Clark County Conservative

What Is This “New Clark County Conservative” Movement?

70 Comments to “What Is This “New Clark County Conservative” Movement?”

1. 
   Tom Sharples
   July 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

   Lew along with many others I was copied on, and finally responded to this set of emails, including the ones you cite above that (inaccurately I might add) lists the candidates that the PCO Liberty Alliance supposedly opposes. Since it’s directly on-topic to your post, here is my email response in its entirety:

   From: Tom Sharples [mailto:sharples8@comcast.net]
   Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 9:48 PM
   To: marlariley@comcast.net
   Cc:
   Subject: Re: Response to: The New Clark County Conservative Movement – Addressing persistent misinformation

   Marla, I’m going to jump in here as one of the incumbent contested PCO’s – who also happens to be a member of the PCO Liberty Alliance. My opposition candidate was asked to run by Dan Barnes. I very much doubt that Dan (or Ryan Hart, with whom I discussed this matter) singled me out, so I, for one, will not suggest there’s a thinly-veiled “grand conspiracy” on Ryan and Dan’s part to eliminate hard-working incumbent PCO’s that happen to disagree with their choice of nominee for President.

   If, prior to recruiting my opponent, Dan had looked into my background and my performance as a PCO:

   http://www.libertypcos.com/precincts/legislative-district-49/precinct-675-Tom-Sharples/

   he would have found that I’m the guy who’s always putting up yard signs, slim-jims, hosting fundraisers, making phone calls, donating $, emailling, posting in support and doorbelling for ALL SORTS of Republican candidates. For example, while still in California I was an early supporter of George Bush and Darrell Issa, and since moving to Washington State have been active in the campaigns of Jaime Hererra, Dino Rossi, Craig Riley, John McCain, Ron Paul, and many others.

   My philosophy is that, as PCO, I should support my personal choice of candidates until the primary or convention process has played out, and then support the party nominee, which I have done without fail for decades. Not every PCO feels the same way. For example, several local PCO’s refused to support Michael Delavar even though he won the primary in his contest against Brian Baird. Nevertheless, I feel that’s the right choice for me, and it’s what my constituents here in 675 have come to expect.

   The underlying point in all of this is to re-emphasis that it’s a serious mistake to paint all member of the PCO Liberty alliance with a broad brush, and especially to assign “fringe” or “devious” motivations to those of us who have worked within the system for many years and have given countless hours and dollars to important Republican causes and candidates. If you continue to do so, you will succeed only in alienating an increasingly important part of your Republican party – and especially the young, liberty-minded members. I’m 61 years old, and have attended several local Republican events in recent years where I was younger than most other attendees! Is driving enthusiastic young members away from the party so that folks like Brent Boger and Mike Gaston don’t get their feathers ruffled, really the best strategy for the future of the Clark County Republican Party?

   Regards,

   Tom Sharples
   PCO 675
2. 
   lewwaters
   July 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

   Tom, as I have said in the past, you are one of the exceptions, one who isn’t a promote Ron Paul at all cost and oppose any other candidate.
3. 
   Bob Koski
   July 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM

   Great piece here Lew, and good call. I doubt anyone will confuse the two of you, but these people have no right to come even close to using your blogsite name as their own. Its obvious they don’t have the means, talent or the following to carry their own water so they are trying to let you tote some for them.

   So who whistled these basement dwellers up this time???!!

   You and I are in complete agreement about the Paulistinians. These people are social parasites that don’t have the leadership skills to lead a starving dog to a fresh, steaming sausage. They make a great deal of noise, and much like Obama himself, spout off with a lot of cool sounding and refreshing bromides that don’t offer any workable specifics about how to do anything. Let these people take charge and we’ll set the clock back 100 years when everyone had to pack heat in public just to protect themselves.

   Many on the Far Left, particularly in the extreme environmental groups would literally put us all back into the stoneage by banning every modern convenience especially reliable power generation (dams, nuclear, demon coal…). The Paultards who masquerade over on the Far Right would undo Society in other ways, like legalizing all drugs, repealing all laws of nearly every kind and declaring their own warped view of what constitutes “freedom”. In ways there is little difference between the two, even though they fall on the far sides of the political bell curve. At some point the extreme right and the extreme left meet way over on the other side from all of us somewhere….

   Thankfully, none of them are in charge (yet) of making decisions about our Freedom, and sites like your Lew help expose these people for the outright frauds that they are. They have no use for the system we use so they think they have the right to infiltrate it and take it over. Sounds a lot like the Occupunks, doesn’t it??

   And we will have Martin Hash here defending the Paultards in …………..3…………..2……………1…………..
4. 
   K.J. Hinton
   July 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

   Like everything else, it all depends. As an anti-establishment conservative of many years of battle, who has fought for 2 decades to get conservative Republicans elected around here, from Linda Smith to Tom Mielke, my response is this:

   “Is driving enthusiastic young members away from the party so that folks like Brent Boger and Mike Gaston don’t get their feathers ruffled, really the best strategy for the future of the Clark County Republican Party?”

   It all depends.

   If they are scamming control of a party organization to further their Paulbot aims, then I say yes… absolutely.

   Youth and and of itself is no reason to accept or reject anyone. But when the basis for the take over is one thing while the public face of it is quite another, in this instance, the obvious effort of the Paulbots and their enablers to take over a large county political organization as a step towards trying to take over a state for their non-republican, pro-Paul purposes, then yes… it should be stopped at all costs.

   Mark Engleman, one of the drivers of this effort, told us in his initial email that their “binding principles are:”

   • We support a small Federal government – and local control whenever possible
   o And will support party candidates, platforms, and policy that are in reasonable alignment with this statement
   • We seek a local Republican Party that provides an open forum for citizen’s voices
   o And recognizes and properly manage political agendas that mainly benefit politicians and cronies
   • We are conservative
   o However with no litmus test

   Yet there are dozens on the Paulbot hit list, including myself, who absolutely agree with and stand by those very tenets.

   Yet Christian what’s his face has targeted me specifically because of what he claims is my “vitriol,” and my “lack of diversity.”

   Seems I must have failed the litmus test, eh?

   Seems that MY words aren’t suitable as a “citizens voice.”

   Seems that many who’ve signed on to this scam appear to be lying hypocrites. And it seems that, were I as fanatically in support of the Paulistinian self-inflicted suicide movement as I am opposed to it… well, then, I wouldn’t be having this discussion… would I?

