (Lysander) earlier blogging comments:

"I am an anarchist. I do not beleive that their is ever a justifiable reason to initiate force.

Travis Pahl"

forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=358.0

Former Libertarian candidate for New York City Public Advocate, Travis Pahl

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 4, 2008 08:14 AM

56. Lysander, you yourself may not have been one of the Ron Paul supporters causing the problems that led to party officials being unwelcoming or thinking you all an embarrassment. However, I can point to several instances when the fringe of your group took control of the whole group either factually or just perceptually when viewed by an outsider, and made comments and actions that WERE an embarrassment. I could also point to a few examples of Ron Paul supporters all but insisting it was their right to be elected as delegates to the state convention. So, perhaps, with you I have to problem. But with many of your compatriots I do, including Scott Schock to some extent. While he definitely hasn't been as abrasive as many, by focusing on only the negative and often berating the current party leadership for questionable actions, regardless of their veracity, he becomes a sour grape. Most people don't like negative campaigning. I do applaud him for his submitted statement on this website for it is mostly positive. I would encourage him to show the same decorum while conducting other aspects of his campaign.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 08:22 AM

57. #34. Posted by AD at December 3, 2008

" I thought Brian Thomas slinked away when the contents of his police file got out... well now that he's back, let the fun begin! :) "

AD:

Can you substantiate your assertion that I have a 'police file'?

Is this the same 'police file' that Phil Bevis and Mark Griswold made a point to tell people about when I was the Republican nominee for County Council District #2 and running against Michael Young's candidate of choice, un-repentant Communist, avowed Socialist and single issue racist Larry Gossett, the police report that Phil Bevis and Mark Griswold would not (actually, could not) produce?

Is this 'police file' the 'file' that Suellen Roche's grocer, friend and fellow fascist Steve Schulman asked his friends in the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct Crime Prevention Unit, Sonja Richter and Tim Greeley, to compile (fabricate) so that Steve Schulman could use the "½ inch thick file" as a reason to have the Seattle police (the same Seattle police who were brought into Katy and Michael Corl's 37th District meetings by Ross Marzolf and, I believe, Suellen Roche, 'to maintain order') ban me from displaying the American flag and Support Our Troops signs in the public park adjacent to his Leschi Food Mart and whose actions Suellen Roche defended with " .... but his wine is so cheap and his sausages are sooo... good" and, I believe, the comment made by Ross Marzolf that I "had a problem with Jews", Steve Schulman being Jewish?

Or is this the 'file' that King County Chair Michael Young and the fascist leadership of the King County Republican Party maintains on 'fellow' Republicans. A 'file' fed by Ross Marzolf, Suellen Roche and Ann Adams. And, I believe, King County Republican Party and Washington State Republican Party Attorney John White against whom I filed an ethics complaint with the Washington State Bar Association because I believe John White repeated comments as fact, that I take drugs, made by his partner, attorney David Alskog, to my attorney during a prescriptive easement lawsuit (lost by a very bitter David Alskog) brought by one of my neighbors, Fred Noland. A claim of prescriptive easement based on a fabricated story repeated by PDC member Jane Noland, a wife of Fred Noland, and a story which attorney John White's partner attorney David Alskog understandably made no attempt to verify.

Fred Noland, who with my neighbor Leona Wood, is one of the founding members of the neo-fascist Newport/Grand/Spring/38th Circle group that is currently being led by Leona Wood and Tim Greeley of Seattle Police Department's East Precinct Crime Prevention Unit, the Tim Greeley who is friends with Suellen Roche's grocer, friend and fellow fascist Steve Schulman. Leona Wood being a Republican hating, George Bush hating, anti-Semite behind who Lori Sotelo, with her Executive Director Nathan Johnson, threw her substantial weight in this years election for my Precinct Committee Officer. And although I received the same number of Republican votes for PCO as two years ago, Ross Marzolf's candidate for PCO, Newell Smith, received more. Evidently my precinct being one of the few areas in Seattle which has had an influx of 'republicans' move into the neighborhood in the last couple of years.

It was Suellen Roche's grocer, friend and fellow fascist Steve Schulman who asked Seattle Police Department's East Precinct's Sonja Richter and Tim Greeley to provide him with a 'thick file' of complaints (when Sonja Richter was asked at the initial meeting of the neo-fascist Newport/Grand/Spring/38th Circle group 'what kind of complaints?', Sonja Richter told the group 'anything, call 911 and let the police (Seattle Police Department East Precinct's police) sort it out'. Which is why I had to put up with being harassed by the same police who were brought into Katy and Michael Corl's 37th District meetings by Ross Marzolf and, I believe, Suellen Roche, 'to maintain order' for such crimes as yelling at a dog, it was pissing on my building materials, and power washing my driveway(?). It was not the validity of the complaint, it was the number of complaints. (See above)

Again, can you substantiate your assertion that I have a 'police file'?

Because I have repeatedly asked the Seattle Police Department about Phil Bevis's and Mark Griswold's 'police file' and I have been repeatedly told by the Seattle Police Department there is no 'file'. If the Seattle Police has a 'file' on me I, and my attorney, certainly would like to know.

