The two Sound Politics editors / authors who appear to be voting PCO's in King County are ...
SEA 34-1504 Matt Rosenberg
SEA 36-2164 Andrew MacDonald
(please correct me, if I'm wrong)
As a fellow KC GOP PCO I would welcome some commentary from these authors about who they will vote or lobby for KC Officers and Reps to the State Committee, at the coming PCO Central Committee meeting (Dec 2?).
Are the incumbents, in these positions, worthy of another term? If not, who are the alternate candidates you will support?
Your fellow PCO,
Cary Thomas
SEA 34-1247
Has your district had a meeting yet this month? I hear that campaigning has already begun for county chairman. So far, it's Michael Young vs. Ruth Gibbs.
Posted by: Michelle on November 12, 2006 05:59 PMI am not a PCO but unlike MicheLLe I live in King County. The entire Republican Party, from sea to shining sea, (deservedly) got their come uppins - open your eyes! The Congress is to blame for sitting on their capital. They lost the confidence of the public and now the libs are in charge. Blaming the election on the local Republican party is shortsighted.
I will be going to my district meeting so that I can decide for myself.
Posted by: AliciaCR on November 13, 2006 07:16 PMIf Ruth Gibbs wins, the party will implode.
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on November 13, 2006 07:25 PM You can't be serious?Exactly what is it that
you believe Michael Young has done to deserve
a second term? They had huge losses here in
king county.He has systematicaly pushed away
the base. All for the sake of trying to get democrats
to switch over. Which almost never works.
Michael Young had nothing to do with Dave
Reichert winning.He and his crowd pick and
choose who they support. Some of those they
supported like Mike Riley, they waited to long
to be of any help in his race.They try and
silence people that don't agree with them all
the time. Obiviously you have bought into
whatever they told you about brian thomas.
As far as I'm concerned they have already
imploded.If there not worried about anything
why hurry to have this reorganization meeting.
As I recall the last time around it was in
January. now its on I guess Dec 2nd.Since
they haven't formally announced the meeting
yet we really don't know.
Further, blaming the recent losses of our legislative candidates on the Party is absurd. Many of our great candidates received an incredible amount of support- financially and otherwise- from the Party. The national trend of unseating Republicans happened to extend to local races this year. Could any of you have predicted the outcomes for Esser, Nixon, & Possinger???
Contrary to the posts above, the retention of Reichert's seat is a testament to the Party GOTV and fundraising efforts in a year when even entrenched incumbents went down. If a few of the Reagan Wingers (or whoever they are) want to raise a stink about the current leadership, then let them. We all know how they perform with their agenda during the conventions...
Oh, and take a peek at the websites of Spackman and Parris to get a taste of the Party they would like to have- any sane reader would treat them for what they appear to be: people who need a bit more tin-foil for their hats.
Posted by: Proud GOP PCO on November 14, 2006 04:10 PMThe fact that you know so much about me and have taken the time to look up the information you did, shows you are concerned with politics outside your county too. That's good. Because what happens in each of our county's politics has impact on the whole state, especially what happens in King County.
Sport,
Doug's right. You have no idea what The Reagan Wing believes. Have you heard any of those nominations for party offices made from us? Patrick at #3 asked if there was anyone running against the incumbents. I gave him an answer as far as I knew, which was more than anyone from King County was saying.
Oh and who's your source on these "several letters" telling The Reagan Wing to "stop using that name"? Would that be Ronald Reagan's liberal son and DNC star, Ron Reagan?
Posted by: Michelle on November 14, 2006 04:17 PM There doing such a great job at fundraising
that they are in debt over 24,000 dollars.
Apparently you have never really looked at
my website. Because if you did your the one
that should be wearing tinfoil not I.I have
done nothing more that point out what I think
is wrong with the State and King parties.
I knew you guys would never admit any
responsibilty for these losses in King
County.In your warped way of thinking
its always someone else's fault and
never yours.
The incumbents' stated reason for the party's existence is "to get Reupublicans elected." I happen to think that is short sided. It is supposed to be to effect public policy, which is the reason most people come to the party, to agree on a set of principles, as stated in the platform, and then to elect candidates who will enact those principles as public policy. But just so I understand you, you don't want us to hold them to their stated goals?