   And that’s the problem. Those shilling for Paul, directly or indirectly, have the right to attempt their take over… and that’s what they’re doing here; those paying attention damned well know it. That’s the nature of democracy.

   But what’s lacking to them is the truth. They just won’t admit their true motivation. And if they’re going to be dishonest in a matter like this… then we know much more dishonesty will follow, dishonesty as immoral as, say, Paul’s vote for gender-based abortion.
5. 
   Christian Berrigan
   July 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM

   Lew, if 1/3 or more of the candidates of the PCO Liberty Alliance are not Ron Paul supporters, does your claim of its monolithic Paul-ness still stand? What number of non-Paul PCO Candidates in that group will cause you to re-evaluate your claim? 20%, 40%, 100%? And, is there any means by which you would find it acceptable to try to unite the Ron Paul / Liberty conservatives into the party, or, do you want to just kick them all out? Does kicking them all out — ostracizing them to work against us instead of with us — sound like a good long term strategy for the republican party?
6. 
   K.J. Hinton
   July 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

   I’ll take a swing at this.

   When 2/3rd of the Reichstag were Nazi Party members, did that make the German government a Nazi government?

   Of course it did.

   That 2/3rds of those running for PCO in your group are Paulbots is an acknowledgement that this isn’t even a veiled effort to displace those who frankly think your hero is a complete whack job.

   In politics, 2/3rds of anything is a slaughter. Get 66% of the vote in an election, and it’s an over-the-top landslide.

   You want to “unite” with us?

   Then don’t expect US to pass YOUR litmus test.

   Demand of others that THEY display some level of what you called “diversity” while absolutely ignoring the application of that same requirement on yourself? Then you and your sort have a problem.

   Claiming to, as Mark put it,

   • support a small Federal government – and local control whenever possible
   o And will support party candidates, platforms, and policy that are in reasonable alignment with this statement
   • We seek a local Republican Party that provides an open forum for citizen’s voices
   o And recognizes and properly manage political agendas that mainly benefit politicians and cronies
   • We are conservative
   o However with no litmus test

   And then APPLYING the litmus test you claim doesn’t exist and IGNORING decades of anti-establishment politics because YOU don’t like what I write (not what I DO, but what I WRITE… so much for that open forum for citizen’s voices) is going to result in problems and concerns over questionable veracity… such as that exhibited by what is arguably a direct effort by the Paulistinians to take over the GOP… Engleman’s protestations notwithstanding.

   And yeah; those who are faux Republicans with a hidden agenda?

   That sounds like a GREAT strategy for the GOP… because since you people seem to hate what we stand for, you can always feel free to start your own party if you don’t happen to like the one we’ve got now.

   Since you asked.
7. 
   lewwaters
   July 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

   Christian, any that place Ron Paul above all others when it is clear that he could not win do no one any favors.

   It isn’t up to me to unite with Ron Paulies, but for them to unite with me.

   Paulbots do not seek unity, they seek control. They have for years.

   If you wish to promote a straight Ron Paul ticket, which is your right, start your own party instead of trying from within to weaken one of the two major parties o that one day Paulbots can take over.

   Romney was my second to last choice, but I’ll hold my nose and vote for him.

   Who will you cast your vote for in November?
8. 
   Lisa Phifer Ross Washington State National Delegate for Rick Santorum.
   July 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

   Just for the record…
   The original name for our group formed after the county convention was Clark County Santorum Delegates. You see, on the FreedomConnect site, a group has to have a name. When Santorum dropped out, we grudgingly changed the name to Clark County Conservative Delegates. After the state convention, we were no longer delegates, so we again changed the name to Clark County Conservative Republicans. I am pretty sure there is a group in Nevada named the same thing.
   Some of the members of the CCCR are members of the PCO Liberty alliance. Some are not.
9. 
   lewwaters
   July 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

   And just for the record, you chose the name of this blog, no one contacted me about it.

   This blog has been in existence over 4 years and well known in political circles, even those who oppose it.

   When I chose this name, I did a web search to see if anyone else had it or was using it, none came back.

   What goes on in Nevada is of little concern to me. What goes on in Clark County Washington is.

   So again I state, your group is in no way affiliated with my blog.
10. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM

    Hi Lew,

    To answer your question, I will cast my vote for the party’s nominee, whom I presume will be Romney. You do realize that despite the presumptuous venom directed at me by others, I was a Santorum delegate to the county convention right? (after originally supporting Cain).

    I understand your opinions about some things, but on others you seem to operate on pre-conceived notions about people or their intentions and there is never any leeway for anything to be any different. There is never any possibility for a pre-determined narrative to be fallible, or for an absolute view of something to be capable of absorbing new information. For this reason it has been frustrating to attempt communication with you in an intellectually honest manner.

    Honestly, it seems useless to try to communicate with someone when no matter what I say or do they will simple caste me as a liar or deceiver. What could I possibly ever say that could be taken sincerely, if I’m always caste as a liar or deceiver? It really does make a conversation pointless. I realize I may be blurring some lines between you and a friend of yours, but they have blurred in my perspective so the critique seems appropriate from my seat.

    Anyway, I do appreciate your blog (most of it LOL…), I just really think you’re too set in your assumptions and presumptions of others to make any progress because you simply summarily reject anything they have to say and/or paint them with some pre-determined broad brush. It is quite off-putting.

    Take care,

    -Christian
11. 
    lewwaters
    July 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

    Christian, it is not assumptions when it comes to Ron Paul, it is experience after a few years of vitriolic verbal assaults, one almost resulting in blows in a face to face at the GOP HQ.

    I also base it upon several who have said they will actively sabotage any nominee other than Ron Paul as they can along with the notion that they and they alone know anything. That is why I differentiate between supporters of Ron Paul and Paulbots.

