Photo Artist's conception of how the Snohomish Masonic Temple, the site of pooled caucuses, might look. If it didn't look the way it does.
From the Email Underground.
No, this is not from the Onion, it is some real happenings at the Snohomish County Caucuses.
At the Masonic Temple Caucus with State Committeewoman Olga Farnam presiding as Chair, one of our newly elected Ron Paul delegates, a young mother who had her tiny 3 month old daughter with her, went to take a picture of the delegate election sheet, which tells who was elected delegate and alternate in her precinct.
She had good reason to do so, since she was a Ron Paul delegate in 2008 and had to fight a credentials battle because the Snohomish County GOP substituted another unelected delegate for her at the County Convention. Yup, they cheated and she beat them.
Olga and friend
Apparently Olga Farnam, saw her taking the picture from across the room and ran over screaming, “WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU CAN’T DO THAT! I WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF! LET ME SEE! YOU CAN’T TAKE A PICTURE. IT IS NOT ALLOWED!
BTW, there is no rule saying you can’t photograph at the caucus.
Our young mother, baby in arms, began backing away from the threatening, shrieking harridan, saying, “I don’t have to show you anything. I can take a picture.”
Olga continued screaming at her, pursuing her as she literally had to run out of the door to escape her, saying over her shoulder, “uh-sorry, but my Baby has to be fed.”
Ehrlich, apparently doing her Nancy Pelosi impression.
At Mill Creek Elementary School, Dullain Ehrlich, former State Committeewoman, Pooled Caucus Chair, (also a well known hater of any Constitutional Conservatives) and backer of Olga as her successor State Committeewoman, approached a Ron Paul person who was trying to set up a card table to pass out some Ron Paul literature and sign in Ron Paul supporters who were coming into the caucus.
This was done in many Legislative Districts with absolutely no problem, but Dullain decided to come out screaming and tell the guy he that he could not do that. It was “against the rules” and she would have him physically thrown out if he didn’t pack up and leave. Dullain was lying. There are no such rules.
He called the RP campaign hotline and was told that he could set up 100 feet from the door, which he did and had a great time greeting the numerous Ron Paul supporters coming in, as well as other Caucus attendees.
[Note: Party leaders sometimes exert authority as lessee of facilities that contradicts their position as caucus host. If I rent a room I ordinarily have a legal right to exclude people from it that civil magistrates will sometimes enforce even though it is against the governing rules. Actual Party rules are legally superior since the lessee is only acting in trust to the Party and is subject to Party authority. The "100 feet" took the table outside even the bogus lessee's "right."]
Contrast this with the 10th Legislative District, where Ron Paul supporters were told to put their table out in the hall so they could help by directing traffic into the door where the Caucus was being held. Of course, disgruntled Romney and Santorum supporters complained to the Organizers whining, “how come THEY get a table?” and “they’re hiding all the other candidate’s signs!” The Organizers sent some watchers out to see what the Ron Paul people were doing and saw that everyone was being pleasantly greeted, and if they were not a Ron Paul supporter were being directed into the caucus with words like, “Good luck” and “enjoy your caucus!” Also, there were NO OTHER CANDIDATE’S signs to be hidden, so they saw no problem with the table.
The complainants then took their beef (along with sour grapes) to the Legislative District Chair and Permanent Pooled Caucus Chair, John Foules, who told them, “the Ron Paul people are well organized, you can’t blame them for that. This is an election, after all. Why didn’t you get organized and bring a table for your candidate? You could have had one.” John Foules ran a fair, honest caucus where the votes were counted right there with observers and anyone could actually watch, and then they announced the count before most people had even left the caucus. Kudos to John. Way to go.
Contrast that with this:
Kellett
At Former Snohomish County Chair Jim Kellett’s pooled caucus at Harvey Airfield, where Jim was the Pooled Caucus Permanent Chair, a Ron Paul supporter made a motion that the straw poll vote should be counted right there on site with observers, and Jim Kellett got angry and shouted him down and said he was out of order because “the rules said that the counting had to be done at Snohomish County GOP Headquarters”. THERE IS NO SUCH RULE. IT IS A LIE! The motion was in order and Mr. Kellett was cheating. Even if there had been a rule, the body of people there had the parliamentary authority to decide and have the votes counted there if they wanted to do that.