And the national trend of unseating Republicans came right out of the conservative movement itself. You should read some of the national conservative blogs and listen to talk radio sometimes. Some of us conservatives rejected "me too" liberalism from Republicans and that would include Nixon, Shabro, etc. and I'm sorry to say, even Esser and Possinger. Much of the local party rhetoric was identical to the national party rhetoric we were rejecting. You can't blame the customers for not buying their product.
You can put all kinds of money and effort into advertising the product via GOTV efforts, but if the customer doesn't like your product or your competitors either, they'll either wait for a better product to be introduced or come up with their own. That's the free market of ideas at work.
We all know how they perform with their agenda during the conventions... Oh really?
Everything that we proposed at the 2006 convention got passed. And many of the Republican losses were those of candidates who came out and "distanced themselves" from our platform. I'm glad you brought that up.
Posted by: Michelle on November 14, 2006 07:42 PMMicheLLe - you make soooo much noise where ever you go, everyone knows your story. Maybe you should focus your energy where you reside, Snohomish County. (mind your own business)
Doug - What a bunch of "blah"ther you spew! Blah, blah, blah" conspiracy, democrats, liberals" blah, blah, blah "I'm smart, you're not" blah, blah, blah. Do you read your posts before you hit the "go" button? Ronald Reagan condemned castigation of fellow Republicans. He certainly deserves better than your boorish rants.
Phil and Doug - When you guys stop playing GOP circus clown for Democrats on their blogs and radio shows - clobbering GOP candidates who are not "Republican enough" for your little klatch - your posts on Republican websites/blogs might have a modicum of gravity.
Phil - Does your computer software have spell/grammar check? Hint, hint.
Ronald Reagan condemned making false accusations of Republicans, but he himself made severe political criticisms of Republicans when the truth needed pointing out. Have you ever read his speech he gave when running against Gerald Ford? That is what The Reagan Wing does, point out the truth and carry out his legacy of conservative principles. You, on the other hand are a predictable mouth piece for the talking points of the Michael Young KCGOP administration. I'd recognize that visciousness behind any disquise.
Posted by: Michelle on November 15, 2006 01:03 PM For the record I went on Goldstein's
radio show one time.I did so because
he was the only one who took me up
on my offer to come on a radio show and
talk about what was wrong the gop
here. I have not ever posted on any
democrat blog.
The King Gop got there head hand to them
this past election and all you want to talk
about what we supposedly did.Again its typical
of you King Gop people. Its always someone
elses fault never yours.
Posted by: phil spackman on November 15, 2006 01:19 PM
This is KING COUNTY, a county that went 75% for Kerry. Your solution is to run far right candidates in the hopes of making some inroads, but let's get real! It'll never happen. Before you attack my Republican ideals, I'll state this: I would rather have someone from my Party elected who I agree with MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, than have a liberal/any Dem. To quote Reagan (your group's namesake) 'if we agree 80% of the time, then I am not 20% your enemy, but 80% your friend'.
I honestly believe you people would have the Party run into the ground simply to say 'I told you so!'... Why not take all of this pent up frustration/energy, and... gee, I don't know... direct it at the Democrats. You gain nothing by being the fringe minority casting stones at those who work for the Republican ideals of us all.
Posted by: Proud GOP PCO on November 15, 2006 02:45 PMAs a friendly suggestion, pick up a dictionary, thesaurus, or remedial grammar text - I think it will give your kooky rants a bit more legitimacy. Your first lesson should be to read up on the proper usage of there/their/they're as well as the use of spacing and commas.
Until then, no one should take you seriously.
Posted by: Proud GOP PCO on November 15, 2006 02:52 PMI don't know who you are Proud GOP PCO, but I think you're right on!
Casey
Posted by: Casey Burnett on November 15, 2006 03:08 PM Fine so they have erased the debt that's good.
So you want to talk about party unity fair
enough. The problem is I believe you and I
have a different idea about what party unity
is. It doesn't happen when you try and silence
those that don't agree with you all the time
like Michael Young does.
The fact of the matter is you don't have party
unity now and you won't as long as things
stay the way they are.You cannot force people
to agree with you and expect them not to
fight back or worse walk away. Just like they
have done in council district 9.
