Clark County GOP blames delegates for their own incompetence?

To:       Anyone and everyone who cares about the truth.  Please tweet, post to facebook, call talk radio and write letters to the editors to honestly explain your 1st hand experiences as a delegate to the Clark County, WA Republican Convention!  Please read and comment upon the Columbian article I’ve linked to in this email.

Everyone who was at the county convention knows that ALL the delays in voting were caused by incompetent running of the convention by the GOP officials in charge of running it, and NOT by ANY delaying tactics of ANY legislative delegation during their efforts to vote.  GOP Officials have been quoted in the Columbian as claiming otherwise.

EVERYONE knows that we were not allowed to start voting until the credentials committee reported, and that the credentials committee could not report until the alternates had been seated, AND THAT THE ALTERNATES WEREN’T SEATED UNTIL AFTER 4:00 PM and the credentials report did not arrive until significantly later than that.

I can tell you 1st hand that in District 17 there was not ONE SINGLE EFFORT by ANYONE from ANY GROUP OF DELEGATES to delay ANYTHING.  I cannot vouch for the party officials however, because I was not witness to what caused them to delay voting for 5 HOURS, so I cannot say whether it was done intentionally or simply due to gross incompetence.  I can tell you that I personally spent a major part of my day trying to identify bottlenecks in processes and offer ideas and solutions and a lot of assistance to everyone involved.

I don’t know what the actual hang-up in seating the alternates was because nobody would tell me.  But I know that the seating of alternates and the credentials report were the PRIMARY REASON voting didn’t start until well after 4PM (5pm?).  WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WAS THAT?  WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT?  CERTAINLY NOT THE DELEGATES WAITING PATIENTLY IN THEIR RESPECTIVE GROUPS!

But EVERYONE knows that the following statement attributed to Brent Boger by The Columbian is UNTRUE:

“Brent Boger, the rules chairman, said late in the afternoon that the process was taking so long because Paul supporters were trying to block would-be Romney delegates, and Romney, Gingrich and some Santorum supporters were trying to block would-be Paul delegates.”

Those were the goals of the respective delegate slates, but had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DELAYS.

<see additional information added at end of article>

Unless Mr. Boger is referring to something going on in the process of seating alternates, this is a completely false statement and everyone who was there knows it.  If Mr. Boger was referring to the process of seating alternates and the subsequent credentials report, then he should not have allowed the lie of blaming delegations to be perpetrated by such ambiguity.  If he was actually unambiguous and it is the Columbian who is creating the “blame the delegates” byline, then we must lash back against the Columbian through comments on this article, tweets and letters.  If he was misquoted by the Columbian, then I want to hear him say so.

But the article certainly seems like the party officials are trying to blame the delegations for the delay.  SHOW ME ONE MOTION ON THE RECORD FROM ANY DELEGATION THAT COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS A DELAYING TACTIC.  In the 17 District, we didn’t vote on ONE SINGLE PROCEDURAL MOTION the entire time (other than to skip speeches prior to the 2nd round of balloting – a TIME SAVING MOTION), and as a county body the ONE AND ONLY MOTION WE VOTED ON after we broke into our districts was to extend the convention 2 hours SO WE COULD VOTE – and by the way, that extension was opposed by the Romney delegates.  Yes:  An extension of time so that delays caused by mismanagement of the convention would not prevent us from voting was OPPOSED by the Romney delegates.

Please circulate this information with your own comments – agreement or disagreement.  I know there was contention between the Romney people and the other delegations, but for the most part that contention was very respectful.  But we should ALL be concerned about a party whose officers will not take accountability for their own problems and instead blame their delegations.   The Romney people created a slate, and so the other delegations created a slate of their own.  The Romney strategy did not prevail.  That is just the nature of politics – there are winners and losers in any battle and as long as the game is played honestly and forthrightly and by the rules and we are being respectful of each other, then we are still ultimately on the same team.

But when incompetence on the part of the party is covered up by trying to blame the delegation who entrusted them with the process, and when they try to divert the focus from their errors by creating a fictitious blame game between coalitions within their delegations, it sounds analogous to a class warfare tactic more akin to OBAMA than anything conservative republicans should be fomenting.

If GOP Officials will not take accountability for their own actions, its time for them to leave their positions of so-called leadership.  In fact, its just plain time for Establishment GOP Officials to leave and make room for people who will allow the people of the party to dictate their own destinies.

-Christian B, Santorum Supporter, District 17


<additional information – 04/01/2012 – 9:30 pm>

And to additionally clarify, it is well known that the “Open Convention Slate” designed to deny would-be Romney delegates was being supported by a coalition of Paul AND Santorum supporters which is why it proved successful.  Based upon the voting I witnessed, a very significant majority of Santorum supporters joined the Paul supporters in voting the Open Convention Slate which in District 17 elected Santorum, Paul and Gingrich delegates and elected zero Romney delegates.  The Paul supporters were voting the Open Convention Slate and electing Santorum and Gingrich delegates.  I was told that Romney received zero delegates from District 18, and with the exception of the last round of voting in District 49 (the outcome of which is unknown to me), the first three rounds of voting in District 49 also yielded zero Romney delegates.  The denial of Romney delegates is a huge story conveniently omitted from the Columbian article.  Doesn’t it fit with what the establishment wants publicized?