    Sorry, but I give no quarter where Ron Paul is concerned as I see him just as dangerous as Obama and personally, I dislike the underhanded ways Paulbots have decided to manipulate the process to force him onto the ticket when it has been clearly shown he cannot win a national election. I’ve been following and researching him for many years now and he just isn’t what America needs.
12. 
    carolyncrain
    July 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM

    Christian,
    Hi there! Mark Lowenstein gave me my first dose of Ron Paul far left radicals at the caucus cluster. He frightened elderly ladies and called veterans out for “murdering people in foreign countries while fighting unjust and illegal wars”. Is he on your preferred list because I think I saw him there. He told Penny ross and I after the caucus that he would never vote for anyone but Ron Paul and that he did not consider himself a Republican or adher to the party platform. Just saying…..
13. 
    Nick Yonko
    July 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM

    I think its time to release old offenses and truly unite. I have been uninvolved in the political process for years, and Obama activated me with his anti-american politics. In truth, the man is simply a tool – a relatively thick headed activist that has no place in the Presidency and should be impeached. That being said, my vision is going beyond 2012, which I am certain is a Republican year, and moving to 2014 with the campaign against Patty Murray. Are we undermining the power we have as one of the top 10 largest caucuses in the state convention by this in-fighting? I am not a love fest kind of guy, and I welcome the conflict because the issues on the table then get fully vetted – however, I urge you Mr. Waters and the remainder of the Republican establishment in Clark County, WA to sincerely allow the uniting to happen and allow all the voices at the table to be heard. Additionally, I would urge the Ron Paul contingent to build bridges into the establishment without dissolving their unique character. Let’s avoid the strident, absolutist claims about people’s character and focus on the issues. I am a Santorum supporter, now (very grudgingly) a Romney supporter. I personally believe Ron Paul is a nut – I think I have been frank about that position from the beginning of my tenure as an active Republican. However, the people within the Ron Paul contingent here in Clark County are not. They are simply as passionate, committed, focused and convicted as the rest of the establishment are that are offended by them. It is obvious that starting these conversations with a belief that your are ‘right’ without fully vetting the well thought out facts that your opponents bring to the discussion makes you at the very least as bad as you paint them to be. Forgetting the past, ignoring personal offense and analyzing the issues openly both sides will find significantly more similarities than differences. In the few places we are different, let’s follow Ronald Reagan’s lead as was so poignantly pointed out in an email I received a while ago, “Ronald Reagan built a big-tent party by bringing people together that didn’t always agree – they weren’t all social conservatives, they weren’t all fiscal conservatives, they weren’t all defense-minded conservatives… but they agreed on a good deal of the issues in front of them, and the person who is with us 80% of the time is not our 20% enemy.” Both sides need to take that well worded advice.
14. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

    Nick, what you seem to miss is that the effort of this front group is not to “unite,” but to encourage others to move aside and let them take over in an useless effort to impose Ron Paul on the ticket.

    The Paulbots have no interest in assimilating or furthering the Republican Party, even as they say they do. Their goal is to make the CCGOP a 100% pure Ron Paul group, only promoting or supporting those candidates faithful to Ron Paul.

    Nothing is stopping them from “uniting” now by dropping Ron Paul and getting behind, even if begrudgingly, Romney and others in the county running for office as Republicans.

    As I quoted long ago from a pro-Ron Paul forum one such person saying, “I know many of you probably are concerned that, by joining the Republicans you will be assimilated to the point where you may have to sacrifice your principles and beliefs. That is why I urge you to join us because we operate, although within the GOP, completely independent of the party’s leadership. None of our funds go to the Republican National Committee because we are well aware that their agenda is to elect people and not necessarily promote the ideals of liberty and freedom.”

    As for Ronald Reagan, yes he created the Big Tent, but did he bring in people whose goal was to undermine him and displace him for someone unable to win an election?

    If you want unity, then I suggest the group drop their effort to force Ron Paul onto the ticket against the will of a vast majority of voters and begin supporting candidates that are not devotees to Ron Paul instead of actively opposing them.
15. 
    Josephine Wentzel (@Josephine007)
    July 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM

    Lew, I was added in the exchange of emails but refuse to get in the middle of it. I am not a Ron Paul supporter nor am I necessarily an anti-Paul person. And in my humble opinion/experience, unless there’s some sort of miracle that take place—and I mean a major miracle— there’s no way that Mr. Paul could ever win a presidential race so its really a non-issue for me.

    I am glad to see that people are active about change. Besides, some of the PCO’s mentioned in the email are blatant moderates who support democrats openly so I am glad to see they are being challenged. Let’s just hope that these ‘fireballs’ make it beyond the Primary and vote for the winner rather than running off on some write in campaign suicide.

    With all the important races going on in this state and country, I only wish that we could unite as ONE Party because TOGETHER we could accomplish much. But, as long as there is a division going on, we will continue to toss our votes to the wind and unintentionally surrender seats to the liberals. I always said that liberals in this state almost always win by default. What we are witnessing in these email exchanges is a perfect example of how that happens.

    I have been ACTIVELY involved in politics well over 20 plus years so I have seen it all. Trust me, this is nothing new and someday this too shall pass. It’s funny how some of us are actively productive year after year after year, (PCO or not) and are usually left standing ALONE in the gaps when the ‘furor between party members’ clear … <<<>>>

    THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE ….
    Psalms 146:3 “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”
16. 
    Tom Sharples
    July 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    Lew says: “Nick, what you seem to miss is that the effort of this front group is not to “unite,” but to encourage others to move aside and let them take over in an useless effort to impose Ron Paul on the ticket.”

    Lew, you seem to miss the clearly, and now repeatedly, stated point, that the vast majority of Liberty PCO’s including Christian and myself have plainly signaled their intention to support and vote for Mitt Romney as the presumed Republican candidate.

    The PCO Liberty movement is not about trying to get Ron Paul on the ticket. That ship has sailed. RP delegates to the national convention will vote as they choose regardless of what happens in Clark County with PCO contests. It’s too late for the local PCO’s to have any influence on that process.

    However, as Josephine and Nick’s postings correctly suggest, it is not to late to get rid of do-nothing PCO’s and RINO’s that clog the system and allow petty autocrats like Brent Boger and his buddies to rule the roost. The voters are smart enough to retain good incumbent PCOs even in the face of this challenge. But the deadwood needs to go. The local party desperately needs to be shaken up and needs new blood.
17. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM

    Tom and Nick, from Lew’s response to Nick you can clearly see the attitudinal presumptions I tried to speak to in my last post to him. I mean really — there is not even any kind of mechanism by which any number of PCOs can force any person on any presidential ticket. It is simply ludicrous to suggest because it is a mechanical impossibility. The fact that he sticks to such a fantastically fabricated line, and worse, apparently believes it, is just testimony to my assertion that there is no useful conversation that can take place here. He has a pre-determined narrative, such a high percentage of which is based upon presumption and to which he holds such unwavering belief, that it is probably best to just not worry about it. I hesitate to even ask him exactly how 222 monolithic PCOs of any stripe could force anyone on the presidential ticket? The reason I hesitate to ask, is I should probably be focusing my efforts in more productive ways, like our campaign effort.