Or, in your eagerness to slander someone, anyone, who challenges the fascist leadership of the King County and Washington State Republican Party, you are simply confusing your 'police file' with the actual 'file' Michael Young and the fascist wing of the King County Republican Party maintains in the offices of the KCGOP on Republicans who oppose them. The actual 'file' on me that Doug Parris and his son were finally able to view after repeated and insistent requests, a 'file' that contained copies of my letters and e-mails to the leadership of the King County Republican Party complaining of a very ugly campaign of innuendo, slander, harassment and physical violence waged against me by members of the KCGOP leadership. A campaign started by the KCGOP leadership when I ran against Michael Young's appointment for 37th District Chair, San Francisco liberal Republican Katy Corl whose husband Michael works for the very liberal law firm Davis Wright Tremaine (known for 'hiring' then Governor Garry Locke and evidently selected by the money behind the Washington State Republican Party to represent the WSRP in the challenge to the 2004 Governors election), continued through my run against Terry Thomas, Michael Young's choice for 7th Congressional District Executive Board member and good friend of Phil Bevis (it is not a coincidence that Phil Bevis is now 7th Congressional District Executive Board member), through my nomination as the Republican Candidate for County Council District #2 to run against Michael Young's candidate of choice, un-repentant Communist, avowed Socialist and single issue racist Larry Gossett. A campaign that continues to today.

Is that the 'file' you are talking about?

Since you state that I have a 'police file' you evidently have seen the 'police file' and can provide me with proof of its existence. Otherwise you are making the assertion that I have a 'police file' based on what someone told you, 'hearsay', and unless you can produce your 'police file', without substantiation I consider your comments are simply intended to slander me.

I already said, I, and my attorney, would very much like to know about your 'police file' and, since I have been told by the Seattle Police Department it does not exist, how you would know about it.

Who told you that I had a 'police file'?

Are you hearing what I am saying 'AD'? Because my attorney would very much like to get a copy of your 'police file' and if you can not provide it, learn who told you I had a 'police file'.

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 4, 2008 08:51 AM

58. Brian, kindly leave me out of your remarks. I haven't mentioned your name in years and, unless you can prove I mentioned anything to do with a police file and me trying to slander you, your comments about me are equally as slanderous. Can't you just live and let live? No one's out to get you.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 09:11 AM

59. Brian Thomas have your lawyer look at this web page because I believe you have just been libeled in the legal sense of the term.

But I am no lawyer so you need to check it out with someone who actually is.

Posted by: J.B. on December 4, 2008 09:19 AM

60. #58. Posted by Mark Griswold at December 4, 2008

" Brian, kindly leave me out of your remarks. I haven't mentioned your name in years and, unless you can prove I mentioned anything to do with a police file and me trying to slander you, your comments about me are equally as slanderous. Can't you just live and let live? No one's out to get you."

Mark:

Actually, I can.

Mark Griswold on SoundPolitics.com (post is dated 3/22/06):

As for Brian Thomas and the 2nd District caucus, well, technically he was nominated (through some confusion and only by one vote even though he was the only "candidate" in the race) and because he was we allowed him to put an R next to his name. There's nothing says we had to endorse him though and we would have been crazy to do so. What am I talking about? You're welcome to go read the inches thick file with his hate filled, racist and anti-semetic letters at the KCGOP office or his police file down at SPD (which includes some restraining orders by some very prominent Republican elected officials). But then I'm sure you'll just say all of that was forged by the vast RINO-wing conspiracy that you're so convinced exists. Just answer me this: how are the aliens involved and what part does the Project for the New American Century play in it all?

Link to the thread: http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005874.html

P.S. Mark, whatever happened to those copies of the " restraining orders by some very prominent Republican elected officials " you promised me when I challenged you to substantiate your comment? Did you find it hard to copy something that does not exist?

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 4, 2008 09:42 AM

61. # 60 Excerpt from a post by Brian Thomas on December 4, 2008 in response to #58 Posted by Mark Griswold at December 4, 2008

Mark:

Actually, I can.

Mark Griswold on SoundPolitics.com (post is dated 3/22/06):

Link to the thread: http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005874.html

" Just answer me this: how are the aliens involved and what part does the Project for the New American Century play in it all? "

Mark:

I don't know.

As Phil Bevis. He was the one walking around the King County Republican Party Picnic in a tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 4, 2008 10:01 AM

62. Okay Brian, I stand corrected on my statement about your police file. I'm sure I was only operating on best available information at the time. If there is indeed no police file then anyone claiming such should not be doing so but I think many might be excused as much based on your repeated threatening behavior and the fact that at least my knowledge of the claims of your police file originated from people with a much stronger reputation than your own. Regardless though, your needing to bringing up statements made on this blog nearly three years ago show just how unfortunate your situation in life may be so for that I am sorry and I sincerely hope you find the comfort you need in life. I pray this Christmas season that you may realize the love of Christ and come to know His grace. And I do mean that sincerely.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 10:03 AM

63. As for Phil and the tinfoil hats, I'm sure even you realize good satire when you see it. If it offended you I am sorry for any part I played in that and I'm sure Phil is too.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 10:06 AM

64. Let's all STOP picking on Brian.

Brian's neighbors, the Seattle Police, some grocery guy, some Republicans, Larry Gossett, and people who post on Sound Politics (all fascists), are all forming some sort of fugue state in his mind.

Can we all just let him be, ignore his posts, and hope and pray he gets better?

Golly Gee

Posted by: Golly Gee on December 4, 2008 10:54 AM

65. Golly Gee - I had no idea that Brian was so fragile. I do hope that everyone recognizes this and gives him some room to heal - and says a few prayers for him too.

This is International Hug Day and I think Brian needs a few. Let's all give him some cyber hugs (at least).

Brian, I'm sending you some hugs and I hope you have a complete recovery.

Life is too short...