12 thoughts on “Clark County GOP blames delegates for their own incompetence?”

  1. “I cannot support their candidate, but I’ve made a conscious decision to support them, and I believe that action will go a long way to encourage them to support us.”

    As a Paul supporter, I completely echo this sentiment. I go to church with Santorum folks; we are people cut from the same cloth who have made a different conclusion on certain issues, specifically on foreign policy. I am not going to change my views on the wars, but locally, there is absolutely no reason why we can’t work together, we started the Tea Party together, and I think a lot of this divisive rhetoric has been a ploy to keep us from doing just what we did at the convention. The warning shot we fired on Saturday has these firmly entrenched party folks scrambling for damage control. I would love to keep this going.

  2. In the 1st district there was delays, in particular by the Paul supporters. Interruptions, cheering everyone of their candidates for state delegates, etc. It’s fine to be enthused, it’s another when it leads to delays. The convention was still going when we left at 10:15PM.

    The Santorum-Paul alliance was ridiculous on its face. It’s one thing to promote denying delegates to Romney, it’s another to align yourself with a group that from everything I’ve heard, has no interest in supporting the final GOP candidate, whomever it is. That in itself says, it’s either Paul or Obama. So why would you make an agreement with a group that in ’08 made a mockery of the state convention and most assuredly will do the same in ’12?

    1. Thank you for your comment, Ed.

      One thing that jumped out at me is when you said “from what I’ve heard”. I must say that my experience with the Paul people in District 17 was 100% contradictory of all the mis-characterizations and maligning I’ve heard from the establishment GOP and reiterated by others.

      This alliance turned out to be an opportunity to foster mutual respect and trust, and forge a path where we can carry many big issues of mutual interest. It is clear to me that one strategy of the establishment has been trying to promote their agenda by demonizing one of the most enthusiastic and organized factions within our party.

      Every group has its share of kooks which are an embarrassment to the majority of that group. I’ve seen good Christians painted with the racism of Christian Identity, we as Republicans in the past were painted with the vulgar words of David Duke, and I’m not going to stand by and let the GOP establishment paint the Paul people with the brush of some tinfoil hat wearing kook that has grabbed onto their coat tails. I’ve had it. It is time we all defend “the other guy”. We must “Hang together or surely we will hang separately”. Given the way people in our own party speak of the Paul people, is it any wonder there are some so frustrated that they are having difficulty considering voting for our ultimate nominee?

      This alliance was an opportunity to rectify that problem, to act in unison against what I see as the poison of moderat-ism — the promotion of lukewarm pablum which has brought us “the only one who can win” so many times…. It gave us Bob Dole, John McCain, and specifically told us NOT to elect Ronald Reagan.

      I have come to the point where I believe marginalizing and mis-characterizing the most organized and enthusiastic grass roots group we’ve seen in a long time is part of their planned means by which to continue to further their goals.

      Its time we fight back. Everyone from the Paul camp I was dealing with was honorable, respectful, intelligent, rational…. everything I’ve been told they are not. I’m not going to let the establishment spotlight some kook and tell me he represents the whole group. Those days are over.

      The best way to encourage Paul people to support an eventual nominee if it is someone other than Paul is to treat them with the respect they deserve, and engage in friendly and honorable debate where appropriate.

      I cannot support their candidate, but I’ve made a conscious decision to support them, and I believe that action will go a long way to encourage them to support us.

      I for one would vote for Paul over Obama without hesitation. I’ll start there and give them the opportunity to follow.

      Thanks for your comments!

      1. Appreciate your comments and insight; it was not our experience regarding the Paul supporters. We happened to set up in an area surrounded by them and while they were ‘energized’ for their candidate, it was “from what I heard” is what made our determination as to where their loyalties were in the end. The Santorum-Paul ‘slate’ as it were was woefully in favor of Paul to the tune of 34-10 delegate/alternates. In my opinion, Santorum’s went at the alliance from a position of weakness instead of strength. He’s got far more national delegates and better chance of taking Romney on directly than Paul. Had they approached Paul’s group with their candidates similarities and joined forces to minimize Romney delegates, thus giving Santorum a bigger piece of the pie of delegates, it might have worked. Since our experience with the Paul supporters, here and at the district caucus was anything but positive aside from their energy, we had no interest in throwing in with their camp.

        1. Hi Ed,

          In Dist 17 the so-called ‘unity slate’ offered by Romney allocated 12 slots to Santorum and 17 slots to Romney. The ‘open convention slate’ was organized between regional Paul leaders and a national Santorum rep the Santorum campaign flew out here last Friday. Our ‘open convention slate’ amounted to the following allocations:

          Paul – 13
          Santorum – 10
          Gingrich – 3
          ???? – 6

          I know of at least 1 “?” who was Santorum, even if the other ?s were all Paul, it is a reasonable allotment as Paul delegates definitely outnumbered Santorum. In the end, we were not allowed to finish our voting as the Romney people allowed the convention to shut down, making establishment blunders in management serve the purpose of their candidate. Despite that, here are the results of District 17s open convention slate (unofficial):

          Paul – 4
          Santorum – 10
          Romney – 0
          Gingrich – 1

          Results form the county as conveyed to be by an unofficial source:

          Paul: 38 ————–(16 from the 49th, 18 from the 18th, and 4 from the 17th)

          Santorum: 29 ——-(6 from the 49th, 12 from the 18th, 10 from the 17th, and 1 from the 15th)

          Romney: 6 ———-(5 from the 49th, 1 from ??)