    As for what one person says on one forum being attributed to a large group of people — Lew, you’ve got some friends that were I to attribute their quotes to your thought processes and beliefs, I think you would be highly offended and object to such shallow behavior on my part.

    If anyone wants to talk about our association’s published objectives (http://www.libertypcos.com/pco-liberty-alliance-objectives/), and whether or not they have merit and/or whether you concur or disagree, I will devote time to that discussion. But if they are just going to continue to throw buckets of paint, I’m just going to go take a shower.

    Tom, it is only through our victory and subsequent honorable, intelligent and rational behavior and leadership moving forward that such people will be proven wrong. And even with the proof and clarity of hindsight and history, some will amazingly still not change their opinions, and we will just have to deal with that.

    -Christian
18. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    The PCO Liberty movement is not about trying to get Ron Paul on the ticket.

    While that may be true on the surface, Tom, you have to admit there is a strong call amongst the Ron Paul Camp to go to Tampa and cause a disruption (or whatever PC word is being circulated today) to gain Ron Paul influence in the convention, in spite of his inability to win a single state primary in 3 tries.

    While I have mentioned that point more than once (forcing him on the ticket), my biggest concern is not Ron Paul ever being President, but Obama remaining as President as the stated position of many Paulbots has been to undermine the GOP should Ron Paul not be placed on the ticket. These same ones also are very loudly advocating either writing him in or voting third party which will draw votes away from Romney, giving Obama an edge.

    Another year I might support such a view, but this election is too critical to be making a statement.

    The PCO Liberty Movement is about wresting control of the party and acquiring the power to begin rewriting the party platform to be in line with the views of Ron Paul.

    What kind of Republican will support legalizing drugs, approving homosexual marriage, welcoming Islam, a bottom up move to turn a blind eye and don’t worry about Iran gaining nukes, disavow Jews & Israel and much more?

    Christian, why do you and others posting at the PCO Liberty site take such lengths to avoid mentioning Ron Paul and substitute his name with “a candidate of the people?” Yes, you all support him, your right, but many other people support someone else.

    We all know you are pro-Ron Paul and wish to impose his ideals, but why try to mask what your effort is about?

    I especially like from you, “And even with the proof and clarity of hindsight and history, some will amazingly still not change their opinions, and we will just have to deal with that.”

    Yet, when several point out the fallacy of Ron Paul’s positions on the fed, Letters of Marque and Reprisal, isolationalism, ignoring threats abroad and much more, who is it that “ will amazingly still not change their opinions?”

    Some even go so far as to deny historical facts, claiming they never happened.

    And we read at the link I placed in the post from the Daily Paul,

    “If enough of our supporters within a county become PCOs, we will be able to elect a Ron Paul Chairman, Vice Chairman, and State Committeeman for the County GOP.”

    “This is our ONE chance in Washington to take over the GOP for the next two years. If we miss this opportunity, we will have to wait another two years.”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/233233/wa-state-urgent-file-as-candidate-for-pco

    Are we to believe you are not in alliance with that?

    Josephine, we can unite as one, but many Ron Paulies refuse to support anybody but someone from within the Ron Paul camp.

    Michael Delavar did so in 2008 while demanding he receive the party’s support.

    Some of the candidate’s name listed in the post are good people, but opposed because they do not support Ron Paul’s views.

    I especially like in the email sent out how this PCO Alliance has no litmus test, but opposes people like Kelly Hinton because, even though he stands for what they say they do, doesn’t pass their litmus test.

    And now we see where Brandon Vick, like him or not, has a clear run into the seat Ann Rivers held, a Ron Paul supporter has launched a write-in campaign against him.
19. 
    calleduntoliberty
    July 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    Christian and Tom: Do you mean to tell me that PCOs who are seated in December don’t have anything to do with the presidential elections in November? I am confused…I was promised a ‘Ron Paul takeover’, but it kinda seems like you are saying that isn’t possible or…er…relevant. I’m feeling very disillusioned all of a sudden. Next, you’ll be telling me that this has nothing to do with foreign policy.
20. 
    Tom Sharples
    July 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

    Called, we feel your pain, and your cognitive dissonance too. Try as we might, we just couldn’t get the required time-travel component working correctly. Sorry about that 😉
21. 
    Nick Yonko
    July 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

    In answering Mr. Waters, I can only say that I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but am running for PCO. Additionally, I think your response to me brought nothing new to the table – your arguments have been oft repeated and with vigor. I applaud your conviction. The point I believe you are missing, and that I am well aware of, is that from 2008 until now, and beyond, the PCO Liberty Alliance will eventually take over the party – not by design but by attrition. We are all younger than you are. Time is on our side.

    That being said, it is a Pyrrhic victory. We need the old guard as much as the old guard needs new blood. Divided we will fall, and continue to be a party of old guard conservatives that seem out of touch with the poor, minorities, and blue collar workers. The Paulbots, as you call them, are that part of the party that are the poor, minorities, and blue collar workers. Not all, but a good number. They adhere to Dr. Paul’s philosophies for two reasons – they have been beaten into the ground by the establishment, or they believe in Dr. Paul because although he is not the most articulate tool in the shed, he is the only candidate that is willing to sacrifice his career for what he believes is right. That is a rare character trait in politics. Granted, the man is not a saint – and he has certainly done things to further his career, but he is definitely anti-establishment and that appeals to the young.

    The young vote for principles – not relationships. Ronald Reagan was a candidate that unified his relationships with his principles without apology. John McCain, Mitt Romney – not so much. It is hard to pin down who they are and what they truly stand for. I am voting for Romney, without doubt and with hope for his success, but I am focused on keeping his feet to the fire going forward.