Posted by: Jim Johnson on December 4, 2008 11:34 AM

66. International Hug Day link:

http://www.123greetings.com/events/international_hug_day/

Posted by: Jim Johnson on December 4, 2008 01:00 PM

67. I am a lowly PCO in the 43rd Legislative District. Ever since I moved to Seattle 10 years ago and became a PCO, if there was a booth at some fair or other to be manned, a parade to be marched in, a polling place to be watched on Election Day, signs to be put up in the neighborhood, doorbells to be rung, food to be brought to meetings, it was Steve London, our 43rd LD Chair who called to ask for help. I never saw Phil Bevis at any of these things.
I notice Mr. Bevis brags about how hard he has worked and how much money he has donated/raised. Pardon me, but isn't that the job? He only wants to work as long as he is in charge. Starting in 2007, I was getting e-mails demanding that PCOs in the 43rd stop sending requests for volunteers which he had not authorized. I had to ask him to stop copying me on messages maligning my friends, to which he replied that he always talked that way to make himself understood.
I also see that the people endorsing Phil on this website are one-time candidates. Did he contribute to their campaigns? Is it payback time?
I can hardly wait to get to Saturday's Organization Meeting to vote for Steve London because of his Common Sense approach and because I know that all Republicans in King County will be included and valued for their input. Guess what! Lowly PCOs are the ones who get to decide.
Grass Roots Granny

Posted by: Joan Wilson on December 4, 2008 01:20 PM

68. I am a lowly PCO in the 43rd Legislative District. Ever since I moved to Seattle 10 years ago and became a PCO, if there was a booth at some fair or other to be manned, a parade to be marched in, a polling place to be watched on Election Day, signs to be put up in the neighborhood, doorbells to be rung, food to be brought to meetings, it was Steve London, our 43rd LD Chair who called to ask for help. I never saw Phil Bevis at any of these things.
I notice Mr. Bevis brags about how hard he has worked and how much money he has donated/raised. Pardon me, but isn't that the job? He only wants to work as long as he is in charge. Starting in 2007, I was getting e-mails demanding that PCOs in the 43rd stop sending requests for volunteers which he had not authorized. I had to ask him to stop copying me on messages maligning my friends, to which he replied that he always talked that way to make himself understood.
I also see that the people endorsing Phil on this website are one-time candidates. Did he contribute to their campaigns? Is it payback time?
I can hardly wait to get to Saturday's Organization Meeting to vote for Steve London because of his Common Sense approach and because I know that all Republicans in King County will be included and valued for their input. Guess what! Lowly PCOs are the ones who get to decide.
Grass Roots Granny

Posted by: Joan Wilson on December 4, 2008 01:21 PM

69. Joan, while Steve has worked very hard for the party and certainly deserves our respect, the fact is that for the past year or two Phil has been more active. I don't say this to malign my good friend Steve. He had very good reasons for not being as active as he once was and I appreciate whatever service he could provide during the past two years. As I've said before, if he were running against just about anyone else I'd happily endorse him. Regardless though, I don't think you appropriately characterized Phil and as one of the past candidates to which you may be referring, I'm actually a bit offended. Those of us endorsing Phil are doing so because we feel he has the most experience and the best track record during the past year, not because he contributed to any of our campaigns (I, myself, didn't even know Phil in 2004 when I ran.)
Furthermore, you state that you haven't seen Phil at any events. Well, I've been at most of the events that have taken place over the past two years even running some of them (this year's Fremont Fair-KCGOP booth) and I didn't see you. So before you go throwing around accusations about people's level of commitment you may want to first look at your own level. I don't say this to chastise you. I'm sure you have a very good reason, as does Steve, for not being as involved as Phil, and I do thank you for all the service you do provide, including serving as a PCO. You're certainly welcome to vote for Steve and I don't think it's bad choice. Steve's done a lot for the party and I believe he will continue to do so, whether he is elected on Saturday or not. I just wonder why you feel it necessary to use your comments to tear Phil down.
Lastly, as for Phil bragging about the work he's done. Well, you call it bragging, most of us would call it listing his resume as one means of persuading us to vote for him. And yes, it is part of the job but as we all know, not everyone who's elected to a position (especially one that is a volunteer position) does as much as others could. So by Phil giving us his resume he's showing us he's done a lot with the position and will likely, if re-elected, continue to do more. After all, the last time you applied for a job I bet you gave the person doing the hiring a resume and I bet you didn't feel that was bragging.
Again, I don't say any of this in ill-will and thank you for all you've done for the party, including your support for my campaign in 2004, and all you'll continue to do.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 01:59 PM

70. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

Phil Bevis had his chance and look at where the GOP stands. Now I guess if you like seeing the GOP always lose then he is your man.

But if you believe that only substantial changes within the Republican party, changes that will return the Republican Party back to the days we actually won by supporting conservatives (Reagan 1980, Contract with America 1994) then we need to move out the old and revitalize the party with new blood.

Out with the old and in with the new. If we keep on re-electing those who have "masterminded" the loses of our past, well guest what we probably will keep on losing.

Posted by: Kim on December 4, 2008 04:11 PM

71. You had a KCGOP booth at the Fremont Fair?

Whose bright idea was that?

Talk about a waste of time, resources, and energy.

Did you also have a KCGOP booth at Hempfest?

Posted by: Jake on December 4, 2008 04:15 PM

72. Why re-elect someone with the baggage of the 2008 disaster?

In India politician after politician has been resigning because of the security failures that resulted in the Mumbai attacks.

One could say that well the intelligence and security problems really weren't directly their fault and you are most likely right, but still it happened on their watch and they had the decency to resign.

The fact that Phil Bevis is running again shows me that indeed he must lack the decency that these Indian officials had. And do we want someone without this decency re-elected?

Posted by: Kim on December 4, 2008 04:21 PM

73. Why re-elect someone with the baggage of the 2008 disaster?

In India politician after politician has been resigning because of the security failures that resulted in the Mumbai attacks.