Another report from another school (unnamed) has come in where the Ron Paul people were physically assaulted while trying to set up a table (people were trying to rip their Ron Paul buttons off of their shirts). They were told it was against the law for them to set up a table (what law?) and hounded off.
For the record, there IS a law against what the GOP apparatchiks did:
RCW 9A.36.070
Coercion.
(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he or she has a legal right to engage in.(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(27) (a), (b), or (c).
(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.
Anyone interested in filing criminal charges?
You’ve got to wonder what is the motivation of these people who are so bound and determined not to allow an open, honest, fair and good-natured contest between Republicans. Time for the people to vote them out of their juvenile and corrupt stranglehold of the Republican Party.
If you have a Caucus story, or would like to corroborate or add to any of the above, please send it to doug@thereaganwing.com.
Let’s keep naming names.
Niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee post!
I had Ron Paul advocates at my table, and I can assure you that they were treated just like any one of us. In fact one is an alternate. There were 15 of us present. I have been watching this happening during the past four years, and it has been upsetting. Why?
For the record, Rebecca Wible down here in the 32nd has always been a honest broker when it comes to us RP folks. I’ve enjoyed being part of the GOP and having her as the Chairwoman.
I was at the Totem Middle School caucus, which represented 67 precincts. Some supporters of Ron Paul set up a table in the hall where people entered the room and to my knowledge, there were no problems at all. Everyone was treated equally.
Michael Swanson chaired my pooled caucus location. While not a Paul supporter, he was fair, open, and honest in his chairmanship of the caucus.
John Foules did a great job in the 10th. There are good people in the party. They need to be appreciated. The bad apples need to go, because they contaminate everything they touch.
Scott Bader did well also. I will note the Newt table was less than 100 feet from the PUD entrance.
This is so incredibly inaccurate! I was the person who spoke to the mom with the “babe in arms”…She came to our table and without permission snapped pictures with her phone of a delegate sheet which contained MY PERSONAL INFORMATION!!! I fill it out on the form FOR the Republican party. NOT for Ron Paul mailing lists. I do not know what she will choose to do with it. That form had my email address as well as a cell phone number and address. She was politely told that that was personal information and that she shouldn’t be doing it. She knew she was in the wrong and you could tell she was uncomfortable. There was ABSOLUTELY NO SHRIEKING!!! And the Ron Paul group tried so hard to take over the discussion at the caucus, but thankfully Olga was able to bring balance to the room.
WSRP Convention Caucus Rules Rules 2012:
RULE 18 — Caucus Results
The precinct committee officer or the elected permanent chairman of each caucus or “pooled” caucus shall cause to be postmarked or delivered to the place designated for return no later than March 10, 2012 the following results:
1. Registration Form and List of Participants at Precinct Caucus
2. Report of Precinct Caucus, showing the elected delegates and alternates to the county convention.
Should the precinct committee officer or caucus chairman fail to file the report of the precinct caucus, any participant in the caucus may cause it to be filed by March 10, 2012. Caucus results filed after the deadline shall not be invalidated unless the late filing in fact prevents the credentials committee from investigating and evaluating them. If the caucus results are not filed in a timely manner, but are received in time for the credentials committee to investigate and evaluate them, the credentials committee may include the elected delegates and alternates on the role of the convention.
The county chairman shall forward copies of the registration forms, list of participants and report of precinct caucus showing the elected delegates and alternates to the county convention to the State Chairman no later than March 17, 2012.
Rule 18 gives every caucus participant the right to the information gathered at the caucus. By extension, a participant has authority to obtain that information by photographing or otherwise copying those results.
Jill, you may not like the rules, but surely you will agree that Republicans must follow their own rules.