    What I want eventually is local candidates that I can be proud to vote for. In my yard I have signs for Don Benton, Julie Olson, Michael Baumgartner, Paul Harris, and Shahram Hadian. Am I Republican? Unquestionably. am I in support of the Liberty Alliance principles? Indubitably. Together, those two hats will see me voting for Hadian in primary, and the candidate in the general election – which will probably be McKenna. Kick me out of the party if you want, to your detriment.
22. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    Yes Nick, it’s really noble to give up a career, when you are approaching 80 years of age and sitting on upwards or more than $5 Million.

    That being said, you too fail to note that I often make a distinction between Paulbots and Ron Paul supporters.

    The other thing that you do not pay attention to is that I resigned from the CCGOP in protest in 2010.

    Every body supports candidates for their own reason, but I have noticed some in the Ron Paul camp, the more vitriolic ones, are not as altruistic as you believe. They are the ons who have said they will sabotage any other GOP candidate. They are the ones ready to cause disruption in Tampa.

    Enjoy your youth while you have it. Believe me, you are not the first to believe you have all the answers and that the “old guard” is ignorant. But, most of us outgrew that in our early twenties, realizing that “old guard” knows a lot more than we realized and had experiences we were yet to realize.

    Experience is a great teacher, that is why accurate history is important. That is also a part of why I oppose Ron Paul, seeing how he tries to manipulate history and return us to a time where our economic upheavals were much worse than we seen so far, even as bad as it is now.

    I applaud you for standing behind candidates not of the Ron Paul camp, but can you say the rest do? I don’t think so.
23. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 6:21 PM

    Lew, the proof you don’t know what you’re talking about is when you say things like “We all know you are pro-Ron Paul and wish to impose his ideals” (speaking about me personally). Lew, you are apparently clueless when it comes to anything about me. Why do you pretend to be an authority on me when we have never even spoken? Have you ever asked me an honest question and accepted an honest answer? Do you have any evidence, personal knowledge, or even gossip about me personally to warrant treating me like a pathological liar? You don’t know me, you obviously don’t know anything about me or you wouldn’t say such a thing. You attribute all these goals which are made out of whole cloth, or based on the statements of others not associated with the PCO Liberty Alliance.

    Will you PLEASE just look at our published objectives and FOR ONCE please comment on those? (http://www.libertypcos.com/pco-liberty-alliance-objectives/)

    That quote from the daily paul site is something put out by some national HQ org or something. When they called the Paul people who we are working with and asked what they could do to help with PCO races, they told them “nothing”.

    I’m sorry, but I really need to exit this conversation if you’re not going to even offer up the possibility that what we say on the website is what we honestly believe. Might it be possible for you to just pretend for 10 minutes that everyone else is not a liar. Please?

    Do you realize out of the tens of thousands of words written on the internet and in a plethora of emails flying around, that other than some people complaining about who we have and have not listed as “preferred” PCO candidates, that there has been NOT ONE WORD, NOT A SINGLE WORD, NOT ONE SINGLE REMARK about ANY article, post, sentence or word published on our website? Doesn’t that strike you as strange, that NOT ONE sentence in the thousands flying around these last few days addresses ONE SINGLE OBJECTIVE, NOT ONE SINGLE ARTICLE? It has all been people throwing buckets of ignorance and presumptions at us, then when we try to defend ourselves or set the record straight, we are directly or by implication called liars, and then — WE ARE ACCUSED of shooting at other Republicans. I mean, other republicans tell us to take off and go form our own party, and somehow WE are the ones that are against unity. Somehow we are the ones that are being divisive. Do you EVER look at your own words through the eyes of others who may be receiving them?

    If you want to comment on our published objectives I will reply. But your “everyone knows” this-and-that neuro-linguistic programming is transparent. If its not that, then its just plain voluntary ignorance.

    I really feel like I’m casting pearls here.
24. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 6:24 PM

    One other thing Lew, if we win and people like Anna Miller, Ryan Hart and Sharon Long are still on the board, what will you say? If all your accusations fail to transpire, what will you say? I want a commitment ahead of time. If all this authoritative accusation is proven wrong – WHAT WILL YOU DO? Will you eat a bug? Will you eat your boot? Will you have any credibility left at all? Will you apologize? Tell me now. Since you are so confident it will not happen, it should be fairly easy for you to make a commitment.
25. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM

    Christian, where do you think I got my notion of you being pro-Ron Paul?

    BY visiting the website and reading what you and others wrote.

    The quotes from Daily Paul is someone in Washington State.

    We read from your website:

    I believe the so-called “Establishment” is a mentality, a culture, and is not based upon any length of time in positions of party leadership.

    Establishment mentality is betrayed by having a primary concern of the preservation of power and/or position, and of winning elections regardless of platform.

    Establishment mentality results in the advocacy of principles and philosophies becoming secondary to winning, and winning elections becomes the primary goal above all else.—

    Once the preservation of power becomes paramount, those who are relying on promoting their ideas rather than conforming to the ideas of others are perceived as a risk to power. The establishment instinctively sets about orchestrating their defeat before they have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Sometimes this is done by characterizing others as “un-electable” or mis-characterizing their ideas in ways designed to marginalize them. Other times they simply promote establishment-preferred candidates with sufficient money to stifle challengers before they can get a foothold in the race.

    Either way, the result is usually the suppression of ideas and candidates which are attempting to rise organically from the people.

    The best way to prevent this from happening, and to wrest control of the primaries from the establishment mentality, is for the people to lead the party. The mechanism by which that takes place at the county level is by a sufficient number of grassroots conservatives becoming Precinct Committee Officers.

    Support your PCO Liberty Alliance Candidates and lets make Clark County a place where grassroots conservative candidates ‘of the people’ have a level playing field in the arena of ideas.

    I believe you recognize who wrote it.

    What makes you think all the candidates opposed or not supported by your alliance are not grassroots or “of the people?”

    Who has been crying the loudest about delegates and their candidate not getting the media coverage or party support they demand he get? Who has it been crying they and they alone are grassroots and “of the people?”

    At least Daniel Poletti actually comes out with mention of Ron Paul, although trying to mask that he is only an example.

    Down in your list of objectives, #11 as a matter of fact, we read, “A Republican Party which is a hospitable place for conservative / grassroots / liberty candidates and activists.”

    Are you going to try to tell us that “liberty candidates and activists” is not the Ron Paul camp? http://libertycandidates.com/
26. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM

    Regardless of what happens, I will continue to expose Ron Paul as long as I am able.

