June 07, 2008
Filing for PCO

The following is an excerpt from KC Chairman Lori Sotelo weekly email update.

Filing week isn't just about candidates for public office. It also presents an opportunity for Republicans to run for Precinct Committee Officer. I am excited to report a very high level of interest among grassroots Republicans in party involvement this year. I am thankful for the efforts of our District Chairs who have worked tirelessly to promote the Republican Party and find suitable candidates for these neighborhood positions. Several districts have seen more declarations than they have had in nearly 20 years. This is going to be a good year for Republicans throughout this state!

I somehow can not help but wonder if the District Chairs she is congratulating really deserve the praise for the increase in PCOs. I know my district chair actively went out of his to discourage new PCOs. If anything I am guessing the increase in PCOs is due to activists wanting to kick the LD chairs out of office and replace them with people who will promote smaller government.

If this happens we can expect to see a revival in the state GOP. Small government activists around the state have been very eager to support a party but the GOP leadership has given them little to rally behind.

Posted by tpahl at June 07, 2008 12:05 AM | Email This
Comments
1. District Chairs promote signing up more REPUBLICAN PCOs. Part of being an officer of the party means supporting the party's candidate, whoever that is. Those who sought to be PCOs SOLELY to advance ONE candidacy but now do not support the party's nominee should not be officers of the party. Any District Chair who stopped such people from becoming PCOs was faithfully executing his or her duties.

See, the rule of thumb is that you can try to take over an unwilling political party that doesn't share your values if you want, but you can't expect them to help you do it!

Posted by: AD on June 8, 2008 06:30 PM
2. I have always supported the values the GOP shares... Limited government.

But you are missing the point... There are nearly double the number of PCOs on the ballot now than how many wanted to in 2006. Where did this increase come from?

Do you feel the GOP leadership has encouraged that many people to sign up? Or do you think there are far more people dissatisfied with the current leadership, shut out of the process, and are now signing up as PCOs to change the leadership?

My guess is the latter but I would love to see what everyone else thinks and why.

Posted by: Lysander on June 9, 2008 07:35 PM
3. Up here in Whatcom County we had Republicans file for 82 different precincts. Even more interesting is that 22 of those races have 2 candidates running and 5 of them have 3 candidates. In contrast the dems have candidates for 61 precincts and not a single race is contested.

Great PCO race of 08

Posted by: Bellinghammer on June 10, 2008 07:51 AM
4. I think it's great that more people are running for PCO. It's important to note that while everyone has a right to run for election as a PCO, not everyone has a right to be appointed, which is the distinction you seem to miss, Travis. You stated, "I know my district chair actively went out of his to discourage new PCOs." That's ridiculous. There's not a single District Chair that discourages new PCOs. All of them SHOULD discourage a particular kind of new PCO -- those that are not interested in advancing the goals and candidates of the party, or who will actively work against the party's nominee.

I think you fail to understand the simple bargain that one engages in when joining a political party. You, as an individual, have many personal ideas and positions. No one in the world shares them exactly the way you do. But you can choose the political party that GENERALLY aligns with you in an ideological sense. You don't have to agree with everything the party believes and they don't have to defer to your beliefs. BUT, everyone agrees to work together, DESPITE YOUR DIFFERENCES, to advance the party's goals. You give up a small bit of personal autonomy in exchange for the shared power that comes with the pooled resources of a larger organization. It's called being a team player. Sometimes it's hard to balance maintaining your principles with your obligation to cooperate with the team, but everyone has to try!

It doesn't seem you're willing to make this effort, Travis. You are very committed to your own personal libertarian values. That's fine and very respectable. But as someone who actively opposes Dino Rossi and John McCain, you obviously have not demonstrated you're willing to make the bargain necessary for membership in our political party.

So you can run for PCO (just like Ron Paul can run for President). Don't ask for any favors from the party, though, because you don't share our values!

Posted by: AD on June 10, 2008 06:37 PM
5. AD:

Ross Marzolf accepted me as a PCO until he found out I supported one particular candidate and then he took back his word. District chairs should not pick and chose who they will appoint as PCOs based on how they will vote for president in a caucus. Marzolf was fine with me till he found out that one thing.

And I chose to go by the platform to determine whether I share values. Comparing my beliefs to the platform, I belong there more than Rossi or McCain.

Posted by: Lysander on June 10, 2008 07:23 PM
6. The party disagrees with you - given the choice, they chose McCain and Rossi. So, ipso facto, their claim to the Republican mantle is substantially more significant than yours.

There's an institutional wisdom at play - like the Proverb says "In the counsel of many, there is wisdom." The Republican Party has chosen its values and its leaders. You have made a different choice. You have CHOSEN to separate yourself from the Party, but you still DEMAND the Party's allegiance and support. See how that doesn't work?

