It was good times once again last night at the 5th LD meeting in the snowy mountain town of Issaquah. Upon entering the police station I was greeted by KCGOP Chair candidate Ruth Gibbs who told me there would be no filming (never mind that the meeting was being held at a public place and it's my first amendment right to film whatever I damn well please). Ruth, why don't you want your speech filmed? If you don't want the masses hearing what you have to say then why even say it?
But I abided by her commandment and kept my video camera in its case. Apparently not good enough for erstwhile and perennial candidate and ReaganWing goonsquad member Brian Thomas. In a hilarious showing of bravado, Brian came to the back of the room where I was sitting and started raising a fuss about my mobile phone, insinuating that I was filming Ruth with it (these kids and their technology today). No dice, Brian. And Ruth would have none of it. She publicly chastized the machismo mouse of a man for his ill-placed outburst and the meeting went on.
2nd Vice-Chair Candidate Doug Parris was suprisingly well behaved (and dressed, looking quite smart in a grey suit with festive cream-colored turtleneck beneath) compared to his last performance in the 37th. But don't you fret, reader. After the meeting he and I chatted and he expressed some regrets that he hadn't gone with an earlier version of the speech. And fret not again, for here, in my possesion and for all the blogosphere to see, is a copy of said speech.
Second Vice Chair Speech
I'm Doug Parris
As second vice chairman I would be the one who would have to step in if our Chair and Vice Chair were both tragically assassinated. I would step in and hold the County together, at least temporarily, till we could find someone who didn't have to also run the Washington State Chapter of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, America's largest GOP organization. So I'm going to tell you what I would do and not do if I were Chair.
First, what I would not do.
I would not Hold a County convention and break 4 out of the 7 rules in our own bylaws about conventions.
I would not illegally appoint electors to a convention specifically to vote for a liberal candidate to replace a conservative Republican incumbent.
I would not confiscate a conservative candidate's literature in violation of Washington State Law to help a liberal beat him.
I would not call thousands of grassroots Republicans to give days of their time and thousands of dollars to come to a nominating convention to choose our candidates and when they made their choice, completely ignore it, supporting their opponents even if the opponent was a Democrat.
I would not protect a Marxist, Democrat Incumbent for County Council from a conservative Republican just because the Democrat is Black and I believe in racial quotas.
I would not manipulate the Platform Committee to protect legalized abortion,
To protect the Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and Transgendered community and
To advance the Republican illegal alien Amnesty movement.
I would not repeatedly violate Roberts rules of order to get my way.
I would not hold secret meetings for the purpose of slandering innocent people.
I would not sew slanderous false rumors a Republican Candidate for office was anti-Semitic, a racist, assaulted women or had a police record, all lies.
And I would not push people around, have them followed, slam them in the chest or knock their crutches out from under them as a political tool.
The Young/Sotelo/Ann Adams administration cannot make that pledge because they've already done every bit of it.
But I would support a program to completely turn around the King County Republican Party.
We would stand for Republican Principles not apologize or run from them.
And we would support candidates in direct proportion to their support of the platform, not recruit liberals.
We would embrace conservative initiatives and referenda, not sweep them under the rug and that would unite us with the Property Rights Movement, the Academic Education Movement, The Pro-Life Community, The anti-sexual predator Community, the Marriage movement, the Anti-Mexican invasion Community and the true economic conservatives, the Tim Eyman Community.
We would inspire Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan Conservatives and they would come out of their out of their houses, out of their cocoons, out of the woodwork and pour, like a river, in to the Republican Party.
We would not try to compromise our way to victory, we would win the debate. We would defeat the socialists not by offering a weaker version of the same thing but by attacking socialism at the root. Socialism doesn't work.
King County Liberals would be so desperately defending themselves against our advance they wouldn't have time to take over the rest of the state.
