Respected Republican on State GOP Convention: "They Tried to Railroad Us"
After a month of silence, a respected Republican who was at the state Republican convention on December 16th has decided to speak out. This comes on the heels of a grassroots effort to prevent the election of President Bush's pick Mel Martinez as the new National Chairman. The National Convention is Jan. 20th.For the Respected Republican's (RR) report, click TUESDAY below and scroll down, or if sent straight here just scroll down.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Tuesday, January 16, 2007
26 Comments:
I got a tip that RR wanted me to call him. I was familiar with RR because of his prominence in the state Republican party. I would describe him as a party loyalist. It turned out he decided it was time to go public with his, and others, displeasure at the way the party was being run, with a specific emphasis on the recent state convention.
RR on the paid staff at GOP HQ: "The salaried staffers don't care anything about the people out in the counties. They don't care what we think. They only want to please the big donors to keep their pockets full."
RR on Mike Huckabee: "He was in there for ten years and he did nothing to help us, only to help himself. He could have helped us recruit better candidates for lower offices, but he was too busy running for President."
RR on the GOP e-mail that served as the "call to convention" which also had Mike Huckabee and Congressman Boozeman plugging for Baker's re-election: "It was improper to use the state GOP e-mail list to plug for a candidate at that convention. But they had their people all lined up."
RR on Baker's performance: "We are trying to do the same thing and hope we get a different result. That (06 elections)was not a performance that rates another chance."
RR on the Convention itself:"It was about a third of the attendence of prior conventions. The largest delegation was Benton county, who boycotted the thing in protest. They said they would use the sign-in sheets to determine if we had a quorum rather than a roll-call of delegates. We likely did have a quorum, but it was close.
Senator Baker did not want to give up the gavel, even when the question was his own re-election. We had to call him down on it from the floor. His substitute opened nominations then closed them without observing Robert's Rules of order. You are supposed to call for nominations from the floor three times to make sure everyone gets an opportunity. These are known procedures that we follow in our county meetings.
They tried to do that again on the next office, Vice-Chairman. They nominated Doug Matayo and then tried to close down nominations. They got challenged on that. Someone nominated Jim LaGrone for that same office and LaGrone won with a large majority of the vote.
After that they got their slate in. but the whole feel of the event was like they tried to railroad us. They were not there to listen to what their own county leaders thought."
One important thing to note here is that Jim Lagrone wasn't even running for that office. It was the NWA folks that nominated him and helped him win. I think his addition to the state party is excellent and I think he will do great things for the party.
Great guacamole! Matayo is from NWA and the NWA folks are the ones that derailed him? Whoa. That is a pretty telling factoid gop08.
Why does it matter where Matayo is from? He was the establishment's choice and he was soundly defeated. That is a good sign.
If the base can get organized the establishment won't be able to ram through their candidates of choice next time.
If the party is ever to be redeemed then more RR's must come out of the woodwork and speak out and the counties need to coordinate their efforts.
Perfect ending to the 2006 election year.
What an utterly wasted year and most of the donations were as good as flushed down the toliet.
Huckabee had TEN YEARS to build the party and wasted every bit of it.
His presidential aspirations are doomed because he can't raise enough money in Arkansas to create a presence early on and parlay that into national find-raising. Why can't he raise money in Arkansas? Because he leaves us with a party in shambles.
Congress, failed to tally 40% in the second most Republican district and allowed an unknow Democrat nearly tally that amount in the weakest Democratic distict. A carpetbagger got 57% for Lt.Governor. In the attorney general race the Green Party took almost 4.5% virtually all of that from crossover Dems and the winner still took almost 58.5%.
Where were the phone calls the past ten years to GOP faithful asking them to step up and put their hat in the ring for legislative, mayor, county judge, sheriff, and prosecutor races? We had two elections (2004 and 2000) where the governor didn't have his own race to deal with where he could have been out on the stump for local GOP candidates to build the party and it basically didn't happen.
Wasted, wasted, wasted and all we will have to show for it is a flame-out in New Hampshire when Mike has to come back home because the Arkansas faithful hadn't grown enough to help him fund a credible campaign.
I don't think you can call this "going public" until you give a name. If people feel defrauded and want a change, stand up and make the call. Anonymous posts and rumors don't accomplish anything.
Anonymous sources are used in reporting every day. Why give yourself a black eye to the party when it isn't necessary?
The important thing is the sham elections the party establishment conducted have been exposed..
