March 05, 2008
Ruth Gibbs opens GOP Establishment hunting season on Ron Paul delegates

hunter-ruth-gibbs.jpgSaturday, I watched as Washington State's eleventh Legislative District Republicans held their caucus. If it is any indication of what is to follow we'll get to watch John McCain defeat Dino Rossi this year.

It was the first of 49 legislative districts to elect delegates to the State Convention (in various ways), thus beginning the second stage of a five-step caucus/convention process to determine who will be our national convention delegates and, hence, to determine which Presidential Candidate gets the most loyal nominating delegates from Washington State, just as if our votes counted. (When Wash. State GOP Chair Luke Esser announced to the Media last February 9th that John McCain had already "won the caucuses", he was really, really stretching it.)
The struggle over the actual process in the 11th was cold-blooded.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

What I watched was simply awash in irony as 11th District Chair Ruth Gibbs, former top secretary for the 1988 Washington State Presidential campaign of Rev. Pat Robertson dished out the same welcome to new Ron Paul Delegates as she and her Pat Robertson Delegates got from the GOP establishment twenty years ago, that is: "Thanks for playing, but this is for insiders only, Please go home, now."

And, as if that weren't enough (in the eerie coincidence department) Ruth even used the unethical tactics King County Chair Michael Young had used to torpedo her bid for his Chairmanship in December '06: insider trading. But this time it was for the benefit of Young, himself, and his John McCain campaign. When the cheating starts, the Michael Young/amnesty team always seems to benefit somehow, but this time Ruth Gibbs pulled the trigger. I guess what goes around... uh... keeps going around... if you're willing to change sides.

Gibbs is still claiming to be a Huckabee supporter, but she ran an all-John McAmnesty District caucus, Saturday. She had gotten to work the precinct caucus lists, leading up to the meeting, that were only available to the McCain campaign (not any other Presidential campaign). McCain even sent her a personal "Thank You" through his proxy speaker at the caucus: "John McCain wants to thank Ruth Gibbs for all her help." It was so blatant it even embarrassed Ruth into reminding us she was supposed to have still been for Huckabee.

On Saturday Huckabee was still running, nationwide, but in Washington State his "leaders" (with the notable exception of Craig Keller) had long since folded up like a political garage sale and were selling out as fast as possible to the McCain Campaign for whatever they could get. Real Huckabee supporters couldn't get any campaign help at all out of State Huckabee Chair Joe Fuiten's office, which appeared to be completely motionless.

Ruth had already announced that she would be supporting John McCain in the general election as soon as he got the nomination, and all her speakers assured us, Saturday, that a McCain nomination was an inevitable formality.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation President and former Gubernatorial Candidate Bob Williams promoted McCain and predicted he'll be the next President. So did 7th U.S. Congressional candidate Steve Beren. And, while they both made technical nods toward "Secure Borders" and against Amnesty, they were both working hard to nominate America's biggest supporter of Open Borders and Amnesty. Interim County Chair Lori Sotelo was there, running to succeed Michael Young (who has gone full time for McCain) as permanent King County GOP Chair. Lori plugged McCain, too, but then Sotelo has always supported Amnesty as long as you call it something else.

The King County Party Administration is all on the McAmnesty bandwagon (they have been for years) and Ruth Gibbs couldn't buddy up to them enough on Saturday, toeing the Michael Young line. She spent all her time sitting and talking intimately with them when she wasn't stampeding back and forth across the caucus floor, looking like she had built up enough steam to put her head down and crash through walls.

I've known Ruth Gibbs for 20 years.

When she was running for County Chair she called me on a daily basis (usually several times), asking for help, discussing strategy, trying to coordinate action, and being a guest speaker at a Reagan Wing meeting. Saturday she must have walked right in front of me eight to fifteen times as though I were invisible. She couldn't recognize me. All her speakers (except Sotelo) said "Hi," and were cordial as was her husband Jerry. Ruth wouldn't give me the time of day. She has, as a matter of practice, gone back to work for the pro-abortion, gay rights, pro-amnesty Sotelo administration and can't look me in the eye.