I'm Doug Parris with the Reagan wing of the Republican Party and you ain't seen nothin' yet.
www.TheReaganWing.com 206-546-9757
But the night was not over with Doug! In a fourth down field goal attempt, team ReaganWing put forth a new candidate for 8th Congressional District Representiatve (position currently being held by David Irons). The talkative toastmaster (who's name escapes me but, of his own admission, has never been involved in politics, hasn't been a PCO, hasn't volunteered on any campaigns, hasn't done much of anything other than being the commander of "the sub base in Seattle" (maybe he meant Bangor)) went on about the "cacaphony of kaka" spewn forth by the current party elite and gurgitated his plethora of experience in sales. I, for one, left convinced. This man could definitely sell sh*t to a pig, sand to an Arab and ice to an Eskimo. The question is, can he sell ReaganWing brand Republicanism to the PCOs in King County. I guess we'll find out on Saturday.
Ruth Gibbs, Candidate for King County Chair
Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on November 29, 2006 11:43 PMMark Griswold, member of the satan-worshipping, baby-killing, gay-marriage officiating, yoga and witchcraft practicing, country-club conservative, wine and cheese party attending, Volvo-driving, higher-tax supporting, anti-war, Democrat wannabe "wing" of the KCGOP. (aka, the winners... and I'll even give you 20:1 odds on that.)
Posted by: FullContactPolitics on November 30, 2006 06:13 AMI'm looking forward to reading your personal stand on these issues in a public forum.
Posted by: ERNurse on November 30, 2006 11:07 AMLink: Young Campaign for Gossett against Republican
Posted by: Doug Parris on November 30, 2006 12:52 PMI'll hold the money, Saturday, assuming of course we're not getting the Washington state Gaming Commission involved, the tribes or any other sort of family club. (And assuming I'll be awake!!!)
Since this illicit action has been set up on Stefan's website I suggest that you give him his taste. You'll wind up swimming with the fishes if the Shark doesn't get his cut.
And to ERNurse, thank you for asking me a direct and fair question. I will get back to you with my platform shortly. I'll even create a whole new post for it so all may see how evil I truly am.
Posted by: FullContactPolitics on November 30, 2006 05:35 PMAnd why must you "get back to me" regarding what you stand for? Can you not simply say it? If it is something in which you so fervently believ, it should be easy to say.
On second thought, don't bother. Your response speaks volumes about your willingness to stand for your own personal convictions, which I strongly suspect, given your response, will change with whatever direction the wind blows.
Not exactly the character trait I would envision in a person who considers himself an authority on anything.
Posted by: ERNurse on December 1, 2006 09:30 AMAnd Doug, I'm waiting...
Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 1, 2006 09:45 AMI am working a "Cinderella shift" (done at midnight) tonight, and will consult with my wife and see what she is doing tomorrow. I will email you later with a firm availability window.
Please feel free to follow up with me using my personal email address as attached to my hotlink. I look forward to gathering more information about the debate at hand.
I'll offer you the same objective openness as I have offered to Doug and to everyone else who has approached me for support: I don't want rhetoric and hyperbole; I want objective data.
I would also respectfully advise you at the outset that the core values I embrace (that is, the existence of absolute right and wrong, the pricelessness of human life, and the importance of moral integrity in leadership) are all non-negotiables and thus not subject to revision for the sake of political expedience. Any idea or position that places itself in opposition to these principles will be summarily swept from the table without exception. Show me the facts that support your position, and show me how your position is supported by my values - not the current party platform, mind you- but the values by which I live.
I am also certain that you are aware that I give high regard to a person who has the moral courage to say what he means and then live according to what he says.
I will say this here and now: I am not a card-carrying Republican. I am a conservative who has voted Republican more often than not. Don't ask me to back a party.
I tend to support those who can show me objective, unbiased data that holds up to scrutiny and the light of truth. I'm always willing to learn, but I am not a pushover. I am sure that Doug will attest to that.
Posted by: ERNurse on December 1, 2006 12:41 PMBut now to give you some details on my positions on the above issues (and these will be more brief than I would like, for I could probably write a book on each).
