Sound Politics Public Blog: It begins with PCO's

November 10, 2006

It begins with PCO's - where's the nominations?

As an elected GOP PCO I've been reading the various rants across select blogs about the abject condition of the Party, with various generic recommendations of the necessary changes.

Some of these can be found ...

Reagan Wing

Phil Spackman (now a PCO?)

... and of course at Sound Politics (main and public).

I've heard, unofficially, that the KC GOP org meeting, where PCO's vote for Officers and Reps to the State, will occur Sat, Dec 2.

As a PCO I will be asked to vote for Officers and Reps at this meeting, yet none of the ranters make suggestions about who to elect, to begin the changes. A common theme among the rants is the incumbents aren't the proper leadership for the Party. So who are the alternates I should consider?

I do know this, if no alternates appear, we get the same old leadership.

I find it distressing that the ancient tradition of lobbying specific alternatives is missing from these rants. I look forward to specific recommendations to consider.

Let the lobbying begin !!! I'm listening ...

(let's keep it relevant to the scope of my vote, meaning KC GOP Officers and Reps - PCO's don't get any vote for National Chair)

West Seattle PCO

Posted by ccwt at November 10, 2006 01:25 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Specific alternatives? For Pete's sake! Where have you been for the last two years?

Back a Republican who is not a political coward. Back a Republican who is not afraid to hold up the values upon which the Party was founded. Stop stiff-arming conservatives. Pull your head out, man. Your "electable" people cost us the majority. Here's a nickel, pal. Go buy a clue.

Posted by: ERNurse on November 10, 2006 02:05 AM

2. ERNurse is right about the specific qualifications. If you want names, start with the truly conservative candidates who just lost on Tuesday. I have no doubt they are deeply interested in regenerating the party into one that knows the difference between constructive compromise and compromising your principles. Losing sight of that difference in search of "electability" played a large part in losing Congress.

Posted by: sro on November 10, 2006 08:24 AM

3. Look after working on the Messmore campaign this year and seeing the utter lack of help from the party and their general lip service I can truly say that nothing will change for the party on the local, state or national level until the party can gain some unity. Do we need changes in leadership? Of course we do, but we also need to look at where has our message gone. In 1994 we were successful, because of a well thought out plan and also by the disgust of the voter over what had happened in our country during the Carter years. We lost, because of corruption and in a bigger way because the elected officials went away from their core policies. The party needs to reorganize and actually start working as a team.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on November 11, 2006 09:09 AM

4. I find it amazing that ERNurse and sro assume we can detect the "conservative candidates" by osmosis or other psychic means.

And why does ERNurse blast a voting PCO with the ad hominem attack, "Pull your head out, man. Your "electable" people cost us the majority. Here's a nickel, pal. Go buy a clue."

I've made a neutral request for alternates for Party leadership, yet no one can provide names.

I want to know YOUR recommendations, since you are defining the criteria. Complete the process by naming names.

That used to be called LOBBYING. Create a persuasive argument for your nominee (by name) who meets your criteria of "conservative candidates". Has your nominee agreed to serve?

If no one who meets your criteria for success will serve then the incumbents win by default.

Posted by: PsychicPCO on November 11, 2006 12:56 PM

5. Psychic? What's psychic about looking over the losing GOP candidates' campaign literature, past votes if they've served, campaign endorsements, etc.? Or is this whole question so unimportant that it doesn't justify that kind of work?

I'm new to King County, I don't know what candidates live in what precincts, what precincts are poorly represented by PCOs (or not at all). As PCOs, with access to party information, you can presumably find that out.

If you hear from people who can do some of your homework for you by providing names for their precincts, well and good. If you don't, well, everybody has to eat their vegetables eventually. Either you give up and push the plate away and give up, or eat your vegetables and do the research.

Posted by: sro on November 11, 2006 05:32 PM