CrRLJ 2.1(c)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj2.1
http://tinyurl.com/crrlj21c
RULE CrRLJ 2.1
COMPLAINT–CITATION AND NOTICE
(c) Citizen Complaints. Any person wishing to institute a criminal action
alleging a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor shall appear before a judge
empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the State, other than
a judge pro tem. The judge may require the appearance to be made on the
record, and under oath. The judge may consider any allegations on the basis of
an affidavit sworn to before the judge. The court may also grant an opportunity
at said hearing for evidence to be given by the county prosecuting attorney or
deputy, the potential defendant or attorney of record, law enforcement or other
potential witnesses. The court may also require the presence of other
potential witnesses.
In addition to probable cause, the court may consider:
(1) Whether an unsuccessful prosecution will subject the State to costs or
damage claims under RCW 9A.16.110, or other civil proceedings;
(2) Whether the complainant has adequate recourse under laws governing
small claims suits, anti-harassment petitions or other civil actions;
(3) Whether a criminal investigation is pending;
(4) Whether other criminal charges could be disrupted by allowing the
citizen complaint to be filed;
(5) The availability of witnesses at trial;
(6) The criminal record of the complainant, potential defendant and
potential witnesses, and whether any have been convicted of crimes of
dishonesty as defined by ER 609; and
(7) Prosecution standards under RCW 9.94A.440.
If the judge is satisfied that probable cause exists, and factors (1) through (7)
justify filing charges, and that the complaining witness is aware of the
gravity of initiating a criminal complaint, of the necessity of a court
appearance or appearances for himself or herself and witnesses, of the possible
liability for false arrest and of the consequences of perjury, the judge may
authorize the citizen to sign and file a complaint in the form prescribed in
CrRLJ 2.1(a). The affidavit may be in substantially the following form:
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss. No. ________
COUNTY OF _________________)
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINING WITNESS
DEFENDANT:
Name ____________________________ Name ____________________________
Address _________________________ Address _________________________
Phone ___________ Bus. __________ Phone ___________ Bus. __________
WITNESSES:
Name ____________________________ Name ____________________________
Address _________________________ Address _________________________
Phone ___________ Bus. __________ Phone ___________ Bus. __________
Name ____________________________ Name ____________________________
Address _________________________ Address _________________________
Phone ___________ Bus. __________ Phone ___________ Bus. __________
I, the undersigned complainant, understand that I have the choice of
complaining to a prosecuting authority rather than signing this affidavit. I
elect to use this method to start criminal proceedings. I understand that the
following are some but not all of the consequences of my signing a criminal
complaint: (1) the defendant may be arrested and placed in custody; (2) the
arrest if proved false may result in a lawsuit against me; (3) if I have sworn
falsely I may be prosecuted for perjury; (4) this charge will be prosecuted
even though I might later change my mind; (5) witnesses and complainant will be
required to appear in court on the trial date regardless of inconvenience,
school, job, etc.
Following is a true statement of the events that led to filing this charge.
I (have)(have not) consulted with a prosecuting authority concerning this incident.
On the ____ day of ___________, 19__, at _______________________.
(location)
_____________________________________________________________________
Signed _______________________________
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____ day of ___________, 19__.
______________________________________
Judge
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj2.1
http://tinyurl.com/crrlj21c
Doug, this article does more harm to the our campaign then anything I think I have ever read! There is so much inaccuracy, I don’t even know where to start. Being the chair of our pooled caucus, Ron Paul people were treated with just as much respect as supporters from any other campaign, and I heard the same come from every other caucus chair in Snohomish.
I personally have worked VERY HARD in the last 4 years trying to build unity in our party, especially between the established republicans, and the libertarian Republicans. Reading something like this which only works to reverse all of that work I have done, which makes me very sad.
What is MOST harmful about this article is the way that Olga, Dullain, and Jim Kellet are portrayed as such evil people who are just out-to-get Ron Paul people, and that couldn’t be further from the truth! I know them all, and they have absolutely nothing against Ron Paul supporters. We all worked tirelessly to pull these caucuses off, and for those who don’t know, Olga is spending ALL over her vacation days to work at the county HQ office to help process all of the paperwork in the next 3 weeks before the county convention. Are you up there volunteering? Are any of you??? No, you’re not. It’s terribly unfair to criticize someone so harshly who dedicates so much of their life to help fight off the liberal mindset which is taking this country over.