The Cheating

Imagine that you are a voter and before an election you go to the Secretary of State's website for information. Imagine that at the top of the website it says "The Washington Secretary of State's candidate for Governor is Chris Gregoire." Curious, you go to the official government website of the State Legislature and, at the top it says, "The Washington State Legislature's choice for Governor is Chris Gregoire." When you finally go to vote, at your precinct as you sign in, you are handed out a piece of paper, printed by the County Department of Elections, at government expense, telling you to vote for Chris Gregoire. Then, as you are standing in line to vote, the election supervisor at that polling place stands up and announces to everyone, "The Department of Elections Recommends you vote for Chris Gregoire." I ask you: "Is that ethical?

Saturday, Ruth Gibbs, 11th District Leader, acting as the 11th district leader, handed out a flyer called the "11TH DISTRICT 2008 LEADERSHIP SLATE" touting only the delegate candidates she wanted elected (the first two being named Gibbs). The use of her Party office in the title (where she is required, by rule, to preside impartially) was improper. The Secretary of State can vote in an election he runs, but to use his office to promote any candidate is a clear violation of ethics. That's what Ruth was doing as the chief election officer in the 11th. The flyer was, according to Lori Sotelo, paid for by District Funds. That, too, was improper. Every member of the State Legislature and the Department of Elections can vote and campaign as individuals for candidates for public office, but the use of their elective offices for promotional purposes is unethical, improper and a violation of law. Ruth Gibbs is a Party official ratified by vote and her district administration members were all acting as the (supposedly impartial) election officers in this caucus election. Ruth used their positions to favor one side in the election and it was blatantly unethical in precisely the same way.

The first sentence of the Gibbs Slate flyer said, "The 11th District Recommends the following individuals to be elected as Delegates to the the (sic) Washington State 2008 Convention..." Ruth Gibbs (despite what she may think) is not the 11th District. In order for her sentence to even be true there had to have been a call to a meeting where the whole district was given the chance to vote on delegate recommendations or, somehow deputized Ruth or her hand-picked Committee with the power to make such a decision. I can find no evidence that such meeting ever took place. Ruth has declined to return my call. But it doesn't matter (except as a matter of truthfulness) if such a vote ever took place. It would be improper anyway. The PCO's, themselves subject to public election, have the same duty, in the case of a Convention or Caucus, to act impartially as does their Chair (Ruth). Such a "recommendation" as the sentence claims would be a violation of that duty.

It was unethical and improper.

Candidates have a right to have their candidacy for State Delegate considered objectively on its own merits. That right was taken away in the 11th District.

Ron Paul delegates were specifically targeted, just as Pat Robertson delegates (including Ruth) were targeted twenty years ago. I remember being told back then by a Party Insider that "the Pat Robertson people" were going to vote for Pat Robertson for President in the general election, but COMMUNIST on everything else. The same image is being created for Ron Paul supporters.

The Reagan Wing has been a part of an effort to create delegate slates in every Washington Legislative District that include candidates from all the presidential campaigns that pledge to oppose amnesty for illegals, support the right to life from conception to natural death, and oppose "environmentalist" land and energy seizures. We have former supporters of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and current supporters of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. In the 11th, the conservative slate included several Ron Paul Delegates. Gibbs' slate had been cleansed of every Ron Paul supporter.

Don't get me wrong. There were some great people on the Gibbs slate and I don't hold them responsible for what happened.

But I know for a fact that the Paul delegates, recognizing that they were in a minority on the issue, had agreed to drop vocal opposition to the Iraq war. But an early candidate speech in Ruth's district called the conservative slate the "Ron Paul" slate and almost every speaker on Ruth's green slate baited the Paul Delegates on the War. Every one of Ruth's invited speakers spoke at length on the war. NOT ONE of them spoke against John McCain's radical environmentalist, anti-Republican "Global Warming" energy rationing, his restrictions on free speech or his illegal alien welfare spending. Not one opposed his GOVERNMENT FUNDING for the destruction of Human embryos.

The message was as clear, Saturday, as it was 20 years ago. Newcomers are NOT WELCOME in the Republican Party.

And what, if this continues, will be the result?

The Ron Paul Campaign can put more than 20,000 new feet on the ground in Washington State campaigning in 2008. When I walked into the State Ron Paul Campaign for the first time, weeks ago, they were passing out Dino Rossi bumper stickers alongside Ron Paul literature. They still are. But their participation is tenuous - with good reason.

10,000 new people campaigning for Dino Rossi for Washington Governor. Think about that. They have agreed to drop the War as an issue. Think about that. The campaign is preaching against third Party action and telling them to stay in the GOP. Think about that. Think about that new impact on the Democrat/Republican balance of power in this state.