Again you guys take no responsibility
for what just happened in the election.
It always someone else's fault.As far
as running the party into the ground you
have already done that. It takes some nerve
to turn around and say what you just did.
You say want to work for the good of the party.
Well that's good but don't turn around and
not support a candidate because you don't like
them or there ideals.That kind of behavior
sends a bad message to the people that
supported that person's candidacy.
Casey Burnett,
Sir you have no idea what I or any of these
other people did or didn't do this past
election. So don't make judgements on
someone or something you no nothing about.
Are you including me in that category of people who do nothing--no giving, no doorbelling, no nothing? I'm sure my snoop, "AliciaCR" could tell you different than that. As she says, "everyone knows (my) story." Talk to a few Snohomish County people in my neck of the woods and you might get a different story. Talk to people in my old district in King County too.
Posted by: Michelle on November 15, 2006 04:10 PMHow can you say that the Party has been run into the ground? Look at all that has changed in the years since Herbold/Young took over: vibrant fundraising, respect in the community at large, the caliber of candidates such as McKenna & Rossi, etc. I think those in the leadership now deserve another chance. I understand that you despise those there now for the Hammond/Dunn race, but I thought the Party was fairly neutral. I know personally and have the greatest respect for Steve, but I think it's better for the Party to keep what they have.
Oh, and don't think I didn't notice that you have been using better grammar - congratulations! Welcome to the land of educated adults.
If you don't know me, then what are you doing making such an accusation about me? You just ASSume, don't you?
Posted by: Michelle on November 15, 2006 11:02 PMDoug Parris: $0 (Nothing in the whole PDC database for any candidates)
Michelle MacIntyre: $25 to one candidate in 2006 and $20 to another in 2004 (Impressive!)
Phil Spackman: $0 (Another with nothing in the whole PDC database)
Brian Thomas: $0
Gotta love the PDC eh?
So here's what I don't understand, Doug publicly endorsed two candidates on his website and on one he even went as far as to post this:
"[Editor's Note - I've just been blown away by how good a candidate Tim is. Bright young men like Tim, principled from their youth, the gems of Western Culture, are the future of the Republican Party. Go to his website. Fall in love with the picture of his big, bespectacled family. Send his campaign money! - Doug Parris]"
Evidently Doug meant everyone else but him...
He didn't give to his beloved Brad Klippert who chalked up an impressive 6.9590% against my favorite RINO Mike McGavick. I guess he nor any of his fellow "Wingers" find it necessary to give actual DOLLARS to their candidates...even the ones who are proud to be called a "Reagan Winger".
But maybe I am not looking hard enough. Maybe Douglass M Parris dba The Reagan Wing for profit sole proprietorship gives to candidates as a business! Nope nothing in the PDC database from that either.
I guess they realize that their ultra conservative candidates who are running in Washington State don't have a chance so they don't bother giving them what they most need when running a campaign.
I guess Doug has an excuse, as he is thousand of dollars in tax debt, he probably can't afford to contribute to candidates instead he spends his time libeling or harassing the majority of them because they don't agree with his extreme views. Perhaps he prefers the Democrat alternatives?
But I digress, I am sure Doug and his comrades spend tireless hours volunteering for grassroots activities which I am sure they will share with us soon...
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 15, 2006 11:40 PMOoooh. Arent' you clever! So you've looked up the PDC reports on us (you spelled my name wrong, atleast on here), and atleast for me, you found a portion of my household's political contributions. Impressive. And you've discovered that I am a person who doesn't have an extraaordinary amount of financial resources to give to candidates and political activities.
And that, gee, maybe we find our money better spent elsewhere. And that some how makes me unfit to express political discourse?
I will not list the "tireless hours volunteering for grassroots activities" because I hate when other people brag about all of their "tireless efforts", and therefore, I make an effort not to do that.
But you and "Proud PCO" miss the point if you think we are being critical of anybody's individual financial contributions. My criticism and that of The Reagan Wing is the same that the national conservative blogosphere is of the national party. We're fed up with Republican candidates and electeds not standing on the principles (as defined in our platform) of the grassroots Republicans and the top down party leadership, taking away the rightful power of the grassroots Republicans to pick their nominees for office.