Do you agree with 100% of the Republican platform? Every section, subsection, clause and word? Which platform? There are hundreds! You're looking for a way to make things legalistic/black and white. But politics is not a zero-sum, ideologically dogmatic enterprise. You don't have a corner on the truth and neither do I. I'm willing to admit it. Are you?

Posted by: AD on June 10, 2008 08:43 PM
7. AD:

I think you are missing the point. When Ross Marzolf decided to appoint me PCO, the party had not made a choice on presidential candidates. Iowa caucus was still a month or two away. He took back his word a week following. Not because I disagreed with the republican party... the part had not spoken yet who it wanted. He took back his word because I supported a candidate he did not like. I was not demanding the parties allegiance or support of me. I was asking that it include me since I support most of its principles and was willing to work for those principles. The party leadership decided that sharing similar values was not good enough, I had to support who they supported or I was not good enough.

I still do not demand the Partys allegiance or support of me. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I do.

I am also confused why you would think I am trying to make things legalistic or black and white. I understand perfectly well that there are a variety of GOP platforms and a that no one person is going to agree with all of any of them. I certainly do not but when working with fellow republicans generally concentrate on forwarding our shared principles.

I agree that we should not demand allegiance or support from others, or that I act as if all must agree 100%. That is exactly why I am so opposed to our current GOP leadership. They are the ones that are excluding people that disagree with them. I want a state GOP that welcomes all who in general want a smaller government as outlined in the state GOP. Our current leadership is more concerned that you do not support a candidate they disagree with so much as they are concerned that you support small government.

That is why the PCO numbers from last week is encouraging. These new PCOs are not recruits from the GOP leadership, they are people that have come back to the party in the last year and want to return it to its principles and through out the cronies that care little about the principles.

Posted by: Lysander on June 10, 2008 09:48 PM
8. It's not likely (more like impossible) that Ross rescinded the PCO appointment because you support Ron Paul. It's more likely he rescinded it because had an indication that you would not support the party's nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul. And.... guess what? The party's nominee is NOT Ron Paul and you do NOT support the party's nominee. Looks like Ross was right!!!

You want the party to welcome "all who in general want a smaller government as outlined in the state GOP." That's great.

But why don't you support Dino Rossi? You don't think he's going to cut spending like he did as chair of ways and means? Why don't you support John McCain? His 20+ years of being the LONE VOICE in Congress against earmarks and pork barrell spending not enough for you?

It appears to me that you're applying a different standard to them than you want the party to apply to you.

Posted by: AD on June 10, 2008 11:42 PM
9. And just as an aside, look at this practically. Are there any competitive Republican races in the 37th LD? No. So, the only good that any Republican activist in the 37th can do is maximize GOP turnout for Rossi and McCain (just stop the bleeding, so to speak) so the loss in Seattle isn't so lopsided as to drag down the whole state. How do you do that? Voter contact. You doorbell. You phonebank. You sit at the 37th booth at the china town street fair with Ted Choi. :)

Now, if you, being a PCO worker-bee like you wanted, participated in any of those activities (voter contact) and they said, "oh, you Republicans want me to support John McCain and Dino Rossi -- why should I?" What would you tell them? That you don't support Dino Rossi and John McCain??

Boom. There ya go. You're useless to the party, at least as a PCO.

Posted by: AD on June 10, 2008 11:56 PM
10. AD:
Dino Rossi thinks he can manage big government better than Gregoire. He does has not shown that he wants a smaller government. His budgets where he 'cut spending' were each larger than the preceeding budget. Does not look like a cut to me.

And as for standards... Yes I have different standards for candidates for president and Governor than I do PCO. Don't you?

AS for your your post #9: You have described why Rossi and McCain are useless to the party, not me. When I go out and try and drum up support I want it to be for smaller government. I have not been convinced that McCain or Rossi will bring us smaller government or even that they want smaller government so Supporting their candidacy does not help the goals of the GOP (smaller government). All it does is help the goals of the current GOP leadership.

This is the point that you seem to be missing... There are lots of people out there that had given up on the GOP because the GOP leadership had given up on the goal of smaller government. This is changing as evidenced by the high number of PCO filings.

Posted by: Lysander on June 11, 2008 05:34 AM
11. And as an aside... there are no competitive races in the 37th district because the GOP has long since abandoned its principle of smaller government.