To all who have read this article, I assure all of you that the people running our county party are highly ethical, and have no intentions of committing fraud or anything else. Bill Cooper, our county chair, has dedicated his job to upholding free and fair elections, and he has done that very well so far! He and Olga INSISTED that 3 supporters from every campaign come and monitor the counting of the results on Saturday, and Ron Paul was very well represented there. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of the delegate counts, then please, they would LOVE to have you come to the county office and come help process some of the paperwork yourself.
In the meantime, I pray that everyone who ISN’T Doug Parris strive for respect and decency within our party. Live by the Reagan rule, and do not speak ill of any fellow Republican. We can fight for Ron Paul and maintain a high level of dignity at the same time. That is the only way we will win over supporters in the future. . . . NOT by writing articles like this.
Mike, you need to begin thinking in factual terms, not vague and emotional images projected by your imagination. Allow me to help you with some quesitons:
1. Who wrote the article you are criticizing?
2. You say, “There is so much inaccuracy, I don’t even know where to start.” But why didn’t you start? You don’t list even ONE inaccuracy in the article.
3. If the two groups of Republicans are the “establishment” and the “libertarians” who wrote this: “Our party now has a nominee in Senator John McCain, but our work is not done. To understand the unique challenge we are facing as Republicans this year, please see the text below… from the Ron Paul campaign, describing how a small group of antiwar radicals who are not actual Republicans hijacked the… caucus by lying about their beliefs and agenda. They hate our party, and everything you believe in.” ? Hmmm?
4. If, in fact, “the people running our county party are highly ethical, and have no intentions of committing fraud” why are they lying to keep the election records secret? and
5. Why did they lie to prevent the votes being tallied in the pooled caucuses?
6. Why did you single me out for special condemnation?
7. Why did Olga, on her facebook page, praise Fredi Simpson’s speech condemning “libertarian Republicans” and making
driving them out of the Party top priority?
People have a right to report what happened to them at their caucuses. They have a right to point out when they were not treated fairly, or when they were refused THEIR right to have the ballots counted right there at their caucuses, which happened throughout the county (not at all caucuses, as pointed out, some counted the votes there on site). There was no rule against that. There was no rule or law against people having a table at the caucus location for their candidate. If you don’t want bad press, then don’t lie and make up arbitrary rules. Simple. Polling the Chairs on whether they did a good job is not a way to get an accurate view. Of course they are going to say they did a “great job”
The people have a right to take photographs of paperwork at the caucuses. There was no rule against it. In 2008 that paperwork was provided to ALL THE OTHER CAMPAIGNS EXCEPT THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN. If you are worried about your name and address being seen by the public or by the campaigns, then DON’T RUN FOR THESE OFFICES.
It was the McCain and Huckabee campaigns that used these lists to call Ron Paul delegates in 2008.
This article was not written by Doug Parris, it was just reporting what people said happened to them.
Mike, I am sure that you ran a fair caucus, as did many of the other chairs and people are weighing in on that. And just because people want checks and balances on elections is no reason to treat them badly and is no reflection on people working for an honest process. Ronald Reagan himself said it best, “Trust, but verify.”
I think more damage is done by the Party to itself, when party officials lie, than people reporting on when they lie. Just because people “worked very hard” does not give them the right to lie. Maybe next time they will work very hard not to lie.
I have heard a lot more stories than this from the various caucuses. A lot more reporting from other counties. There are reams of information. You were only at your caucus, you did not witness the others, and cannot speak to what happened there. We are the political police. The Chairs of the various caucuses are there to ensure a fair process so that the people’s business can be facilitated, they are not Dictators who get to arbitrarily DECIDE what they want to do. If someone makes a motion, then the body gets to vote on it. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If the Chair doesn’t allow that, THAT IS CORRUPTION of the process. We see this attitude throughout the Party Process where the leadership just up and ignores Robert’s Rules because most of the people participating don’t know the rules and can be easily intimidated. They ASSUME that the Chair has some sort of dictatorial power, when they DO NOT.