Abortion: I believe, as Doug does strangley enough, that life begins at conception and ends with natural death. Would I like to see a world where there were no abortions? Yes, of course. Do I think blanketly outlawing it will work? No. I believe in making steps toward the end goal while also changing the hearts and minds of the people so that there is no desire to get an abortion. No matter what the law is, if people want an abortion they'll find a way. A law is not going to stop them. They may go to Canada. They may go to a back alley doctor. So at this point in the process I fully support a restriction on abortion beyond the 1st trimester. I support parental notification and I support a waiting period. But again, I believe more strongly in changing the hearts and minds of the people, making adoption less costly and easier for good people to pursue. Along these same lines I am also a big believer in family values. As we've seen a deterioration in family values we've also seen an increase in abortions and violent crime. I guess this is why I am a libertarian thinker. I just don't believe that the government is better at just about anything than the private sector and definitely doesn't do well at raising our children compared to what families and religious organizations can do. So, if I thought completely outlawing abortion wouldn't result in an immediate repeal of that law here in Washington and would lead to a hasty decrease in abortions then I'd be all for it. But looking at the current climate making such a drastic change in law is just not realistic. But again, to be clear, on a personal level I do not support abortion in any circumstances other than the life of the mother being at stake.
National Security: One of my favorite presidents of all time is TR and his gunship diplomacy and "speak softly but carry a big stick" principle has a lot to do with that. That's why I also like George W Bush, especially when he is being a cowboy. I do believe that the last option should always be war and that talking, in many cases can solve problems with most reasonable people, but people like Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, bin Laden and Achmedidjad are beyond talking. They are not sane individuals and therefore a sane approach will not work. I have no problem with bombing the hell out of our enemy, beating them in to submission, if that's what it comes to. Worked for TR, worked for Reagan, works for me. But the strong offense isn't the only answer. Hopefully we can play in a way that it doesn't come to that. Part of that also includes strengthing our borders and immigration laws so folks who want to kill us (or just use our free healthcare and education for that matter) don't pour in here without an invitation. We are in a war and it's a big one. I believe in strong national security.
The Constitution: I think it's an awesome ship. Visited it back in '91. A great testament to the patriots that fought for our freedom from tyranny in the 1770s. Oh wait, you're talking about the document. Also a great piece of writing with a bunch of great ideas that hold as true today as they did in 1776. Of course things change, technology improves and amendments must be made but in general I think amendments should be very few and far between. Now I could really go on, the Constitution being such a broad topic, so unless you have more specific question then I'm going to leave it at that for now.
Eminent Domain: Not a big fan of the government taking land or devaluing it through ludicris restrictions on its use. So CAO? NO! Kelo? No. Bulldozing a house to make room for a freeway interchange? I'd probably go for that? Telling landownders they can't build a 10-story building in a residential neighborhood? Probably pretty okay with that one as well. Telling landowners they can't dump nuclear waste down their sink? I'm copacetic with that as well.
Immigration: pretty much covered it in the National Security section. Tighten our borders, build a fence/wall, whatever, fine companies that hire illegals and make damn well sure we're not giving driver's licenses and social security to illegals (in fact, the only thing I would ever support giving to illegals would be a medical care if lives were in immediate danger, and that's just a matter of humanity. Of course, after they'd recovered I ship their butts back to wherever it is they came from. Same goes for illegal felons. Why are we housing them in our jails? They're probably better conditions than in their own country.
Electibilty vs. Integrity: I don't think we need to compromise on this. I know, personally, so many great politicians that have the utmost of integrity: Dino, Rob, Luke, Toby, Dave Reichert, the list could go on. But to elaborate, there could be a real slick politician with no integrity (Bill Clinton) and someone with the utmost of integrity but who can't string together a coherent sentence while standing in front of a thousand people. Neither of these people should be involved in politics. There's also the folks like you, I'd imagine, who have the utmost of integrity and stick to their guns no matter what. I'm sure you're a great person with a lot of good ideas but I don't think you'd do to well down in Olympia. And I mean that as a compliment. I fully realize that politicians that have staying power enough to get at least a few things done, myself included, no matter how statesmanly, all have at least a thin slice of Machiavellianism. Damn shame but then again, sticking flowers in gunbarrels hasn't exactly worked too well.