Posted by: Michelle on November 16, 2006 07:26 AMAnd what does Brian Thomas have to do with any of this?
Posted by: Michelle on November 16, 2006 07:47 AMFirst, I apologize for getting your name wrong in my post.
My criticisms as you can probably see are more directed at Phil and Doug more than at you. I haven't see nearly as much hatred come from you as has come from the other two. Take post #10 for example or read any of the articles from Doug on his site.
I am not missing the point. My point is that there is a lot of angry, bitter criticism coming from Doug and Co but not a lot of ideas for real reform. Not to mention that maybe you guys didn't hear but you would be hard pressed to find a staunch conservative that won on November 8th and especially not one in our county. Seeing that folks like Luke Esser, Toby Nixon and Jeffrey Possinger who I think would be conservative enough for you lost by large margins (for them)!
So heres what I don't understand, you say that Republican candidates and electeds aren't properly representing our platform and principles...well the grassroots DID pick them and some damn good ones at that. We had a nominating convention and I would say that was a pretty grassroots event.
How about this...lets get some SPECIFIC examples of how the party leadership cost King County Republicans the election and in general why they are such terrible leaders. All of these general statements don't tell us much.
While you guys are at it, maybe Doug and Phil want to give us a little taste of what elections cycle activities they participated in such as: super saturday events, phone banks that they or the members of the might Reagan Wing staffed, etc. because I sure didn't see them anywhere...not even on election night!
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 16, 2006 08:03 AM Exactly who is it that I said I hated?
Just because I have strong disagreements
with some people and or candidates doesn't
mean I hate them. As for what I did this
past election cycle.I like Michelle don't
have a great deal of financial resources
to donate to candidates.But I contributed
a lot of time helping out some campaigns.
Proud Gop Pco,
I never said that the King Gop shoulder
all the blame for what happened this past
election. To this point in time I'm not
aware of then accepting any responsibilty
for any of it. In fact I'm hearing the exact
opposite. Michael was on the radio the other
suggesting they needed to better job of voter
identification. I never heard him take any blame
for what happened.
Rossi and McKenna were state candidates not
county. The hammond-dunn race is only a small
part of my disagreements with the county party.
I don't think its right for the county chairman
to try and silence those that don't agree with
him and or the party on everything.I'm not going
to go into anything else about the county
party. I have done so before I am not about
to cover old ground again.
Griswold,
I don't know why you persist upon bringing Susan
into these things all the time. Please
just leave her out of it.She has nothing
to do with any of this.She wasn't the one
that got her butt kicked in the election.
We have never met so you don't know me
at all. I know what you look like because Brian
Thomas pointed you out at the last King co.
convention. That's about the extent of our
contact. I don't know what it is you have
against me or the others.
For some reason just because we don't agree
with you all the time it brings this rage
out you that I don't understand.The kind of
things you say are what we get accused of
saying all the time.
Posted by: phil spackman on November 16, 2006 09:51 AM
Thank you for that apology. Spelling errors are not my biggest beef though.
I am a member of The Reagan Wing and I'll just go ahead and say this. I didn't participate in any "Super Saturday" because I did not support the McGavick campaign who was running it and would benefit from it. I did however, strongly support my legislative district Republican candidate, Kim Halvorson in many ways, that if you asked, she will vouch for. While she is somewhat of a "moderate", I appreciated that she did take a strong conservative stand on certain issues, even if she didn't make them a center piece of her campaign. I also helped, to a lesser extent, on the Doug Roulstone campaign early on. Kim Halvorson came much closer to beating an entrenched Democrat than most of the Republican challengers out there. I think she has potential to take him out if she takes a stronger stand in the future on some of the issues.
Here's something that all Republican candidates can learn: Nice attractive flyers that cost a lot of money to mail, but don't tell you much of anything, won't win many votes. Energizing the base, due to a strong position on the issues gets you volunteers to go door to door, wave signs, make phone calls, persuade your friends, etc. That's how you gain ground, and that's how you eventually win elections.