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. By definition, therefore, the establishment is insane.
They're not insane. You're assuming that the establishment has "winning elections" as a primary purpose. Every hack knows that the first objective is to secure one's next paycheck. Then comes hob-knobbing to secure your next position in the party. Next comes getting your hack buddies jobs. THEN comes winning elections.
They would rather lose than have someone win who would oppose growing the government machine.
Comments like these give the party a black eye. By retaining anoniminity, you simply avoid giving yourself one, which classless. Also, how were the elections a sham. So Ann Britton didn't wait long enough before she closed the floor...so what? She re-opened the floor, and there were no nominations. End of discussion. If you have beef with gilbert, you should recruited a candidate and ran. Dragging all this out again is nothing but a disgruntled hack job, so get over it and support our leadership over the next two years. If you don't, the Party is just as well without you...
What reporter hasn't used anonymous sources? And that is all I am doing, reporting what eyewitnesses have told me. I assure you, If I wanted to tell everything I knew and could document about ineptness and duplicity in certain party quarters it would make this look tame.
Reporters are also objective, or at least are supposed to be. You are using an anonymous source to further your dislike for a group of people.
Again, this might be a valid discussion if someone else wanted to be Chairman. Give me a name (even if you acquire it anonymously, I'll take it...) of someone who wanted to be Chairman. I did not see you ther fighting on December 9th. That is why we have those meetings. That is the forum for these complaints to be addressed, not on some political blog 1 month after the fact. You say he deifnition of insanity is repetition of failure, well here we are, still bickering over petty things like we did before the election. Move on, for the future of our party...
"Reporters are also objective"
While I admire someone with a sense of humor, please don't throw down on one of the few who is simply honest and forthright about where they are coming from.
Some people are just going to have to expect folks to "dislike" them if they are going to do some of the things they have done. These were not my words. If I wanted to "dislike" and tell everything I know I could make some people look a lot worse.
You won't see me there because I am not a member of the Republican party, nor do I aspire to be. I don't have a political home right now, still thinking things over. As for someone else throwing in for chairman, kinda hard to mount a campaign when the email that was a "call to convention" was also a campaign brochure to re-elect the sitting chair. I don't care if there was another candidate or not, that was inappropriate. It had the endorsements of Huckabee and Boozeman right there in the call to convention. Who is gonna buck that?
The insiders got together and picked who they wanted and were going to make sure no one else had a chance. If no one else wants to run that outfit, I can see why with shennanigans like that. I would expect John Boozeman at least to know better.
As far as where these complaints ought to be addressed, that is not your call. I am not a Republican but if I was I would be on this even harder. The reason is simple, I would figure that the people who did this need to be relieved of the temptation to ever try it again. The way to do that is not to sweep it under the rug, but to make it so painful for them that decide not to try it again.
If I WAS an Arkansas Republican, I would say there have been too many coverups in the last five years already- which is how the Arkansas GOP got the biggest fine for a state party in FEC history.
The reason things get out of hand like that is exactly the mentality you advocate. Whenever there is inappropriate behavior, keep quiet about it "for the good of the party".
People wonder why Arkansas is one of the last remaining democrat strongholds in the south. It's not exactly because of the genius of the Dem party here. The mismanaged AR Republican party needs to step up and take their share of the credit, too.
Frankly, I don't buy your excuse for not running an opposition candidate for Chair. Simply because the call to the meeting had an advertisement for Gilbert on it does not change the fact everyone knew the Chairman's seat was open. You didn't need an e-mail to tell you that. Also, by constantly throwing around "what you could tell", you are doing nothing more than intentially using the information you apparently know while trying to maintain some standard of innocence. Inuendos and subtleties are a 3rd grade game...
Finally, comparing the cover-up of the embezzling of thousands of dollars to an uncontested Chairmans race is ridiculous. There was no cover-up here. The elections were held. Gilbert won. If a few "respected Republicans" don't like that they can get over it...
And with Gilbert's great leadership (as well as the rest of the establishment) I guess we can expect to remain a distinct minority in this otherwise conservative state.
Why are you a defender of the establishment? What tangible positive results can you site as a result of Gilbert's leadership? What has he done (or at least attempted) to earn your support?
I am not a Republican, why would it be my job to find an opposition candidate? For all I know G. Baker is the best candidate they could hope to get.
As for what I know, if I use it then it will be in a time or place of my own choosing. I'll not be goaded by substanceless insults. Some of these people are in such a station in life that they have a good shot at amending their ways, and I just don't want to embarass them.