Looking forward to meeting you tomorrow.
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE BET HE IS BACKING OUT OF.
As you can see, above, in a fit of rhetorical bravado (that was sure to shrivel away when challenged) Mark said he would give twenty to one odds on a bet on the outcome of Saturday's election. Like most of what the Gris says, it meant absolutely nothing, but it felt good coming out of his mouth (yes, he moves his lips as he types).
I knew he would back out if challenged and he has. When he made the (empty) boast, there were no conditions. Now he requires me to write a lie on the bill to make good on his illusory promise. To be "wrong" I would have to predict the outcome. I have never predicted the outcome. He has. And he won't back it up.
Mark, I will not be able to make the meeting tomorrow evening, due to schedule conflicts. However, I think that meeting with you is important. I'm in the North end, and I have the early evenings free up through Tuesday. Then the window is closed until next year, literally.
The bottom line for all concerned here is that the truth is ultimately the most important thing. It trumps party platform, it trumps individual ideology, and it trumps political expediency. And if I find that one side or the other is diddling with the truth, you can rest assured that I will light them up mercilessly. I don't care which side it comes from. Remember: I have no affiliations; I have nothing to lose, and I am beholden to nobody except my God. It's kinda fun.
Mark- Email me.
ERN
Posted by: ERNurse on December 2, 2006 01:25 AMRichard, I don't post on HorsesAss.org. I leave that completely up to you.
ERNurse, you are awesome. You are quickly gaining stature in my eyes. Anyone who uses the phrase "light them up" must be alright. Sorry I missed you yesterday. It was good fun and you would have been able to witness the liars in action.
Posted by: FullContactPolitics on December 3, 2006 10:01 AMThere are several articles and all the results are posted.
WHOOPS! You must have been thinking about the REPUBLICAN party! You can go to their website at:
The King County Republicans website says they will be holding a reorganization meeting on Saturday, December 2, 2006 at:
Islander Middle School
8225 SE 72nd Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Credentials open @ 7:30am
Credentials close and meeting opens @ 9:00am
I have already said this to Doug, and it certainly bears repeating here: I am not in a position to be a PCO, for example, or take on some other active involvement in the GOP. I have too many nonpartisan connections with the state regarding some nursing policy issues, and to have a direct political affiliation might jeapardize the work I am doing due to a perceived conflict of interest. However, I do enjoy the luxury of seeing both camps from a more objective viewpoint, and thus I enjoy the luxury of making my observations in a strictly objective manner. I will assail Democrats and Republicans alike. Stupidity and hackery are not exclusive to one party or the other. Either party is beset by its party-line morons.
What is needed, I think, is a leadership that can think critically and objectively. Neither party shows any promise in that regard. So in my opinion, both parties are due for flushing, since they both have lost the ability to lead; the Democrats since WW2, and the Republicans since Reagan. My opinion. No charge for that.
Posted by: ERNurse on December 3, 2006 11:25 PMHonorable men are ruthless not for the sake of wielding power, but rather for the sake of exposing and crushing injustice. The problem, I think, is that people have become afraid of those character qualities when they are found in the same package. Great men and women carry them both. Our society is afraid of such people because through their very character they expose what is wrong with our society and challenge us to step up to the plate and take a swing for ourselves. I think that most Americans today don't like having to take responsibility for themselves, much less the direction of their nation. We've become lazy, and accustomed to having our thinking done for us. Great people make us uncomfortable about ourselves, so we tend to avoid them.