As far as people being nice, well, maybe they are nice to to you and that is all good and fine. You should hear the reports back to me about what they say about me and others behind our backs. While it just makes me laugh, there is nothing “nice” about it. There has been a concerted effort, well orchestrated, to keep Constitutional Conservative out of the party. If you aren’t aware of this, then you have not been paying attention.
As far as volunteering, I helped with the 10th LD caucus (which was totally open and fair as reported). I brought a sound system and mics, helped clean up, others manned the sign ins and helped with the planning, etc. If they had asked the Ron Paul people to volunteer I am sure they would have had their help. So your line that none of us volunteered is wrong. When people have volunteered in the past, some were treated so badly, that they didn’t wish to participate again.
As far as coming together to defeat the “liberal” mindset, with candidates like Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, who are very much liberal, status quo, big government, big banking/wall street/financial shills, the Republican Party is not differentiating itself at all from the Democrats. It’s just more of the same. Different party name, same game. Pull together for what? These people are destroying our country. There’s no “getting together” on that. It’s not going to happen. There’s no cuddling up with these back stabbers, who lie to keep office. Lawbreaking, oathbreaking, big spending Republicans are NOT better than lawbreaking, oathbreaking, big spending Democrats. THEY ARE THE SAME.
I would like to see the Republican Party return to principle and begin supporting Oath keeping, Law enforcing, Constitutional Conservatives. If they don’t do that, then what is the point of the Republican Party?
I’ve been receiving some commentary from the email underground I can share in bits and pieces as it comes in. I thought this was precious:
“Dear Mr. Parris,
I am writing in response to your “Enquirer” style posting “Snohomish County Caucus Shenanigans”. I have heard you speak before and respected your thoughts and comments. Now, I know to question and more likely dismiss all you say and represent. The Masonic Temple meeting room used had concrete block walls painted in beige and a tile floor. Nothing as dramatic as the photo you utilized in your blog… Would President Reagan be proud of your methods?”
~ PCO at Masonic Temple Caucus
I guess you caught us, PCO. LOL.
(note: the caption under the photo has not changed. It was there when “PCO” wrote this)
Another comment from the email underground:
Doug,
The article was spot on with regards to Harvey Airfield’s pooled caucus. I personally volunteered to help sign people in and make signs. The Romney folks were all over it and happy to have me help. Things didn’t get ugly until I put on the Ron Paul sticker. Immediately, those same Romney folks got hostile. Jim Kellet was a special kind of guy. He was having a lively discussion with another Ron Paul supporter about photographing the sign in sheets and he was adamant that he would not allow it. [note: Kellett went out of his way to usurp authority with the sole objective of making it impossible to prove who was legitimately elected at the caucus - Doug]
In a lame effort to make some ridiculous point, he proceeded to ask ME (after I had stepped in to support the taking of photographs), he asked me if I drove the speed limit on the way to the caucus. My initial reaction was “Huh? WTF is this guy asking me that for?” My response was “YES.” When he was shocked by that, he asked if I ALWAYS drive the speed limit. I replied “As a former law enforcement officer, YES. Yes I do.” He seemed to be in utter amazement that anyone would actually drive the speed limit. All of this questioning was his attempt to make a point that sometimes the rules aren’t always followed to the letter of the law. Oh REALLY?
This was yet another example of why we don’t need people like Jim Kellet in any kind of leadership position. His response clearly indicated that he felt he was above the law and that nobody would ever possibly always follow THE LAW (that being a posted speed limit). In other arguments, we asked if someone would be able to accompany the results to the county GOP HQ and Jim’s response was that he simply didn’t have room in the car for anyone else. Horse shit.
When the Ron Paul supporter made the motion to have the votes read out loud, the article was spot on as to Jim’s reaction. He was visibly angry, turning red even. His quote as to why he proclaimed “out of Order” was that it would take too much time to do that and not be fair to the others if we were not able to complete the process and get the votes counted in time. As we all know, we could have held the caucus and those that wanted to stay for the reading of the votes could have done so, and there would have been plenty of time to do that.