Doug has plenty of ideas for reform and so do the rest of the Reagan Wingers. And not all of "sport"'s list ("Unholy trinity", "Four Horseman or the soon to be released "Deadly Dozen") are Reagan Wingers, Brian Thomas and Ruth Gibbs for instance. Though they might consider themselves aligned with the principles of The Ronald Reagan, their actions do not reflect the philosophy or preferred methods of our organization. Though Doug tends to be "dramatic" in his criticisms, I think they are fair for the most part. I only have very few minor disagreements with his approach like using the term "forked tongued" for instance. But for the most part, his criticisms focus on the positions/records of candidates on the issues that will be entrusted to them if elected and not irrelevent personal information.
It might have appeared that we had a nominating convention, but long before the convention, the state committee was pressured by the former state chairman and the RNC to give pre-primary endorsement. By the time the convention rolled around, most grassroots Republicans didn't know there were any challengers. And all of the behind the scenes maneuvering that took place to discourage Susan Hutchison from running, most grassroots Republicans will never know. This area of conduct is one area that The Reagan Wing suggests reforming. More to come....
Posted by: Michelle on November 16, 2006 10:25 AMIdeally, we could get someone like David Irons, Luke Esser, Toby Nixon or Stephen Johnson. But probably none of them would be interested in running.
The bylaws should be changed. Districts should be able to run their own affairs and choose their own chairs. This idea of the county chair being a dictator, with sole effective power to choose and remove district chairs, is ridiculous. PCO's should have a voice in running the party, and especially the districts, rather than vote on county leadership once every two years, and then not expect to have their votes considered again for anything for another two years.
The Democrats do very well with autonomous district organizations -- and also by including representatives from both districts and counties on their state central committee. Democrat district organizations typically raise tens of thousands of dollars each election cycle to support their legislative candidates, while Republican district organizations are lucky to raise tens of dollars.
I see the leadership vote on December 2nd (?) as being a bitter contest between two bitterly opposed factions. Whichever faction wins is likely to triumphally exclude the other faction from any meaningful role in the party.
As for Susan Hutchison, isn't she a moderate? Too bad people like her get driven out of the party. When you don't belong to either faction, both factions hate you.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 16, 2006 10:38 AM Good to hear from you again. First of all Susan
is not a moderate.In fact she is more conservative
than Dino Rossi.As far as I know she doen't
consider herself driven out of anything.The
state party leadership didn't support her prior
to the senate race.That was there mistake and
I don't know if they will get another chance
with her. Nobody hated Mike McGavick some of
us couldn't support him because he wouldn't be
staight about where he stood on some issues.
Michelle, I don't know you and I also wasn't accusing you or ASSuming anything about you. (BTW, shame on you for the naughty comment). I simply wanted to know if you had actually worked for any candidate. And, despite your reluctance to brag on yourself, you have admitted that you helped Kim Halvorson and Doug Roulstone - even though they are probably both as moderate as McGavick or any of the people you have trashed publicly or privately.
It's interesting how you can make value judgments about some, and trash others...
Posted by: Casey Burnett on November 16, 2006 11:30 AMWhat naughty comment would that be? The ASSume one? Perhaps you just have a naught mind, because I didn't mean anything "naughty" about it.
Kim Halvorson and Doug Roulstone had entirely different positions on a number of issues than McGavick. That is why I could support them and not him. As I knew more of Roulstone, however, I chose to devote more of my time to helping Kim.
Posted by: Michelle on November 16, 2006 01:06 PMMichelle - What a completely irresponsible excuse to say that you wouldn?t participate in Super Saturday activities because of the McGavick?s campaign running it. It was a coordinated effort to get information about ALL of our candidates and it?s the obvious choice to have the top-of-the-ticket campaign run it as they have the necessary infrastructure to do so. On top of it all, none of us agree with everything that one candidate believes although we should support the one which BEST represents are views. I guess maybe you and the rest of the R. Wingers must be content with Maria for 6 more years. This just proves my point! Since he didn't represent all of your ultra conservative views you couldn't support him. Well here is a news flash...he would have had worse numbers than Steve Beren if he did!