    Worry about your own credibility as more and more wake up to what Ron Paul is really all about how so many of you just like your ears being tickled.

    What happens if you win and never win another election? Or see people leave the GOP in droves?

    You can want in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up the quickest. You make no demands here.
27. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM

    Yay Lew! Thank you for writing something of substance to which I can respond. Your quotes of the ‘what is the establishment’ article are correct, and of course, it is an article I wrote.

    I imagine there are many parts of my definition of ‘the establishment’ in that article with which you probably agree. Your error in your critique is that you suppose I’m talking about Ron Paul. Actually, in everything we are doing we have been focusing through the lens of Clark County politics. That is why our objectives are all related to Clark County. The only way we could begin forming an alliance with these different groups was to have objectives that were irrelevant to presidential politics. Once we put presidential goals aside, it was very, very easy to find agreement on a broad array of subjects. I can’t tell you how many meetings I spoke at where a primary message was that with respect to this alliance and our objectives, “presidential politics is irrelevant”. It was an ongoing mantra until it became part of our culture. This was the mechanism by which we began to reconcile our seemingly irreconcilable differences and form a homogeneous group.

    And so, when I was writing that article, I was honestly talking about how in local politics, the establishment will stifle good and honest primary candidacies. I have seen tea party and liberty and other candidates crushed before they get out of the gate. When Trevor and I met with Brent Boger recently, that same “unelectable” argument came out of his mouth in the most arrogant of a tone — directed toward local candidates. This is the attitude that makes it so difficult for candidates like Pidgeon, Hadian and others to get traction. I fully admit that “liberty candidates and activists” refers to people who are Ron Paul supporters. Of course it does. They are going through an evolution, obviously, because their presidential candidate is effectively a candidate no more, but they still exist, and have certain libertarian leaning beliefs, still want to be active in conservative politics. They have chosen to refer to themselves as the Liberty Movement just as others refer to themselves as of the Teaparty and others are Values Voters. Matt Shea is a state house member who they identify with the label “Liberty Movement”. His name is not Ron Paul. I supported Cain, then skimmed off of Gingrich and landed on Santorum. I’m not a Cainite, Santorista or any other -ite, -bot or -iac. I suppose I am a Teaparty Republican. That moniker is not designed to hide my most recent presidential preference.

    We have spent the last 2-3 months among ourselves trying to purge the presidential preference designation from our vocabulary in our mutual association. Can you imagine that would be necessary to form the alliance we “claim” to be? We are honestly trying to form a bridge between teaparty, values voters and liberty voters. Removing presidential preference designations is a necessary part of normalizing these relationships. Furthermore, it is kind of silly to label ourselves with preferences of FORMER presidential contenders.

    I think the biggest difficulty you and I are having, is I’m looking out the windshield and you’re looking in the rearview mirror. From your perspective, I understand your assumptions. Frankly, I don’t understand you converting those assumptions into statements of authoritative fact without independently investigating their veracity. But I do understand the assumptions.

    For the last twenty years I have referred to myself as a “libertarian leaning” Republican. I really like Walter E. Williams. Since 2009 I have referred to myself as a Teaparty oriented Republican. I have never supported the Ron Paul candidacy, though I freely admit I love hearing him talk about issues which are confined to our shores. I tend to part ways with him on a number of foreign policy issues. I have no desire to buy a Big Mac with gold, however I do think an audit of the fed is certainly in order.

    I wish you could somehow see that the process of forming the alliance we have, by its very nature, largely excluded the fringe and knee-jerkers from our group. Ok, when dealing with 150 people that is never going to be 100% successful, but it was very, very successful. If you really knew the people I have spent every day with over the last three months you would willingly retract most of your characterizations, because you would find that most of them fall in the “Ron Paul Supporters” label of yours which you have strictly differentiated from the “Paulbots” label. If you are being intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that difference, wouldn’t it make sense to say that it is improper to assume a group of people automatically belong to one or the other just because you suspect it to be so?

    Before you jump to any conclusions about the genuineness or dis-ingenuousness of my reply, I hope you will take a moment and consider it from the perspective that it just may possibly be forthright.

    If I have failed to respond to something of substance, it was not intentional. This post is already too lengthy.

    -Christian
28. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 7:57 PM

    Sorry Lew, one other thing. A glaring example of the conclusions you jump to.

    I said: “Support your PCO Liberty Alliance Candidates and lets make Clark County a place where grassroots conservative candidates ‘of the people’ have a level playing field in the arena of ideas.”

    You said: “What makes you think all the candidates opposed or not supported by your alliance are not grassroots or “of the people?””

    I never, ever said that any candidate not explicitly preferred or allied with us was not grassroots or of the people. How do you derive that from what I said? I said that our candidates would work toward that objective. I never said no others would. In fact, it specifically states the contrary on our website:

    ““Preferred” means a candidate in a contested race who is preferred by the PCO Liberty Alliance. Some are specifically in support of our objectives but have chosen to run their own campaign, others are believed to be largely in support of them but are not actually affiliated with the PCO Liberty Alliance. It does not necessarily mean that the person’s opponent has been vetted or interviewed. It means that at minimum this candidate at some point expressed support of our objectives or is believed to be in support of them.”

    Look at your remark through my eyes please, and realize that such leaps are extraordinarily difficult to deal with.
29. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM

    Christian, either you are clueless about who you have liked up with. Or you are trying to mask who you are associated with.

    Are we to believe that your PAC Liberty Alliance is not somehow associated with, modeled after or following the Liberty Candidates I gave a link to?

    After all, your objectives list “A Republican Party which is a hospitable place for conservative / grassroots / liberty candidates and activists.”

    Perhaps you don’t realize how you are being misled, but these “Liberty” groups are fronts for Ron Paul. Not unlike when communist countries listed themselves as “democratic,” Ron Paul groups almost always use the key word “Liberty” in their group.

    As I have quoted before from a Michigan group,

    “I know many of you probably are concerned that, by joining the Republicans you will be assimilated to the point where you may have to sacrifice your principles and beliefs. That is why I urge you to join us because we operate, although within the GOP, completely independent of the party’s leadership. None of our funds go to the Republican National Committee because we are well aware that their agenda is to elect people and not necessarily promote the ideals of liberty and freedom.”