This was my first experience participating in a GOP event or caucus. I’ve never been politically active (outside of voting) to this degree. As a whole, I thought this was a great process given the experience I had with the Ron Paul supporters…right up until the caucus itself when the Romney folks decided they had the right to take over and make their own rules. This infuriated me and has made me more committed than ever to remove those kind of people from public office. It is the very reason this country is in shambles. That kind of unprofessionalism and outright corrupt action is what we don’t need in the White House. I’ve served this great nation during the first Gulf War as active Duty Navy and then went on to serve in the Army working in counter-intelligence. I did not fight for this country to have corruption be the rule of this land.
Army/Navy guy
I can’t speak for what happened at other Caucasus, but I can say as a participant in the 1st District pooled caucus held at the Kenmore Community Center, Chairman John Bush, did an amazing and fair job at holding the caucus.
They had double the number of people expected at the Caucus and not a single person was turned away; they let me help usher people in the door before it was my turn as PCO to conduct my business.
All four candidates had speakers speaking on their behalf including our friend Ron Paul.
Although I caucused for another candidate; everyone had a fair shot to speak, business finished up 29 minutes early and Chairman Bush threw the floor open to ANYONE who wanted to speak about nearly anything, there were some takers and nobody was treated unfairly.
As I said I can’t speak about other districts but in the 1st, everything was done with class and good manners. In the interest of full disclosure I am the elected PCO of Crystal Creek, we had fewer then 10 voters however my two delegates split between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, so there everything was fair.
As for taking pictures of the nomination papers; while I sympathize with the Paul campaign wanting 100% verification on the other hand it’s kind of creepy knowing total strangers have your name, address, and cell phone number. Imagine those pictures being posted on Facebook and going viral? How much hell would that be for the average citizen?
Isn’t part of the Ron Paul ‘Revolution” supposed to be not just about freedom but privacy as well, imagine a bunch of crazy liberals calling every Republican/Conservative in the county to harass them. It can happen if there’s a database of easily transmitted photographs.
Let me not be mistaken I respect Congressman Paul, and share his thoughts about the Federal Reserve as well; I just have some other differences that are not relevant to this post.
Brian Travis
Mr. Travis,
Your experience as related reflects a caucus as it should be run. Nice. I am under no illusion that other observers posting here are not equally as accurate in their recollection.
The one issue which troubles me in your statement reflects a complaint both witnessed and heard from other caucus attendees. That is the RIGHT to photo the sign-in sheets, which right extends to any caucus attendee and is not the arbitrary prerogative of any party official/servant! The official WSRP 2012 Rules of Convention and Caucus, faced with extensive evidence of cheating in 2008, provide for such openness. That is good. It also is possible you were unaware of this.
Keep in mind, when reading the word ‘servant’ above, in reference to officials in the party, it is relationship to the caucus. That body is the fundamental authoritative body of electorate, in determining the next president and the ultimate direction in which this country moves!
If there were a rule created to ‘shadow the proceedings’ of the caucus from light and scrutiny, it would first need to be submitted to the RNC the previous October along with all the other rules adopted by the WSRP central committee. Once having been submitted, the party is bound! Only the state convention can change the rules after that.
Attempting to create rules for limiting rights and freedoms of individuals has been long determined as repugnant to our free Republic. A party corporation privileged by the people of this state, and by it’s constitution, in being allowed to participate in the electoral process, and enjoying benefits as such, is therefore bound to standards which serve to protect the rights of the few, the electorate, the people, from the otherwise ‘mafia’ style co-opting of the nomination process… a process best described as ‘Stalinesque’! It has been done before, in the 20th century, and to the detriment of hundreds of millions!
Consider your paragraph:
“As for taking pictures of the nomination papers; while I sympathize with the Paul campaign wanting 100% verification on the other hand it’s kind of creepy knowing total strangers have your name, address, and cell phone number. Imagine those pictures being posted on Facebook and going viral? How much hell would that be for the average citizen? ”
Though you give a statement in support of limiting rights, I find it more an excuse rather than a reason. It is said the former is easy to find, but the latter much harder!
The statement is based upon fallacies:
“…total strangers have your name, address, and cell phone number.”
This is illogical. You subjectively miss-characterized caucus attendees who live in your precinct, registered voters willing to be Republicans supporting a presidential candidate, as just the opposite. Rather, you imply adversaries, enemies, or stalkers!