The fact that Phil Bevis is running again shows me that indeed he must lack the decency that these Indian officials had. And do we want someone without this decency re-elected?

Posted by: Kim on December 4, 2008 04:22 PM

74. Having a booth at the Fremont Fair was actually a good idea and generates a lot of positive buzz, voter registrations and volunteer signups, plus many comments that people were glad to see us there as fellow Republicans.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 4, 2008 04:40 PM

75. Kim, by your logic we should have elected John Ladenberg for AG, Darcy Burner for 8th CD, whoever happened to be tiltling at windmills over in the 5th CD and, while we're at it, tell Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Eric Cantor to take a hike. What you fail to comprehend is that none of these folks have totalitarian power so despite their strongest efforts to fix problems often times they're just holding the line and preventing things from getting even worse.

And Jake, I guess Republicans should just all move to Utah and talk only to ourselves? The way to increase numbers within the party is talk to folks who aren't already in the party. And to echo Ross, the KCGOP booth at Fremont was wildly successful. In fact, it was the most successful it's been in years. Despite election results to the contrary, I got waaay more thumbs up, handed out waaay more signage and got waaay fewer negative comments tossed at me than in years past.
But what do I know? Why don't you enlighten us all, Jake, and tell us how we can really grow the party.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 4, 2008 06:10 PM

76. jake@jake.com and kim@kim.com...hmmmm...
maybe one and the same?

related to J.B.?

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 4, 2008 07:12 PM

77. Jake:
I think a booth at the Fremont Fair is a great idea. Hempfest is even better. Deciding that a huge subset of the population is not interested in limited government for them and denying them the opportunity to decide for themselves is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: Lysander on December 4, 2008 10:41 PM

78. 64. Posted by Golly Gee at December 4, 2008

" Let's all STOP picking on Brian.

Brian's neighbors, the Seattle Police, some grocery guy, some Republicans, Larry Gossett, and people who post on Sound Politics (all fascists), are all forming some sort of fugue state in his mind.

Can we all just let him be, ignore his posts, and hope and pray he gets better?

Golly Gee "

Golly, Golly Gee:

It is obvious that you simply do not understand my post. I would like to explain it to you but before I do, could you answer a question for me?

Are you as dumb as you sound?

I don't intend to insult you, it is just that I have limited time and before I put any of it into writing an explanation for you I would like to know that you are not a moron.

Could you write something that doesn't make me think of a box of rocks?

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 5, 2008 07:27 AM

79. 65. Posted by Jim Johnson at December 4, 2008

Golly Gee - I had no idea that Brian was so fragile. I do hope that everyone recognizes this and gives him some room to heal - and says a few prayers for him too.

This is International Hug Day and I think Brian needs a few. Let's all give him some cyber hugs (at least).

Brian, I'm sending you some hugs and I hope you have a complete recovery.

Life is too short...

66. International Hug Day link:

http://www.123greetings.com/events/international_hug_day/

Jim:

Although I usually appreciate it when someone prays for me that is because I am making the assumption that the prayers are to God.

With you and your ilk, Kristi Brown, Mark Griswold, Ross Marzolf, etc., I am not sure.

If your 'prayers' involve bits of bone, feathers and herbs, I would appreciate it if you didn't pray for me. And if you do, don't tell me.

You are creepy enough as is.

P.S. As for hugs, save them for Ross Marzolf. He is your type.

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 5, 2008 07:43 AM

80. The Republican Party will keep on losing as long as we keep turning to the same "leaders" (and I use that term very loosely). Phil Bevis is part of the old guard and therefore he will have no new ideas to move the GOP forward.

And it really bothers me that he himself couldn't just have the decency to say "I tried, I failed, it is time for someone else to have an opportunity". It proves that he really is in it for himself, for his own power, for his own aggrandizement and not for the good of our state or our country.

I have had enough of selfish politicians who have more concern over their own career than the larger effects of their actions. Voting for Phil Bevis maintains the status-quo and the status-quo isn't good.

DON'T "Re-Elect" anyone. It is time for new blood to get in and see what they can do. Electing the same people over and over again is a sure sign of insanity if you expect any change coming from that.

Posted by: Kim on December 5, 2008 08:37 AM

81. Nude Bicyclists for Rossi.

You would have thought that would have pulled him over the top.

In all seriousness I agree with Jake. Fremont is the last place you would want to go around promoting the GOP. You may think it's courageous to go to enemy territory showing the flag but what it does is burn out good Republicans who will in the future not help because of the abuse they took, it wastes resources and money that could be better used in more marginal areas where such an effort could make a difference, and it shows a lack of strategic planning.

It is kind of an economic question that has to do with the use of limited resources. You have a limited amount of time, volunteers, resources, and you want to put all that to effect use.

So, wouldn't it have been far better to put the resources at hand to say for example a doorbelling campaign for a candidate in a hotly contested district. Whereas you may get one vote in say an hour at Fremont (I doubt even that) you could get perhaps 25 votes doorbelling in this district where the race is close. Even if say just for the sake of this argument as it no way relates to reality you could get the same number of votes at Fremont as in this close district. The value of the Fremont voters would be less because in the close district such votes might actually enable the candidate to win.

So, what going to Fremont shows is bad planning, bad use of resources, bad thinking. Is there any doubt the "old guard" needs to be removed.

Posted by: Kim on December 5, 2008 08:50 AM

82. I guess more than anything it is a question of opportunity cost.

You want to put your limited resources to the most effective use to effect the best outcome.

So, you go to where getting the votes have the most effect. So first you need to analyze how successful will your effort be to even get the votes compared to other efforts. In the case of Fremont, not very effective.