Saturday, Ruth Gibbs, using Young/Sotelo dirty tricks, gave new people the same greeting she, herself, got in 1988:

"Go home. You're not welcome, here."


Posted by DougParris at March 05, 2008 11:04 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Doug-If you consider the Ron Paulista libertarian nutjobs stalwart Republicans then I think your own credentials ought to be called into consideration. I think the GOP can house many rooms but having Paulistas is like having the clap.

Posted by: John425 on March 5, 2008 03:55 PM
2. Wait, is Ron Paul still running? I thought John McCain was the nominee. The whole 1,191 delegates thing... That's a tough hill to climb for the Paulistines. When did Doug Parris turn anti-war on us? His Reagan Wing slate of likeminded whackos was probably full of Ron Paul supporters... just ask those who were objective observers of the 11th District Caucus. You might even ask 11th District Republicans whether they recognized a single name on the "Ron Paul Unity" slate...

You know what's so funny about this-- Doug is such a crybaby when he loses :(

Newcomers are always welcome... anti-war, isolationist, Bush-haters not so much.

Posted by: Confused on March 5, 2008 04:58 PM
3. Dufflepuds!
Get with the program. The Republican Presidential Race was between Candidates who wanted socialized medicine, Environmentalist Energy Rationing, Radical increases in social spending, Government Funding of abortion and involuntary human medical experimentation, Massive Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, Radical Gay Rights advances AND an end to the war in Iraq.
The only ones not welcome, here, were the anti-war guys.
No wonder you insist on remaining invisible. You're ugly.

Posted by: Doug Parris on March 5, 2008 05:16 PM
4. This lengthy narrative doesn't say who won. The reader can assume the omission is deliberate as the Doug Parris Wing usually doesn't broadcast the fact that they handily lose every little petty, quixotic fight they pick.

Doug: do you remember what the Craswells did? Do that. This party is obviously not to your liking and obviously doesn't like you. Start your own movement so you can go be irrelevant somewhere else. :)

Posted by: AD on March 5, 2008 05:18 PM
5. It is very clear from the article who won and who lost. The nomination was, as we all know, to be decided, elsewhere, by others. That was not in contention. Here, in Washington State, John McCain won; Dino Rossi lost. "Pro-choice," pro-Amnesty King County Chair Lori Sotelo won; the conservative movement lost.
The Sound dufflepuds, always hiding, want this to be Doug Parris losing. Well, I do not live in the 11th. I could not vote, nor run, nor make a single speech. I was neither a delegate or candidate for delegate. I did not participate in any way. But I will tell you that I believe being able to make an eyewitness report of the nature of the Party under its current leadership, to shine a light on the methodoloy that has, for a quarter century of my participation, led, year by year to greater and greater Republican defeats, - to be able to expose that - certainly feels like a kind of victory.

The reader will note that there is an article of some substance, totalling more than 1,700 words posted, here. There are (not counting this post, as I write) 4 comments following the article, but only one name of a real person in all that, who is, thereby, willing to take responsibility for the truth of his words.

Posted by: Doug Parris on March 5, 2008 10:43 PM
6. Well, guys, I think Doug Parris has a point. Why can't Ron Paul people be included in the delegation? He got percentages, and I assume, delegates. What is there to fear?

Other than his foreign policy opinions (I personally share the opinion but can't figure out how it could work), he is very lucid. Why not seat his delegates? Why be antagonistic?

Isn't it time to sit back and bury hatchets? Isn't it time to be a good sport (as winner) and welcome Paulites back?

I read Travis and Guthrie to some extent throughout the primary and respected their opinions. I didn't like that they had to post their same thoughts over and over every five minutes, though- it turned me off to what they were saying. Now, that they don't have the automatic rifle operating, I again listen to them.

Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2008 07:35 AM
7. Following the withdrawl of Fred Thompson, when Ron Paul became the ONLY conservative in the race (as I chronicle with great specificity, beginning here: TWO MEN, THREE FIRST NAMES), I began to meet a lot of Ron Paul people; grassroots supporters, volunteer workers, campaign staff. As with all campaigns, there are fringe elements (you will find Giuliani supporters in New York whose only issue is gay rights extremism and McCain's Ann Stone of "Republicans for Choice" and his Amnesty Activists also have single issues), but the finges of a movement do not define it (despite as much as the dufflepuds want it to be so). I have debated Guthrie, here, at length, and I can tell you he is not a typical Ron Paul supporter. It is also true, contrary to public image, that pacifism is atypical for a Ron Paul supporter, despite typical opposition to the Iraq War in particular. Support for the war in Afghanistan is common.