          Gingrich: 3 ——— (1 from the 49th, 1 from the 17th, and 1 from the 15th)

          Keeping in mind that the ONLY WAY Santorum can prevail is to deny Romney delegates, an option skunking Romney even if it results in fewer Santorum delegates is a huge victory for Santorum, which is obviously why his national campaign supported this strategy.

          1. Tread. We’re going to have to agree to disagree. Sure Romney got fewer delegates, Santorum did well but Paul scored big. If we’re being honest here, Romney ultimately is going to get the nomination despite the two-step by national but by no means am I trusting Paul to do anything in the end that will help the GOP; hence my complete rejection of the Santorum-Paul alliance passed off as ‘grassroots’. Astro-turf more like it.

            Furthermore, in Sno. Co. which is where I’m from, both proposals were poorly communicated; few slates of either proposal were in the hands of the Santorum group and by the 3rd ballot for delegates we were being sold the idea that it was a 50-50 split. 34-10 in favor of Paul is not 50-50.

            Prior to the 4th ballot, the Santorum group gets called out to the hallway by a national director, Joel Griffith, for what we thought was just an update. By that time we had only 8 delegates to state but ‘all’ were for Santorum. He and a woman chose to chastise us, blame us for not ‘falling into line’ with the Paul supporters and telling us to vote for his delegates. Not happening. Both slates were thrown down to us that morning and knowing from experience what the Paul group had done in the past told us to run forest run! I’d rather support a slate of Santorum-Romney-Gingrich, knowing at least in the end they’ll vote for anyone BUT obama. What happens in November is what matters most and that is to assure that obama is one-termed.

          2. It sounds like the open convention slate was a little better organized in advance here, and that we had a better opportunity to build some trust and commitment with the Paul people before the convention. Joel made an appearance here last Wednesday to confront the unity ballot when we were being (falsely) told that the Santorum campaign was behind it. I realized the mechanical viability of the open convention plan, but was still skeptical. It wasn’t until the rules guy from the national Santorum campaign was flown out here on Friday that the true credibility of the proposal was realized. That same guy was present during the convention on Saturday as well, and spoke to the entire convention about the open convention slate. So it sounds like we had a much better opportunity to overcome our initial skepticism than you. Believe me, your skepticism is understandable. In our county, the open convention slate was such a success that the Romney people are squealing and squawking because their efforts to completely exclude one delegation turned out to completely exclude them. Their hypocritical cries of unfairness are scorching our ears down here 🙂

            One of my personal goals, at least in our county, is to build camaraderie between us and the Paul people, and transmute that into a joined effort to not only fight the establishment tactics here, but ultimately to join together to defeat Obama in November. So, my question to all is: What is the best course of action to take toward the goal of unifying Paul people against Obama, regardless of the GOP nominee? I will without hesitation vote for Romney over Obama. I will without hesitation vote for Paul over Obama.

            If Paul was the nominee, who would you vote for?

            I believe we need to work toward the goal of recruiting EVERYONE in the GOP to have that ultimate goal, even while we continue to fight for our individual candidates. If Paul goes 3rd party, it should not be because we alienated or abused his people, it should be his own screwed up decision.

          3. Well if Paul were the nominee I’d hold my nose and vote for him just as I did when I voted for McCain. Palin made him far more palatable.

            While I can understand your desire to get the Paul supporters on-board especially to keep them from going 3rd party, I see too many of his group that are too rigid in their support of his platform. One of the issues he stands for that has come up many times are his views on marijuana. Frankly we have far more important issues this country is facing and yet at our district convention, in my precinct, a Paul supporter in his mid-30’s came stoned. I know that may come across as a broad brush but I don’t have confidence in their convictions as a whole as to what’s best for our country. Hope I’m wrong in my assessment.

  3. While I was an alternate for a different candidate in your same district, I totally agree with your assessment of the day. I had to wait until 3:30 pm to know that I was not needed and then GOP leaders told us to go home. Inability to do roll call in a timely fashion was the cause. Especially when looking at the lengthy agenda they had planned to occur afterwards.

  4. Christian, your posts on the web and emails to some of us delegates have been as accurate and unbiased of any I have seen. I too am a Santorum supporter and saw no stalling tactics by RP supporters in the 18th LD. The lack of organization and failure to plan for such a large crowd (when everyone knew it would be a huge crowd) is what seems to be the reason for us to do in 12 hours only half of what we should have been able to do in 10 hours. I do want to thank the delegates for being so patient. It was a very long day for all.

Leave a Reply