Then you need to analyze the effect of the votes you do get. Votes in close districts are more valuable than votes in districts where the outcome will be still overwhelmingly Democrat.

And there's a third issue, not directly related to economics of course but just as important. Do you want the GOP label to be associated with the Pagan Fremont Solstice Parade. Even if you look at such a question in purely practical terms you must weigh the value of the votes you get by being there by the votes you lose by watering down the GOP message because of this. And even if you do get votes at Fremont (which I bet you didn't) the value of the hard working committed people who you lost would be more than the few tepid voters you may have gained.

And also, by having voter registration forms out there you just helped a whole bunch of Obama supporters register to vote.

All and all it seems like it's "Seattle Thinking" and does not show effective resource management.

Posted by: Kim on December 5, 2008 09:02 AM

83. Kim,

Tell us who you are and your arguments will have more validity.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on December 5, 2008 10:07 AM

84. Kim, your point about opportunity costs and the economics of expending resources is a logical one although I disagree and think you may see my point if you ever decided to come to our booth at the Fremont Fair.
As far as your last point about turning off other GOP voters by going to the Fremont Fair, this is the same exact thing as the Pharisees chastizing Jesus for hanging out with the lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors. I don't know if you're a Christian but I am and if my Lord and Savior is willing to have dinner with tax collectors and prostitutes I'm thinking it's okay to encourage those kinds of people to vote for sound economic principles. I mean really, do you think all the churches that have booths at the Fremont Fair should pack up to? You're not going to get any votes by talking to people who already agree with you.
As for your comments about Phil Bevis, how do you know he failed? Did Dave Reichert fail because the bail-out bill passed? Did Sarah Palin fail because John McCain wasn't elected? Did MacArthur fail because he didn't succeed in holding the Phillipines but instead had to return years later to liberate them? Can you tell me that every organization you've ever been apart of has made decisions in accordance with your views or is it more likely that, despite your best efforts there were more people that disagreed with you in that organization and you were outvoted. Instead of just making blanket statements against incumbancy why not tell me what, specifically, about Phil's political strategy or philosophy you disagree with. What ideas does he profess that you believe are bad ideas. You can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. If this were really the case then, since I assume you are a Republican, I'd say you've failed and should leave the party. But that would be pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it since you are not all powerful within the party and therefore can't control it's direction. And neither is Phil. The question is, during the past two years has Phil influenced the WSRP Exec board in a way that has increased Republican presence and stature in Washington State more so than would have his opponents or was he part of the problem? Did he drag the Republican Party down with his viewpoints and strategies? That's the question.

And Brian, as I stated over on Doug's post on the Public Blog, I've tried very hard not to insult you or anyone else during the past two years. Do you think you could find it in your heart to forgive any statements I made over two years ago and perhaps move forward in alliance? I can't speak for Jim but would take him at his word and as for me, I am a Christian and when I pray I pray to the same God as I assume you do and have never used any herbs, bones or feathers. I might light a candle from time to time but that's about as far as it goes.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 5, 2008 10:29 AM

85. Ross:

Kims comments either have merit or they do not. Her last name has no affect on the merit of her comments.

Posted by: Lysander on December 5, 2008 10:42 AM

86. 85. Posted by Lysander at December 5, 2008

"Ross:

Kims comments either have merit or they do not. Her last name has no affect on the merit of her comments."

Lysander:

If anyone is not in a position to demand someone's name, it is Ross Marzolf.

At a January 30, 2006, 37th District Republican Caucus, King County Republican Party Executive Director Ross Marzolf was accompanied by a 'skinhead' (read fascist thug) who followed me into the Caucus, stood on the other side of the room intently 'observing' me during the caucus, followed me anytime I moved about during the caucus (standing so close to me he had to step back when I turned around) and followed me out of the building. When I asked Marzolf the name of his 'skinhead', his only response was 'Brian'.

At the April 20th, 2006 37th District Republican Caucus, I again asked Marzolf the name of the 'skinhead' (read fascist thug) who Marzolf had follow and observe me at the Caucus. Marzolf did not answer the question and I again asked " What is your friend 'Brian's last name? ". In response, Marzolf said " He's also a friend of Katy and Michael " (Katy Corl, 37th District Chair) then turned and walked away, ignoring further request that he identify his fascist thug.

In a April 21, 2006 e-mail to Marzolf I asked him, " for the third time, what is the full name of the guy with the shaved head, who evidently is a friend of Katy and Michael Corl who you and/or the Corls brought in to the 37th District Caucus to follow me in, 'watch' me while I was at the caucus and to follow me out of the building. "

Marzolf, in his position as KCGOP Executive Director, refused to respond.

In an April 25, 2006 e-mail to Diane Tebelius, then Chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, I asked her to intercede on my behalf in my request to Ross Marzolf to provide me with the full name of the individual who followed me at the January 30, 2006, 37th District Republican Caucus.

Ms. Tebelius failed to respond.

On May 03, 2006, I e-mailed Dave Reichert, 8th Congressional District Representative, about his lack of response to my e-mail to Diane Tebelius, pointing out that one of his constituents has chastised him for his apparent lack of concern, particularly since having been the King County Sheriff and running for office on that experience he should have had concern for the apparent " stalking " of a Republican PCO by someone retained by the Michael Young administration for that purpose.

Mr. Reichert failed to respond to me and to his constituent.

On May 08, 2006, I e-mailed Rob McKenna, Washing State Attorney General, having copied Mr. McKenna both my e-mails to Ms. Tebelius and Mr. Reichert, and pointed out " ....you have not expressed apparent concern or even interest though this represents an ongoing pattern of intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence by the Michael Young administration of the King County Republican Party. " and " I do not think that simply ignoring these allegations is an appropriate response. ".