Posted by: Doug Parris on March 6, 2008 12:44 PM
8. swatter: Ron Paul would have us go back to carrying gold coins and create world havoc by closing the Federal Reserve, World Bank and abolish NATO. Going totally isolationist, he leaves Europe to Putin and most likely-South America to any two-bit leftist cabal that popped up.

I am reminded of Burke's note: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Ron Paul stands for doing nothing.

Posted by: John425 on March 6, 2008 01:40 PM
9. John, that is what I was referring to. I agree with the isolationism, but I don't know how that can be done at this point and time.

Somehow, our country got drug into being the world's policemen and we can't seem to get out. However, someone has to do it, so if it is us, then so be it.

Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2008 03:52 PM
10. John425 (at 8) has been smoking contraband. None of that is true, except Burke's quote, of course. The complete ignorance displayed of conservative monetary policy, shared not by Paul, alone, but by every substantive conservative for the last 30 years or so, is breathtaking. We don't have to have a gold standard, of course. We could have a silver standard or we could go to permanent deflation, but the choice has nothing to do with what you carry in your pocket, rather, what backs it up. Will we continue to have money printed by a private couterfeit operation or backed up by something... anything? Even something as transitory as the U.S. treasury would be better.
"...carrying gold coins..." What ignorance!

Posted by: Doug Parris on March 6, 2008 04:19 PM
11. No. No one has to be the world policman. We've only had that about five times in history and Rome was the last one. That belief is the precursor to World Government.
What is the alternative? Anarchy? In a word, yes. Another way of putting it is "National Sovereignty." It means there is no higher authority than each nation's government.
We do not need, for another example, to have rangers patrolling the jungles of the world making the animals be nice to each other. We just need to carry guns when we travel through the jungle, or, to adjust the metaphor, to be the LION in the jungle. Being the lion in the jungle is the Reagan approach. Being the single woman in the piano bar is the Democrat approach. Being a delegate at the table of a World Sovereign is the New World Order approach.

So, in fact, the movement to have a "world policeman" is a movement to have a world government.

Posted by: Doug Parris on March 6, 2008 04:31 PM
12. I think people should start photoshopping pictures of Doug Parris into crazy/ridiculous/embarrassing images and post them all over, just out of pure spite and sour grapes. :)

No, wait. That would be immature and kinda creepy.

Posted by: AD on March 6, 2008 04:55 PM
13. I hope you folks will forgive me but who is Ruth Gibbs? Is she by any chance the 11th District Chair? VOTE HER OUT AND BRING SOMEONE ELSE IN BY ELECTING A MAJORITY OF PRECINCT COMMITTEE OFFICERS IN THE UPCOMING NOVEMBER ELECTION. Then have a district meeting and send MS Gibbs to the garbage heap of history, forever to be forgotten and cursed!
Hey, that's politics!

Posted by: Bob Clark on March 6, 2008 07:54 PM
14. I DUNNO. I GOT THIS BLAST E-MAIL FROM RUTH. SOUNDS LIKE SHE'D SUPPORT HUGO CHAVEZ BEFORE SHE WOULD SUPPORT MCCAIN.


Hello All,

Please email this far and wide across the nation asap.

For months on debates, Senator McCain has been saying he will secure the
borders and has been deliberately refusing to call out his plan after that.

Everyone says he has learned his lesson and has changed on amnesty. NOT
SO! I personally saw and heard him on Larry King Live yesterday. Larry King
pushed. McCain mouthed the same 'secure our borders first' line. Larry King
pushed and pushed and insisted he say what he would do about illegals in this
country until finally McCain caved in and said:
(This is not word for word but paraphrased EXACTLY as he said it.)

He said the two million illegals here who are criminals we would send
back of course, but that as for the rest, we have to be humane and compassionate,
after all they are human beings. Then he tried a guilt trip on the public
saying that if for instance a woman was here illegally and her husband was
serving in Iraq, of course we would not deport her.

Friends, this is serious!!!! We CANNOT give amnystey to tens of millions
of people who have never paid one dime into social security, medicaid and
medicare and then turn around and support them. It will bankrupt the country.
We CANNOT refuse to enforce the laws of the land, or we have anarchy.