"comparing the cover-up of the embezzling of thousands of dollars to an uncontested Chairmans race is ridiculous"
It's a good thing I didn't do it then. I was not comparing the seriousness of the two wrong-doings, I was talking about the same spirit contributing to offenses large and small. A spirit of excusing and desiring to ignore wrong-doing "for the party". My comments are in the same vien as the Bible's admonition, "He who hates his brother is a murderer". Hating does not really equal the deed, but it is that spirit that leads to it. The party would have much more credibility in the eyes of the common citizen and even their own grassroots if they would face up instead of shush up. People are crying out for something they can have trust in.
We have been in a minority status for a far greater time than the length of Gilbert's tenure. No Chairman could have made this difference this time.
I am not so much a defender of the establishment. I simply have repsect those "in the arena", so to speak. What defines Election 2006 to me is the difference in talkers and doers. I talked to people continually who had 100 complaints about the way things were being done, but none of them stepped up then, and none of them stepped up December 9th. You did not step up, so shut up. There were a handful of people who gave their all, and most received no appreciation, just critisism. I admire the ones who try. I respect the ones who work. Unfortunately, we have very few of those types in our party, and that is why we will remain in the minority.
"I am not so much a defender of the establishment. I simply have repsect those "in the arena", so to speak. What defines Election 2006 to me is the difference in talkers and doers"
OK John, then you must realize that I was one of the "doers" in 06 (in the Holt campaign). I think EVERYONE has a right to speak out, but even in your view of the world I earned the right to complain in 06.
My take: There would be more doers among the talkers if the talkers felt they were being listened to, if they felt they were given real authority. Why should they work if they sense the people at the top are pulling the ladder up, and don't want to hear their concerns?
We talked to a lot of "doers" who were burned out in 06 because the party left Holt to twist in the wind in 04. These people worked their guts out, but felt like they got no support. We talked some of them into trying it again on the excuse that "the party just didn't think he could win in 04, they know he can win this time, so they will help."
Guess what? They left him to twist in the wind again! In fact, the whole down ticket was ignored, but even with the polls showing Holt the only one close they STILL did NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING to help him. Maybe he got his filing fee back.
Meanwhile, the Democrats saw that the Lt. Governor's race was the only state-wide race they could lose, so they made the no-brainer decision to shift some funds to attack Holt and boost Halter in October.
It was only THEN that Halter got poll movement. And the grass roots know this stuff. The real small government conservatives don't get the help at critical times from the party, so at some point they get knocked out. That is how the top three presidential contenders are Guiliani, Romney, and McCain.
The grassroots know they are shut out from getting a say on stuff like this- who lives and who dies at crunch time. You can't expect them to work and work and then not complain when stuff like this happens.
"We have been in a minority status for a far greater time than the length of Gilbert's tenure. No Chairman could have made this difference this time."
Agreed in part, but what did the establishment do invigorate and engage the base at the grass roots level? The reason we've been in the minority for so long is because it takes conservative leadership at the top to win. It also takes accountability. So I ask, what criticism has been leveled at Huckabee by people like Baker for the liberal positions he has taken? (i.e. smoking ban, tax increases, school consolidation and rolling over for the courts, etc.) I don't know of any, please correct me.
And so to rebuild the party is Baker going to try to engage the grass roots at the county level? Is he going to reject the liberalism of Huckabee? I doubt it. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it, why would he (they) start now?
We will continue to be in the minority until we get true conservative leadership.
Holt was for an equality shake for all, the big corps don't want equal so their puppets won't help a guy like that. Pubs are becoming what they have been stereotyped as = party for the rich
2:04, I agree with you about Huckabee, but I'm not sure what Gilbert could have done to change peoples sentiment. The last thing you want is the Party leadership calling out our only elected (and extremely popular) official. In the end, I think that would have hurt us more.
Also, this is not about Jim Holt. No down-ballot race recieved much help. In a time with such limited resources, I agree with that call. I agree with the money being spent on legislative candidates. That is where we have to focus. No, it did not work...this time. But I can assure you, even with $100K, Holt would not have won. He has no right to complain. You cannot enter a race expecting to recieve funding from another organization. It is just that simple (and a pretty basic Conservative philosophy). Do I wish the Party could have given Holt money. Of course I do. I have much respect for him, and I wish he could have won. However, the Party as its priorities (the most winnable races), and no down-ballot race made the cut. I agree. You may not, but I can assure you, it had nothing to do with any candidate...