FCP aka Mark - Thanks for the correction. I should have guessed that Doug was there trying to catch people in unflattering moments to use next to the slander and libel that he spews on his website. Perhaps we should all start chasing Doug around at events and doing the same thing! I didn?t see Susan either but if she was, I?m sure Phil would have been close behind her, his loins quivering with delight.
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 16, 2006 01:08 PMNo, pal. I am not a PCO. I'm a legal, voting, conservative Republican who happens to- God forbid- pay attention to the issues and who dares to hold political officers accountable. How dare I!
You see, the problem you incumbent PCOs have is that all the conservatives you stiffarmed in order to promote and defend the "electability" agenda are equipped with excellent memories. We remember the Great Sellout of 2005. We remember being called "extremist," "nutjobs," "fringe," "out of touch," and "ignorant."
And now these same people want to keep their jobs. Well, let's have a little performance evaluation.
How did these "electability" Republicans do in our most recent elections? Oh, my.
Well, nothing illustrates the ineffectiveness of the "electability" people so eloquently as failure of their people to gain or hold office. The American people, including Washingtonians, have been sold a bill of goods from the current leadership of the GOP, including the WSRP. In case you had not noticed, the American people are not in a buying mood. Take your goods elsewhere. I hear the DNC is looking for a few good backstabbers.
I am not going to into what I said about
McGavick. He lost its over with lets move
on. If your that interested in what I have said
about him. Then go back and look at some my
postings about him in the past.
As for Susan wow, I can't speak her in regards
to what she thinks of me thats for her to say.
I believe in Susan it just to bad the State
gop didn't. We will just leave it at that.
And you never did answer my question, Scott. Are you the democrat candidate Scott Olson or the one who appears NO WHERE on any of the Washington PDC reports???? Just holding you to your own standards. I had accepted your apology, because I thought you had changed your tone towards me. Now you're back at it.
And yes, Casey, I can make value judgements about anyone running for office. That is why we call it an ELECTion. We all make a VALUE judgement in who we support and vote for.
Posted by: Michelle on November 16, 2006 02:17 PMI did, however, give countless hours of volunteering (including EVERY Super Saturday) and you can call any of the field directors and verify that. I have their numbers if you wish to contact them.
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 16, 2006 02:49 PMCould someone please call the Halvorson and Roulstone campaigns and see if anyone even remembers her?
Doug Parris claims that she's lovable and little "lovable little Michelle" - frankly I doubt that either claim is true!
Posted by: Christal Summers on November 16, 2006 03:28 PM Was your oatmeal a little lumpy this morning.
Its never a good idea to attack someone if
you cant back it up.Making guesses about
what someone did or didn't do is irresponsible.
I have known Michelle for quite sometime now.
She has to my knowledge never said a cross word
to anyone or even raised her voice.
What you are alleging is not that kind of
person I know. She can be taken at her word.
Neither one of us know how much she worked
on those campaigns nor is it any of our
business.Sure she is passionate about
what believes. But then most of us are.
Michelle - I am shocked! You are saying that Mike! supported NONE of the principles that you believe in? Wow...the almost 800,000 likely Republicans (including me) who voted for Mike must be totally out of touch with "true-mainstream-core-Republican principles".
Richard - How's your special friend Goldy doing after the Goldmark/Burner defeats?
Christal - Want to go out sometime? :)
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 16, 2006 04:55 PMPosted by: Michelle on November 16, 2006 06:56 PM
Is this the party that you are life of? :)
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 17, 2006 01:43 PMI am posting here for the first time- "I do read" I am only writing to share the appreciation of dedicated volunteers.
The highlight of my campaign was to help energize the party with people and families all looking to make a difference with our Party. Michelle was the anchor of dedication, do not forget her daughter Alice age 5 - who on short notice- would sign wave and or with her Mom’s help make big pot of chili. The two gave up countless afternoons doorbelling and or various activities. All of this is more valuable to a grass roots candidate than $$$.
We need a fresh approach and fresh energy. Aaccountability to the party and a structure for candidates and what they stand for. We had great PCOs on our campaign, Michelle, although not a PCO- was our most dedicated instrument of change.
In my humble opinion, lets focus on the future and the people who will make a difference on the ground and with results.
Thank you to everyone- and Michelle.
Warmest Regards,
Kim Halvorson