Huckabee is very clear on immigration. HE says he will have the fence
done in 18 months max, then ALL illegals will have to be gone, or be immediately
deported. He would give them 6 months to a year to get out after he becomes
President, or else. Then they have to go to the END of the line and apply just
like everyone else to come in and obey our laws.

I am serious folks, if you are NOT concerned, I highly recommend you
become concerned The Primary is next Tuesday. If you go and vote for McCain
because he has fooled you on this issue, or because Romney tells you to, then don't
complain when the house of cards comes falling down.

The same with your Legislative or County Conventions. Support people to
the State convention who will elect delegates to the National Convention who
believe that we should start enforcing the laws.

McCain has NOT won the nomination. The national media is showing you
smoke and mirrors counts. For instance, McCain has not won ANY delegates in this
state, he just got some raw vote totals. But look at the phony map at CNN.
They show McCain has won all our delegates. Same with other caucus states.
Don't let them lie to you. Huckabee CAN win if you don't believe their lies.

Vote next Tuesday and at your conventions for America and Republican
Principles, not chaos, anarchy, selective thumbing ofthe nose at the laws of the
land and compromise of our national security. I am not an official member of
the Huckabee Campaign, but I intend to vote for him. He will represent us, not
himself.

By the way - McCain says he's for national security but he wants to keep
a bunch of illegal people here? How does he know how many are terrorists?
Think about it.

Ruth Gibbs
206-947-4648

Posted by: besquared on March 6, 2008 08:36 PM
15. Alright this whole thing has become really troublesome. Since
day one the KCGOP has had it in
for Ron Paul supporters. From there refusal to allow any of them to be Pco's to this crap with Ruth Gibbs.


The KCGOP continue to prove they
don't know how to build a party.
Is it any wonder why they have
less than 500 Pco's in county that has over 2,000 precincts.
The next state Gop chairman Mark
Hulst (yes my prediction is he
will run and win by a landslide)
is bewildered by there treatment
of Ron Paul supporters.


Then to top it off the McCain campaign hire's Moe Howard (Michael Young) to oversee their
campaign in Wa,Or and California. Now either the McCain campaign is stupid or they have written these three states off. Because Michael Young has demonstrated he doesn't know how to win his way out of a paper bag.

Ruth Gibbs I am very disappointed in you. I felt compassion for what happened to you when you ran for county chair this last go around. I defended you to John Carlson and
Ann Marie Lake. Well no more I'm
finished with you. Because you have proven your no better than
the rest of them.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on March 6, 2008 09:19 PM
16. Phil Spackman - Doesn't know his facts, doesn't know how to type and can't put a cogent sentence together. Phil, the harsh truth is: everyone is done with you - so nobody cares who you happen to be done with at any particular moment. Phil, I'm very dissapointed in you!

Go in peace and please don't return with your vitriol, idiocy and lackluster attempts at making sense.

Posted by: Confused on March 7, 2008 06:44 PM
17. Confused,

Just what is it that I got wrong? Tell me I really would like to know specifically where I got the facts wrong.Otherwise
Shut the hell up.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on March 7, 2008 08:56 PM
18. I was gung ho to work for the state GOP last summer. Over the course of a few months I was totally turned off by the leadership in the state GOP. They went out of there way to turn away droves up new faces willing to help the party.

I am now giving them probation. I will go to my district caucus (37th) and see this Marzolf guy in person. If he does what Ruth did, I am done with the GOP. If Marzolf stays chair for long I am done also.

Posted by: Lysander on March 7, 2008 09:51 PM
19. Lysander,

Ross Marzolf is already biased
against Ron Paul supporters. I
know for a fact at least one individual asked to be a PCO in
the 37th district. Marzolf's response was who are you supporting for President? When the person responded I'm supporting Ron Paul Marzolf told
the person no. So I wouldn't hold my breath thinking he will
do the right thing.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on March 7, 2008 10:11 PM
20. That was essentially what happen to me too. I was even told by him I could be a PCO but he later saw a posting where I said I supported Paul so he then emailed me to go back on his word and told me I could not be a PCO. I am not holding my breath that he will play fair but I am hoping to see him thrown out and replaced by someone more likely to foster the growing revolution.

Posted by: Lysander on March 7, 2008 11:31 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?