But great people are not perfect. Nobody is. Not Lincoln, not Teddy Roosevelt, and not Ronald Reagan. But they were a darned sight better than most of the presidents we have had- from either party- in our history. But the great ones face their flaws with humility and transparency. They don't make excuses, they don't lie to the American people, they don't blame the American people for a loss. They suck it up and search themselves with sober reflection.
I know that it is highly unlikely that I will have a candidate who agrees 100% with my personal ideologies. it is not realistic to expect a party whose constituents' ideologies mirror my own; such a group would not be a political party, but a cult.
But if I can find a candidate who bats a thousand on the things that are a really big deal to me- honesty, fidelity, justice, integrity, and moral courage- and mirrors most of what I embrace regarding Constitution and the role and function of government at all levels, then I will back that person with all my might.
I think that if people at all points on the spectrum- yet adherents in practice of the tenets descibed above- can stop throwing rocks (myself included) and find unity in the Big Things (fidelity, justice, honor, integrity, and moral courage), then the Party will come alive. It can't happen with only one faction in control, and fiendishly so, no matter which faction takes the reigns. It will only happen if the people resume control. The current leadership will not serve this party in a manner that will energize and unite us. From what I have read, the vote last Saturday appears to have been the result of participants having been worn down to a sense of apathy. Unfortunately, giving our leadership more power to decide for everyone what is best for us was exactly the wrong thing to do. The party is now a politburo because of it. I am deeply, keenly disappointed that King County GOP's leadership is so determined to stroke their designs for personal power at the price of the destruction of the party. This, then, is the ultimate end for faction-controlled party politics.
The Party has pretty much dissolved into ruin at this point, and it is simply a matter of time until the rest of the State goes the way of King County unless you, and Doug, and I, and everyone else who genuinely cares about the non-negotiable values, stop throwing bombs and sit down together to identify what we do have in common. The current leadership has gained their position by playing us against each other. Until we unite on the basis of integrity, honor, and moral courage, things can only get worse. I am convinced that if everyone concerned continues in the current pattern, the party is doomed and liberalism will have completely defeated good in our county, our state, and our nation.
I'm not particularly interested in playing that scene. Anyone else?
Posted by: ERNurse on December 4, 2006 03:58 PMTurns out that Nykreim was a supporter of Democrat Rodney Tom over Republican Luke Esser in the 48th district Senate race. Nykreim even donated $100.00 to Tom's Senate campaign on June 16, 2006. And just a couple of months later, he bamboozled King County Republican PCO's in electing him to the state party Executive Board?
Nykreim did, after all, have the backing of "Kirby Wilber" (spelling per Nykreim campaign brochure). Wilbur sets a fine example of party loyalty. The state or county GOP can select Wilbur to chair their convention in the spring. And if they are lucky, Wilbur will endorse at least 75% to 80% of the party's nominees in the fall, and back Democrats in no more than 20% to 25% of the races.
The King County GOP adopted some "Fundamental Principles of Republican Conduct" in its by-laws at Saturday's meeting, along with a disciplinary process whereby people violating these principles can be barred from participating in GOP politics for up to six years.
Unfortunately, these "Fundamental Principles" do not include party loyalty. A PCO or even a party leader can freely endorse a Democrat or give money to a Democrat without any fear of discipline. Hell, they could even file to run for office as a Democrat and still they couldn't be kicked out of a Republican Party leadership position for this reason!
However, if a Republican party activist criticizes a party leader for supporting Democrats, that would constitute a violation of the new conduct rules! It would be considered a personal attack and an abusive confrontation.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 4, 2006 08:08 PMWell that's good, otherwise you wouldn't be able to participate, Mr. King County Prosecuting Attorney.
But you raise a good point about Ruth's support of Nykriem. You can't trust these ReaganWing nutroots and their ilk, the type of people that go to liberal democrat blogs and lie about KCGOP budgetary information. (Free bit of legal advice: you can get disbarred for lying. Under oath, of course, but it is something you might want to watch out for, unless of course that depends on what your definition of is is).