Further, all your neighbors who form a cross section of the electorate, in addition to their right to see this list, voluntarily give out their ‘private’ information. Of course it follows that it is to be seen and read by all in attendance, just as it appears on the sign-in sheet. It is then taken and used by the party for every imaginable money raising cause or even scam, for every imaginable big government agency, politician, or contributor by virtue of either having bought the list, or by being politically connected to it’s custodian!
You miss-characterize your neighbors electoral status, from keepers of the party and watchmen on the walls, down to the level of parasites or stalkers! This is an appellation, I might add, more accurately deserved by a party having every intention of making that data go viral in political circles… very select circles!
Further, the last statement miss-characterizes your neighbors in attributing to them an intent to make miserable the lives of their fellow caucus goers, when in fact they intended to be the watchmen on the walls, the same as our church deacons, who always count the tithe money… in pairs!
Sadly, it could far more accurately be posited that the party itself fits your last sentence, due it’s well documented efforts to limit personal liberty completely without authority, bullying support for politicians, directed top down against the wishes of a liberty minded electorate! So doing the party injects it’s own bias into the grassroots’ nourishment of the tree of liberty!
Today we see the results!
America, once dressed decently in liberty and prosperity, today wears the king’s new clothes!
I am going to assume that the people who broke the laws, made up their own caucus rules, and went the extra mile to sully the process, are either part of the evil OR got caught doing something they should not have and are taking their orders from some smokey back room.
Dear Mr. Bach and all participants.
I am familiar with the term “watchmen on the wall” and believe me I’d never want to accuse Men of such honorable intent as anything but that; after reading your post I must admit perhaps I’ve fallen victim to the ‘CNN syndrome’ of assuming everyone who wants personal information does so for perverse or nefarious reasons.
I was not aware of the party rule permitting the photographing of the caucus sheets and had I been aware I would have omitted that from my post. Again just because my experience was positive doesn’t mean all others were so I’d never assume the validity of another’s experience based upon my own.
As for Olga & Dullain, I’ve met them both and they’ve always been the nicest and kindest of ladies on a social basis; again I speak of my own experiences and nothing beyond that; as a Christian I try never to give false witness but only witness and in my limited observations these things I have said are true.
I’ve been a loyal reader of The Reagan wing since 2007 and have learned much from Mr. Parris and the other contributors, I’ve never posted before because I simply wanted to enjoy the education, I only did so this time because I actually had something to offer.
Yours Truly,
Brian Travis
This counting process is THE part that is the most fishy and contentious
The WA GOP needs *simple* and *transparent* counting rules. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! The counting of delegates after each caucus was contentious in 2008. It’s the same in 2012.
The current system tends to be inefficient, confusing and secretive. That’s a poorly designed system.
Myself and one other computer geek could come up with a better counting system in a few hours.
—-
As Ron Paul has said about his louder and angrier supporters, “that’s no way to make friends and influence people”. (sorry, I can’t find that particular youtube video otherwise I’d link).
I agree with the general criticism; sometimes these GOP counts seem fishy (based on my own expereince in 2008).
I agree with the general counter-criticism; throwing around suspicions and name-calling is counter-productive and divisive.
Grass-roots politics is a time-consuming volunteer position. Even the chair-people are not experts on the rules. They are under a lot of pressure so they too will get emotional. Give them a break and try to work with them.
For me in 2012, I found Mathew Thomas, 43rd Leg. District and his volunteers worked hard and were courteous to everyone. Mathew Thomas had an inviting attitude toward requests to witness the counting. I felt much better about where my vote went.
I’m surprised with all the drama at some Caucus locations, nobody has video. It’s irrefutable proof of bad behavior. Anything else is just biased personal observation. Come on folks, we’re smarter than that.
Video would be nice, but witnesses can testify as to FACT, and video has practical problems. Non-delegates to Party events frequently have no direct access to the events and delegates, themselves, have another job they should be doing. Neutral third parties frequently object to video motivated by vague fears of its intent. It is sometimes regarded, irrationally, as a hostile act and that is a liability in a deliberative body capable of making rules driven by perception and where the videographer might want to win a motion or get elected to something.