Posted by: Lysander on June 11, 2008 05:36 AM
12. The more you talk about why you hate Dino Rossi and John McCain you reinforce my view that you are clearly not a Republican. You are a Libertarian. That's fine and wonderful. Good for you. Now, as a member of a political party that is not the Republican Party, you are free to try and influence our Party (just like the Greens, Democrats, and Socialist Workers are as well). But please, please don't whine when we try and shut you out of the process because you don't agree with our Party and its leaders. :)

If 1,000 regular Republicans who adore Dino Rossi and are total John McCain fans made a concerted effort to take over the Libertarian Party and make it more moderate, don't you think the Libertarians would be a little irked? Wouldn't they fight it? Same principle.

A political party already exists for people who have your zero-sum, all or nothing, dogmatic, and ideologically narrow philosophy - the Libertarian Party. Look it up on MeetUp! They'd love to have you!

Posted by: AD on June 11, 2008 08:40 PM
13. And as an aside, the Libertarian Party, which has never abandoned its hardcore dogma about the evils of government, is considerably less competitive in the 37th than the GOP.

Posted by: AD on June 11, 2008 08:42 PM
14. AD: Very cute. Self appointed gate keepers like you are the reason the LP remains small and why the GOP is shrinking. There has always been a libertarian wing of the GOP but statists and reprobates interested solely in power have attempted to marginalize them. Now the libertarian Rs want back in, and people like me want to work with them. I'm a PCO, and a volunteer for county executive and state senate candidates. Candidates like them will win with support of all the GOPs factions. If McCain loses because some of us won't support the choice of mainstream, economically ignorant, war-worshipping busibodies, well I guess that will be an object lesson in the dangers of nominating a statist.

Besides, McCain has zero chance of getting Washington's electors anyway, so vote your conscience. I'm more interested in electing Rossi, Shawn Bunney and Randi Becker anyhow.

Posted by: BB on June 12, 2008 09:21 AM
15. I'll explain one more time why I didn't appoint Travis Pahl to be a 37th LD PCO.

It's true, I had agreed to appoint him. In between the paperwork being sent to the office, I was called by the KCGOP office staff who requested that I not appoint Travis. They had been vetting all the prospective PCO candidates and were convinced that Travis was not a Republican. They based this on his blog statements and on the fact that he had run as a Libertarian in New York.

I contacted Travis and told him that I was not going to appoint him based on information I had received from the KCGOP.

I was justified in changing my mind because he has been attacking my character for 4 months. Also, in changing my mind, I was acting at the request of the KCGOP and those who appointed me and under whom I serve.

I'm sorry Travis is offended but I stick by my right and duty to both change my mind and to appoint those who are Republicans.

An additional fact: I did appoint a PCO who was a Paul supporter and who convinced me that he was a Republican.

Ross Marzolf

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on June 12, 2008 04:46 PM
16. AD @ 12:

I have never claimed to hate McCain or Rossi. I am even considering supporting Rossi, he just needs to show that he is willing to cut a state agency.

Also if 1000 republicans joined the LP because they wanted to advance the LP platform...I would say all the more power to them. I really do not care what they do to the LP. I am not a member of it.

Ross:

I have never attacked your character. I have merely stated you took back your word also have stated that you that you said I "was a disgrace to the party". Both statements are true. You even confirmed one above.

Since you are now skirting the responsibility for taking back your word, do you mind giving me the name of the person that asked you to take back your word? Thanks.

Posted by: Lysander on June 12, 2008 05:04 PM
17. Ross: While you are here, how about you chime in on the issue of this post. How many people did you recruit to be PCOs that are on the ballot for this september? How many PCOs were there when you took over as LD chair for the 37th? How many are there currently in the 37th district?

Also, Why would you take back your word just because someone asked you. Is that a quality we want in leadership? I would rather have someone that feels their word is worth something more than blindly following orders.

Posted by: Lysander on June 12, 2008 06:30 PM
18. Actually, the PCO election is on the primary ballot in August.

I worked PCO recruitment/retention for a solid month prior to the filing week and while I won't go into any specifics, I will say that I am very pleased with the results.

If you want specifics, contact me after the primary.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree about your appointment - I think it's very acceptable to change my mind before a process is complete. I do not blindly follow orders, but I assessed the information given to me and realized that I was about to complete a bad decision. Therefore I changed my mind.

Posted by: Ross Marzolf on June 13, 2008 10:21 AM
19. So you will not say who told you to take back your word?

Oh and was your idea to hand out smear papers on Ron Paul at the caucus?

Posted by: Lysander on June 13, 2008 09:00 PM
20. Ross:

Also I am not asking for specifics on your recruitment. As far as your recruitment I am just asking for a rough guess as to how many people you recruited.

ALso I am just asking how many PCOs there are now in your district and how many there were when you started. I will have to assume there are far less now if you do not want to tell us. It seems like a fair question to ask considering that is one of your primary duties as our LD chair.

Posted by: Lysander on June 13, 2008 09:06 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?