Mr. McKenna failed to respond.

On May 11, 2007, I e-mailed Sam Reed, Washington State Secretary of State, pointing out I had copied him my 04/25/06 e-mail to Ms. Tebelius, my 05/03/06 e-mail to Mr. Reichert and my 05/08/06 e-mail to Mr. McKenna and reiterated " ....you have not expressed apparent concern or even interest though this represents an ongoing pattern of intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence by the Michael Young administration of the King County Republican Party. " and " I do not think that simply ignoring these allegations is an appropriate response. "

Mr. Reed failed to respond.

On May 12, 2006 I e-mailed Norm Maleng, both as a Republican and in his position of King County Prosecutor, pointing out that I had copied him on my e-mails to Ms. Tebelius, Mr. Reichert and Mr. McKenna.

Mr. Maleng failed to respond.

October 25, 2007 I sent an open letter to Dan Satterberg, King County Prosecutor asking him, in his position as a member of the King County Republican Party leadership in a 'non-partisan' office to " .... show your willingness to stand on your own, outside of Michael Young's control of the King County Republican Party, and request Mr. Young provide you with the identify of his 'skinhead' and in turn provide me with that identity so that I can make my own decision if I should continue to be concerned for my health and safety when attending King County Republican Party events."

Mr. Satterberg failed to respond.

Ross Marzolf, nor anyone in a position of 'leadership' in the King County and Washington State Republican Party, is in any position to demand someone identify themselves to the Party.

Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 7, 2008 08:47 AM

87. People generally do not respond to pests, who seek to waste everyones time. Get a grip, move on!

Posted by: Ronny P. on December 7, 2008 12:13 PM

88. Haha, I see the propaganda machine starting to roll! The repetitive insinuation that Ron Paul WASN'T a Republican candidate, but rather a Libertarian, is abhorrent. Either you people have never looked at the Libertarian platform and are simply parroting rhetoric(from the likes of Steve), or you really DO know that what you're saying is false in order to "persuade" the less-informed. Don't forget, it's OUR so-called "conservative" leaders of the last 15 years that have inflated the power of the federal government and have disregarded states' rights and individual liberties. The same Republicans that have spent MY retirement money and have laid at the feet of my future children a $30,000 debt upon entry to the world. The same Republicans who voted overwhelmingly to the bailout (our dear presidential candidate included, holding hands with Obama), soaking every living person in this country $3k-10k so that they could get MORE credit cards, and get in MORE debt. Debt is the equivalent of slavery in the bible by the way. The last 15 years of OUR Republican leadership have squandered trillions, EXPANDED the size and scope of government and it's heavy-handed control on the individual. Our Republican leaders, have been convicted of fraud, bribery, extortion, soliciting prostitution, and attempting to have gay sex in a bathroom stall. None of these attributes I would consider Christlike. Our Republican leaders for the past 15 years have stood idly by as our borders and national sovereignty are attacked, yet disregard the Posse Commitatus act by laying seige on America- policing New Orleans for example, with military troops and confiscating the guns of law abiding citizens trying to protect their property. Our Republican leaders have betrayed what conservatism and ethics are, and yet, we still vote the jackasses in, like something different is going to happen. And on the local front, our Republican leaders have brought nothing but quasi-conservatism, stubbornness, short-sightedness, failing ideas, and losing candidates. So to all of the Ross's, Ronny P.'s, Mark Grizwald's, and Camille's of the party, know this: This isn't a party takeover, it's a party reclamation. We're tired of seeing this party turned into a giant buffalo chip, get it? That's why, as Ronny P. stated, we're so damn "pesky." Say what you will, but let it be known, if KCGOP intends on continuing with it's tired neo-conservative message, and exclusionary tactics, Republicans in this county will be put on the endangered species list. If we RETURN to concepts like INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, SELF-SUFFICIENCY, and RULE OF LAW under the express direction of the CONSTITUTION, then we just may have a shot at winning an election. If I'm a "pest" for proclaiming this message of justice and freedom, then so shall I be known. But to roll over for the status quo is what I consider COWARDLY. You may think that by alienating Ron Paul Republicans you can break our spirit, but let it be known, alienate or marginalize us and you will end up like Ruth Gibbs- Retired. We're not going anywhere.

Posted by: Adam Peart on December 7, 2008 09:52 PM

89. Mdof1L rzybumbsgtex, [url=http://zwrkczjmzufm.com/]zwrkczjmzufm[/url], [link=http://kqqwtbnwhejv.com/]kqqwtbnwhejv[/link], http://wwxvxvuidync.com/

Posted by: dtrhngvg on December 8, 2008 12:03 AM

90. Mdof1L rzybumbsgtex, [url=http://zwrkczjmzufm.com/]zwrkczjmzufm[/url], [link=http://kqqwtbnwhejv.com/]kqqwtbnwhejv[/link], http://wwxvxvuidync.com/

Posted by: dtrhngvg on December 8, 2008 12:03 AM

91. You miss the point, the pest reference has to do with the contined harping on imagined crimes that Brian constatly harps on, events from years ago.