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?111402-Take-Over-the-GOP!-Join-the-Republican-Liberty-Caucus-Ron-Paul-is-a-Member!

    And as can be expected, it is called “Liberty Forest,” a Ron Paul forum.

    I suggest you take a closer look at who you affiliated yourself with.
30. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    Lew, I give up. I’m not sure how much more clear I could have been in my last post. Maybe you didn’t read it? It is absolutely exasperating. How could you think I’m unaware of the “Liberty” label based upon my last post. Did you see what I said:

    “They (R. Paul Supporters) have chosen to refer to themselves as the Liberty Movement just as others refer to themselves as of the Teaparty and others are Values Voters. Matt Shea is a state house member who they identify with the label “Liberty Movement”

    It is fairly obvious that a fair percentage of the PCO Liberty alliance is composed of Ron Paul supporters, as it is of Santorum supporters. Do you understand what the word “alliance” means? Do you understand what building bridges between various groups is about? It’s like Christian Is From Mars and Lew Is From Venus or something.

    You have worn me out. I’m going to expend my energy in other areas. If you would like to meet me and Trevor for lunch or coffee sometime I suppose I would be open to that. I was hopeful I could break some ground with that last long post of mine. But I appear to only be breaking wind. Commenting here is accomplishing nothing. I’ll leave it up to others to read my post at face value, and up to others to mis-characterize it if they so desire, and then leave it up to those who remain to determine from it what they will.

    Take care Lew, with the exception of a few dark corners, I know your heart is in the right place.

    -Christian
31. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM

    Christian, I understand some people get into an alliance with the thought they will benefit and they often end up being used to further an agenda they may not agree with.

    I’m sure you’re familiar with the parable of the snake:

    An old woman was walking down the road when she saw a gang of thugs beating a poisonous snake. She rescued the snake and carried it back to her home, where she nursed it back to health. They became friends and lived together for many months. One day they were going into town, and the old woman picked him up and the snake bit her. Repeatedly. “O God,” she screamed, “I am dying! Why? I was your friend. I saved your life! I trusted you! Why did you bite me?”

    The snake looked up at her and said, “Lady, you knew I was a snake when you first picked me up.”

    Good luck Christian, I think you’re really going to need it one day.
32. 
    Sean Emerson
    July 10, 2012 at 10:23 PM

    Lew, I’m not going to go through this whole comment thread to see if what I have to say has been addressed, so forgive me if I repeat what’s been said already:

    Mark Engleman is not and never has been a Ron Paul supporter. He caucused as a Santorum supporter and represented Santorum at the county and State convention. Many if not most of the members of the Clark County Conservative Movement were Santorum or Gingrich supporters.

    There were several names proposed for the movement, and for a variety of reasons none were adopted. The name that is used is entirely descriptive – We live in Clark county and we are conservatives – real conservatives, not the RINO squishes that toe the party line and do whatever the state and national party tell us to do. I appreciate that you want to make it clear you’re not affiliated, but unless you trademarked the name, you haven’t got a lot to complain about.

    There are Ron Paul supporters in the movement. Believe it or not there are Ron Paul supporters that are reasonable people who are willing to work with and compromise with other people who share the values that you and I do. Yes, there are the tinfoil hat members, but they’re not an active part of this movement. This movement has nothing to do with the national Ron Paul Campaign. The Ron Paul supporters in our group realize that Ron Paul is fast approaching his sell-by date, and they’re realistic enough to know that they need to reach out to other conservatives to stay relevant.

    This is not and exclusive movement – if you see yourself as a conservative and share the real grass-roots conservatism that our members do without regard to what the RNC tries to foist on us, then you are welcome to join ranks.

    In short, Lew, I resent the attempt you make to define this group. The tone of your blog makes you fancy yourself a journalist, so do a little journalistic work and get in contact with us – you know who we are and how to contact us – and find out what’s really going on instead of setting up straw man arguments in your blog. We’d be glad to sit down and have a cold beer with you and discuss it. Until you take the time to do this, you really have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, and your pontificating on your blog about it is so much huffing and puffing about nothing.
33. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM

    Yeah, sure, whatever you say, Sean.

    It’s all just coincidence that much of it mirrors the national Ron Paul camp and one main objective is to create a party more receptive to Ron Paul supporters.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll climb back on the turnip truck.
34. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 10, 2012 at 11:08 PM

    Thanks, Sean, but forget it…. all these people with first hand experience are wrong, and Lew is the only one that knows anything. He doesn’t even need first hand experience with individual people because he is so confident in the accuracy of his broad brush. Just forget it. Let him marginalize himself.
35. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 11:12 PM

    Spoken more like a Paulie every time, Christian.

    They are obviously rubbing off on you.
36. 
    Katja Delavar
    July 10, 2012 at 11:50 PM

    I am a National Delegate. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I have vowed to support the nominee. There are maybe 500 of us in the whole convention. What do you think will happen? Much like American Idol, there will only be one winner. The coronation will happen. There is nothing Paul people can do to hurt the party in the National Convention.

    I plan on taking Kirby Wilbur’s word to heart. In the convention he said “it is time for us to put our presidential preferences aside and make a stronger Washington State Republican party.” I hope to be strength for our party.

    I have worked hard for my Republican candidates. Ron Paul twice, Michael Delavar, Jamie Herrera, Justice Sanders, David Madore. I will hope to win my PCO race. Do you wish for me to leave the party? I don’t want to be where I am not wanted. I will leave. Say the word and this activist will be gone given the right reasons.
37. 
    lewwaters
    July 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM

    Would it burn your fingertips to type the name, Katja? Just “the nominee?”

    This is about much more than just the November election, as I am sure you know.

    You pretty much denied before that the Paulies were trying to take over the party.

    Are you again denying there is any intent by Ron Paul supporters to take over the party and install pro-Ron Paul people into leadership or PCO positions?

    Or make it favorable to Ron Paul supporters?
38. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 11, 2012 at 12:22 AM

    Katja, I don’t deny, and am proud to say, that I want the CCRP to be more favorable to, and more tolerant of, anti-establishment conservatives of every stripe, including Ron Paul supporters.
39. 
    Allan Dunham
    July 11, 2012 at 1:28 AM

    You know, if this Lew Waters really is a conservative, then he’s gonna feel like a horse’s hinder when he realizes we’re on his side. I’m a lifelong conservative, I’ve voted Republican in every election since I’ve been old enough to vote (starting in 1994). I’m not trying to take over the party, I’m trying to restore the party to it’s conservative roots!