No it is not just about Holt. It is about the grassroots because the party leaders will not support the candidates that the grassroots support. It is about ANY GOP candidate who isn't a corporate sellout. They tend to only rise so high before they get their legs cut out from under them.
That is why Guliani, Romney, and McCain are the only three pubbies that are being pushed. All liberals. How do those three wind up at the top of the GOP heap when the grassroots of this party are small-government social conservative? It is because when guys like that get in tight races, the party jumps in with both feet and helps them. When a conservative is in a tight race, they let him twist.
Look at Penn., where Bush actually jumped in a primary to help Spectre beat Toomey for the GOP nomination. No, this is not about Holt. It is about a pattern that Holt is the most recent homegrown example of.
Why should the grassroots work for those guys?
You spoke of "winnable" races. There was exactly ONE state-wide race that every poll said was winnable up until the end. It is easy enough to check. Holt was within the margin of error all Summer and into September. But that guy was not the kind of Republican that they wanted to win, so they let him twist. The Democrats did not care for Halter either, but they still dumped in $250,000 of their own money because they wanted to win every race. That was when Halter pulled away in the polls.
The clear evidence points shows that the Democrats wanted to win every statewide race bad enough to help whichever candidate was in a close one, while the GOP would rather lose than see the "wrong kind" of Republican win.
You can't know what would have happened if Holt had gotten $100 K of help (less than half of what the Democrats did for Halter) because he never got it. It would have tripled his end game budget, I can tell you that. Instead, it was thrown down the rat-hole of a few selected legislative races of candidates who the party wanted to win.
There is a pattern throughout the nation in favoratism of the "right kind" of Republican. That is, ones that will actually do the opposite of what the grassroots want on issues important to corporate Amercia like illegal immigration. Bush and Huckabee are examples.
The wrong kind of Republican better never need a strategic boost, because the party will let them twist. Only those who they think will be reliable globalist votes get real help.
RNC readies for Martinez fight
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | January 18, 2007 | Ralph Z. Hallow
Posted on 01/18/2007 3:38:50 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
A member of the Republican National Committee from President Bush's home state yesterday escalated the rebellion against Mr. Bush's choice to head the committee going into the 2008 presidential elections.
Texas RNC member Denise McNamara said the attempt by Mr. Bush's supporters on the national committee to name Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida as general chairman "is like pouring gas on an already smoldering electorate," citing Mr. Martinez's role in promoting last year's "comprehensive" immigration bill in the Senate.
"Choosing an RNC chairman who supports amnesty [for illegal aliens] is tantamount to telling the conservative majority of Americans that they do not matter."
The fight over the party chairmanship reflects grass-roots discontent, heightened by Republican midterm election losses in November, as the 168-member RNC convenes for its annual winter meeting today at the Grand Hyatt Hotel downtown.
Mr. Martinez's opponents are ready to challenge the White House's efforts to force on the party a general chairman whose views on illegal immigration, they say, are opposed by 80 percent of the electorate.
They cite polls indicating that the issue has split the party and contributed to its November losses. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow.
"The question is whether the Martinez fight will be a skirmish or a full-scale rebellion," said New Jersey RNC member David Norcross, a former RNC general counsel who oversaw the 2004 Republican presidential nominating convention in New York. "I think it will be a skirmish, but I am preparing for a full-scale rebellion."
"The last thing you want is the Party leadership calling out our only elected (and extremely popular) official."
I think that close to the election would not have been the time to call out the Huckster, agreed. But during the last several years it would have been GOOD MEDICINE. I don't think Baker and his cohorts practiced any kind of this good medicine.
My hope is that the R party can be reformed. To not call a spade a spade however is not going to solve anything. In hindsight I think it would have been better for the R party had Jimmy Lou won in '02. The liberal agenda that is now tagged to Huck would have been pinned on her and this last election (at least here in AR) would have been wholly different.
I hope Baker proves me wrong. But unless he acts differently than he has in the past he won't.
Mr. Martinez's opponents are ready to challenge the White House's efforts to force on the party a general chairman whose views on illegal immigration, they say, are opposed by 80 percent of the electorate.
They cite polls indicating that the issue has split the party and contributed to its November losses. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow.
It's official: Martinez got elected to Chairman of the RNC, once again proving that the will of the party base doesn't matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home