Posted by: Ronny P. on December 8, 2008 07:07 AM

92. Adam, don't link me in with the likes of Mark Foley, Ted Stevens and Larry Craig and don't assume, just because I don't agree with you and other Ron Paul supporters methods, that I don't agree with the majority of your message (read some of my above comments again). It comes down to this: all the best ideas and intentions are lost if you can't get those ideas and intentions across (because some of you are too busy clouding the argument by carrying around "McCain is a Communist" signs and idolizing Cindy Sheehan). Furthermore, since, for all intents and purposes there are only two parties in the country and therefore only two candidates for president, governor or pretty much any other major position, my choices are between those two. So either I vote for McCain, overlooking some of his bad decisions and focusing on Reagan's "80%" or I vote for Obama.
You'll catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, Adam. Calling in to question my conservative credentials while knowing absolutely nothing about what they may or may not be does not endure you to me. Now, if you happen to know a position on which I stand that you don't agree with we can talk about that but since I like to think my views are in line with the likes of Washington, Jefferson and all those other "right-wing, Christian, gun toting nuts" who founded this country I seriously doubt you'll find anything on which we disagree. And if so maybe it's your conservative credentials that should be called in to question.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 8, 2008 11:03 AM

93. Ronny Pee, I apologize for misunderstanding your "pest" reference- I only had time to glean only a few of the comments posted here. I made the assumption based on all of the moans and groans that I've witnessed by a majority of the body in meetings and caucuses anytime someone has an opinion other than "toe the line" neo-conservative theme. Mark, I wasn't lumping you in with anyone by the way, I was simply making the point that we have allowed our conservative message to be mired by the officials we have elected, yet we have voted for them nonetheless. When I vote I am an American first, conservative second, and Republican third. So if I find a Republican candidate that isn't conservative (like McCain), I won't vote for him just because he's a Republican. In this way I stay true in voting my conscience. I've never seen a "McCain is Commie" sign, AND though Sheehan and I think the war should end, her motives and reasons for this position is nowhere near my reasoning. This is false assumption on your part. I don't idolize anyone, ESPECIALLY Cindy Sheehan. Actually, Jefferson could be considered an idol. I haven't questioned YOUR conservative credentials, in fact, my only reference to you was regarding your evident willingness to go along with the status quo- despite the knowledge that doing so will not reform the party, or regain it's limited goverenment reputation. If you're a fan of the original revolutionaries, I would think that you'd applaud the efforts of Ron Paul Republicans. Alas, all of the tactics of exclusion that I have seen in the '08 season lead me to believe that we fell into "divide and conquer" strategy. It's time for us all to bury the hatchet and move forward together to rebuild the GOP, which all Paul supporters want. However, if attempts continue to silence us or exclude us as previously witnessed in '08 (like the tactic of walking out of state convention to avoid debate, as ONE example in many) then you can expect more division in the future- like Jefferson would have wanted! And let it be known, I'm right-wing, NOT a moderate, and of guns, I own several. Now let's figuratively shake hands, agree that our opinions both have merit, and let's work together to cleanse our party's stance, and purge the old hands that have got us into this mess. Electing Cheryl Haskins on Saturday was our first step. Let's continue to vote in reformers, not cronies.

Posted by: adampeart on December 8, 2008 12:49 PM

94. Adam, I didn't mean to insinuate that you ever carried a "McCain is a communist" sign around or that you idolized Cindy Sheehan. These were just two of a long list of examples of what I've seen what appears to be the majority of Ron Paul supporters do. It could be that there are quite a few that want to unify the party and move forward in a mature manner and if you are one of those I certainly welcome you. Furthermore, "both" of our opinions don't have merit because, as I stated earlier, it appears that "both" of our opinions are the same. I'm a small government conservative. Where we differ is in our approach. You state you are an American first, a conservative second and a Republican third. Well, I'd agree with that statement except I'd probably stick realist in that list. Although you may feel good about yourself for voting for Ron Paul for president the fact is he never had a chance and therefore, the realistic choice was between two people: Barack Obama and John McCain. All the Ron Paul folks are certainly willing to voice their opinions but when all the ballots are counted and our nominee is John McCain it is time to get behind our nominee instead of throwing stones from the sidelines. I accept your figurative handshake and hope that we can rebuild the party together. I'd encourage those in your group that insist on continuing to throw stones from the sidelines to join you.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 8, 2008 01:58 PM

95. Mark:

A few, not most Ron Paul supporters carried McCain is a communist signs. You would know this if you took the time to get to know us rather than push us away for not agreeing with everything party leadership pushes.

McCain while not a communist was not by any means a conservative nor good for america. Therefore he did not get Ron Paul supporters support. You saw a clear decision in 08. Paul supporters saw a clear path past 08. Showing our vote is not to be taken for granted means that next primary candidates will know they must move torwards conservative principles to get our votes.

In other words we are looking to the future rather than being stuck in the moment. So long as the party choses horrible choices like McCain we will sit on the sidelines throwing stones. If you do not like that, nominate a candidate that actually supports the GOP platform!

Posted by: Lysander on December 8, 2008 09:44 PM

96. I saw the kid outside the convention hall in Spokane that had that sign, it had the hammer & Sicle for the "C" in McCain. I asked him to put it away, he was only 16 years old. I told him this isn't the message we ought to be sending, he called me a "McCainiac" when I was clearly wearing my Ron Paul button. I did see some anti-Paul propaganda on my seat inside the convention, that was uncalled for as well. The point is, WE need to come together as conservatives, and some could use a shove in the "right" direction (pun intended).

Posted by: Scott Beutler on December 8, 2008 11:28 PM

97. Politics is heated at times, and as someone 'new' to the process in getting 'involved' beyond just marking a ballot, i have to say as a Delegate to the Convention in Spokane, it was rather dis-heartening to see how it all went down. Clearly, Ron Paul has a message, and it was to me a clarion call to come forward and help carry this message for my country, but the 'current' leadership of the WA state GOP could not see it in their hearts to allow this message out, and to 'let the chips fall where they may' in a gesture of fairness. It was a sad day for me, the State and our country, but we march on, and i'm not going anywhere. The message is far to important. Ron Paul is a Republican, so thats what i am. This truly is NOT about Ron Paul, and if he is electable or not. ITS the message. Please, let that sink in. Please, we must come together, and carry this vision, and wisdom, and message that Ron Paul has given us.