The above article states that Dullain “decided to come out screaming and tell the guy he that he could not do that. It was “against the rules” and she would have him physically thrown out if he didn’t pack up and leave. Dullain was lying. There are no such rules.”
I was at the Mill Creek Elementary Precinct Caucus when the RP gentleman was asked to move his table and it did not go down as is characterized here. When we arrived his table was inside the building, defintely not within the 100 foot guideline, so he was actually “against the rules.”
I heard no “screaming!” I did feel the tension, but we were all under a lot of pressure to get things set up and we had no idea how many people would be arriving at that point. The fact that this situation is mischaracterized leads me to wonder if the other situations may also be exaggerated.
I am new to political involvement, but it seems to me that there is an effort on both sides to continue this tension unnecessarily. I haven’t been around to experience first hand the behaviors that have set the stage for this environment, but don’t you think it’s time we conservatives try to get along. Maybe both sides could make an extra effort to communicate with each other in advance so that this tension might be alleviated.
I think running the captioned photo of Dullain is very sophomoric and agree with Mike Chittick that this is not helping our cause.
It would be helpful if both “sides” would get together in advance of these events and sort out the rules and any objections to them so that these situations could be avoided. It seems to me that there is an effort on both sides to continue the tension. If the same amount of effort would go into working together, we would all be better off.
I honestly don’t know why anyone would elect a Republican, if the Republicans can’t demonstrate a willingness to work together. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to someone like me who wants to see conservatives elected.
I can just hear those of you who support RP saying – the other candidates aren’t real conservatives. Perhaps not, but this combativeness isn’t getting him any more delegates.
I had some great young family people attend my Precinct Caucus and I really fear that if they and folks like them are exposed to this sort of nonsense it will turn them off and out of the Party.
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Sumpter,
I understand that you are well-meaning, but you have allowed your preference for an imaginary world to overrule your reason. You know nothing of the things to which you speak.
The insiders at the RNC decided that John McCain was their candidate for the 2008 Presidential nomination by 2005. Unpopular among Republicans, generally, despised by conservatives, specifically, McCain could not muster more than about 25% of the support of the Republican base. In a large field of well-financed RINOs the unprincipled Pragmatists settled on a single strategy to collect the Party, not around McCain, not around Republican principles (they had just spent 8 years toppling “principles” as the center of the organization), but around a brilliant strategy once used by Joseph Goebbels in Germany. Goebbels used it on the Jews. The GOP/Left McCain team used it on Ron Paul supporters. Concurrent with vicious behind-the-back slanders and open hatred of Paul supporters, the strategy involved massive violation of Republican Party Rules, ballot fraud, shutting down speeches, illegally controlling nominations and the answer given to anyone questioning any of this was that it was done to protect the Motherland, er, I mean the Republican Party from the Jews, er, I mean the Ron Paul Supporters. You had to vote for the McCain slate to protect the Party from Ron Paul, the nut and his crazy, one-eyed, lying disruptive paulbots. One example of the pogrom was the intentional destruction of Republican candidates for public office if they had endorsed Ron Paul. Dullain Ehrlich participated in this campaign and her chosen successor was Olga Farnam. Following the close of the 2008 Presidential election, since there was no longer a “Paul Campaign” to target, they used the term “libertarian” as the “star of david” labeling to brand their internal enemies and attempt to drive them from the Party.
Now you come along, justifying their cheating and lies and asking, Rodney King-like “why can’t we all just get along?”
Justifying their cheating? Yes. You say, “When we arrived his table was inside the building, defintely not within the 100 foot guideline, so he was actually “against the rules.”
THERE WAS NO RULE AGAINST BEING IN THE BUILDING. THERE WAS NO “100 FOOT GUIDELINE”
That is a lie and YOU are repeating it. You are in danger of being one of the well meaning people who gets used because you’ve been easily duped by “nice people.” You need to learn the truth before you open your mouth. Those who don’t take the time to find the truth are called “useful idiots.”
Why does Mr. Chittick side with known liars, slanderers and cheaters? Why does Mr. Chittick find it more offensive to expose evil than to do evil?