Thanks for 'listening'.

Jim Knudtson, PCO, Snohomish County

Posted by: Jim Knudtson on December 9, 2008 07:55 AM

98. Lysander, I never said everyone was carrying a McCain is a communist sign. That was simply an example of the majority of behavior I saw. That said, I have continually tried to point out that I agree with the majority of what Ron Paul stands for and I agree that our party does need a push in the "right" direction. What I continue to disagree with and what Ron Paul supporters need to understand, is your tactics. You, Lysdander, just stated that you'd continue to stand on the sidelines throwing stones. This is NOT mature behavior and will not get you anywhere with party leadership, which, whether you like them or not, are still party leadership and until you or anyone changes that by going through the appropriate process they will stand. If you guys want my respect you need to act respectful. I applaud you, Scott Beutler, for telling those kids at the WSRP convention to take their sign outside. If there were more Ron Paul supporters like you then we probably wouldn't be where we are. So I agree, let's try to come together. And part of that means, once the chips have fallen where they may and a nominee is chosen, it is time to get behind that nominee or, if he's really that horrible, leave the party. If, after that that particular election cycle is over you want to return that's fine, but you'll have to earn the respect of those who stuck it out by not throwing stones. If you want to come back put the past in the past and focus on the future. I'd be completely okay and would welcome constructive criticism, i.e., "I think part of the reason McCain lost the election is because he voted for the bailout. That was bad. We should not support that sort of stance." Cursing the current party leadership when you clearly know little of how hard they worked or what they may believe, is not the way to win friends and influence people. If you do have a legitimate gripe about the current party leadership that's fine too. Just don't veil it in inflammatory statements or childish behavior. Be the better person, if you will, and rise above the behavior which you detest.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on December 9, 2008 09:21 AM

99. Mark, childish behavior? Like walking off the state convention floor to avoid debate? That kind of immature tact? As an alternate delagate, I sat there and watched as my LD chair (Ruth Gibbs) refused to seat any Ron Paul alternates (there weren't any unseated LD 11 McCain alternates) despite the fact there were multiple empty delegate seats that could have been filled. I spent hundred's of dollars and took time off work for the express purpose of filling those vacancies, and Ruth just gleefully peered back at us with her beady eyes, quite proud of herself for wasting my time and money. That's not a very inclusive, fair, or mature tactic in my view.(This is a legitimate gripe with party leadership) We tried many times to change party leadership- through proper channels mind you- only to be quashed and insulted. It's the mounting frustration of being unfairly stifled over and over again that has lead some to behave poorly. All we have wanted since the beginning is to be included, but we're not willing to abandon our conservative principles and roll over for the neo-moderate leadership in order to be heard. That's what debate is for. I'm a pragmatist, that's why I'm not Christian! However, I'm not dropping my optimistic idealism either. Just imagine if the colonists were all "realists"? And were unwilling to throw a stone or two from the sidelines at ol' King George, let alone take on the largest world empire against all odds... As a "realist" I would think that you would recognize that the current Republican leadership and platform ISN'T working, and falling on deaf ears of the younger generation. Go to this page to see what the Republican Party's (Lincoln's party) platform was in 1860 and hold it up against our current platform. http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html Let me know what similarities and differences you find. Whether by persuasion or the grim reaper, our message will prevail, and the neo-con Rove-esque stain will be removed. And all I keep hearing is how hard people (GOP leaders) worked. Well, that's nice, but when the message is all screwed up and the strategies of leadership are failures, what difference does it make? I mean, Obama's folks worked hard too. And so did Hitler for that matter! Anyway. 'Tis been fun!

Posted by: adampeart on December 9, 2008 02:26 PM

100. Mark:
I did not claim that you said all Ron Paul supporters are carrying such signs. You said most and reiterated that you think the majority are. They are not.

And to say I am acting childish or immature because I said I would 'throw stones from the sidelines' is a bit of a stretch. I am not literally throwing stones, I was just using your metaphor. What I mean by throwing stones is I am going to be critical of any candidate that deserves to be critiqued. McCain most definitely fit that bill when judged by the parties own platform. We can use the analogy wording and call it throwing stones, or we can be more descriptive and direct and call it 'pushing the party in the "right" direction (also your own words).

I will admit that I might be lumping all party leaders together which is unfair but the party leaders I have had contact with have not earned the respect they demand. They have made painfully clear that unless I serve them and their interests without question then in their minds I have no place in the party. They also have made it clear to me that we do not share the same ideals. So I see no point in working with people that do not want anything but blind obedience to them to serve goals antithetical to my agenda of limited government.

One exception I should point out to the leadership is a guy under Ross Marzolf. He has been very friendly and welcoming to me every time we have spoke. I unfortunately have forgot his name but would recognize it in an instant and will be sure to pass it on when I remember.

Posted by: Lysander on December 9, 2008 08:27 PM

101. Adam @99:

I agree with most of what you say however have issue with you saying the current platform is not working. I most definitly have some disagreements with the platform but find far more in common with it and therefor consider myself republican.

My issue is not to debate the platform but rather the effectiveness of the platform. I do not know that we really know whether it is effective since our party leadership is insistant on cramming candidates that do not share our platform with us. I say lets try the platform and see how it works. After we start getting candidates that agree with the platform and then we still fail then we can start deciding if the platform truly needs an overhaul.

Posted by: Lysander on December 9, 2008 08:32 PM