    The Ron Paul people are some of the most conservative people I have ever met. They want to diminish the size and scope of government, they want strict adherence to the U.S. constitution, lower taxes, and less regulation. I understand the vitriol, because I despised Ron Paul in 2008, but when I did my own research I realized that I agree with him on far more than I anticipated. Please do your homework and stop using Ron Paul and his supporters as some kind of ideological boogeymen.
40. 
    Nick Yonko
    July 11, 2012 at 6:45 AM

    I am 43 Lew.
41. 
    Daniel Poletti
    July 11, 2012 at 7:49 AM

    Like Allan, I am a lifelong conservative Republican who supported Ron Paul in the recent election, and I fail to see how choosing him as the best candidate now disqualifies me as a Republican. It has already been well established that Ron Paul is not going to win the Presidency, so what is Lew afraid we are going to do? Use party funds to build a monument to Ron Paul outside of GOP headquarters? The presidential nomination process has passed, and we are now working with other conservatives to get more representation in our party, which has until very recently been run by a handful of moderate operatives. I support Madore, Pidgeon, Hadian, Pete Silliman, and Tom Mielke. I supported Mike Appel, my PCO, until he was compelled to quit because his moderate establishment competitor received party funds and support and he did not. I believe that the PCO Liberty Alliance is a great vehicle to help conservative candidates in the future get more traction without having to fight their own party. If you also support those candidates, Lew, then you are stabbing people on your own team. Please at least sit down and talk to some of us before you continue this lashing out at us and our efforts.
42. 
    Sean Emerson
    July 11, 2012 at 7:52 AM

    Lew, your response to my comment last night sounds an awful lot like “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!”

    I got an letter from the Washington state Republican party a couple of weeks ago, expressing all kinds of great rhetoric about what the party wants to do on a national and state level and then asked for a campaign donation. It wasn’t until page 2 that I find that the donation would go to help elect Rob McKenna for Governor. THIS is the kind of BS that I’m talking about, and that we’re all tired of. Rob McKenna is the party favorite, even though he does NOT represent the true conservative values that we do. Shahram Hadian is a MUCH better candidate, but he’s not kissing the elephant’s ass on a national level, so he gets the cold shoulder from the party. Well, it’s time for the RNC and the State and county republicans to realize that we’re not accepting their BS any more, and they can’t anoint their crony candidates and expect us to like them. The Republican party should have been wiping the floor with the democrats for years, but they keep running squishes like McKenna and Romney (Did you see how he fumbled the opportunity when the SCOTUS failed the people on Obamacare?) and wonder why they get beat or win by such narrow margins.

    At the risk of repeating myself, Lew, you don’t know who or what the hell you’re talking about, in spite of our best efforts to invite you to come on board and find out what’s really happening. I challenge you to come have a beer with the 3rd district delegates tot he national convention, myself, Christian, Trevor Winton and Mark Engleman and find out just where our differences lie. Hell, I’ll host. How does Saturday look for you? Because I’m telling you the differences are scant if there are any at all, and your ignorant demagoguery is poorly placed and mostly wasted.
43. 
    K.J. Hinton
    July 11, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    “Katja, I don’t deny, and am proud to say, that I want the CCRP to be more favorable to, and more tolerant of, anti-establishment conservatives of every stripe, including Ron Paul supporters.”

    You mean “anti-establishment conservatives of every stripe” like me, Christian?

    It’s not JUST that you lie… it’s that you also do it so very badly. And since you’re lying about this (and, as a case in point where your declarative statement quoted above IS a lie… because you damned sure don’t support ME… and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has been both conservative AND who has been beating on the “establishment” longer than I) it’s not that difficult to view your bizarre situational ethics as yet another reason to oppose you and your aims… since this isn’t only about a Paulbot takeover… it’s about YOU taking over, and using these poor schleps as a vehicle to make that happen.

    As for those claiming that this person or that person was a Santorum supporter… that, of course, is as irrelevant as to who pulled the trigger during a bank robbery, killing the guard: EVERYBODY goes down for murder.

    It’s not unlike the end of World War 2. There were no good nazis and bad nazis. There were only those who were and those who were not, nazis. Those helping to enable this travesty are Paulbots in spirit if not in reality, since the effect of their involvement is to attempt to lead to the same outcome.

    It’s odd, Christian. You say one thing… but then do, quite another.

    How fringe left of you.
44. 
    K.J. Hinton
    July 11, 2012 at 9:38 AM

    And the standard “you don’t know what you’re talking about” if you’re wise enough to see this scam for what it is and to speak out about it?

    That kind of rank arrogance isn’t all that persuasive. But it is the hallmark of the Paulbot, where everyone else is wrong in every way and every direction.

    This “you will be assimilated” crap just doesn’t cut it.
45. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 11, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    Kelly, my comment was not about supporting you, it was about the CCRP being more favorable toward and more tolerant of….” Certainly they are tolerant of you. Your accusations of me being a liar only confirm everything I’ve said about your so-called “thought process”. So, the only thing I can say to you is ROTFLMFAO…
46. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

    You see Kelly, your defense mechanism of simply claiming others who contradict your claims are all liars is intellectual cowardice, laziness, and the refuge of either a scoundrel or a fool. I am washing my hands of this conversation, as I am clearly just casting pearls. I suggest all others who care to have an adult conversation on intellectually honest topics of discussion while having the maturity to give others the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity, simply gather elsewhere. Regardless of the good content elsewhere on this blog, I am done with it, and the resulting conversations serve no purpose other than to distract and consume the otherwise productive efforts of good people.

    Happy Trails
47. 
    lewwaters
    July 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM

    Okay chillun’s, I’ll show you all why I oppose this take over, integration or whatever it is you try to label it, beyond my strong opposition to the man hisself.

    Yes, we know he will never be President, even though several of your number believe otherwise. But ya’ll want a Republican Party receptive to you and Paulbots. We oppose that as we see time and time again the effort is to tear down one establishment (a point I agree with), but replace it with a Ron Paul establishment.

    The Ron Paul people succeeded in Nevada in infiltrating the GOP in their Clark County and pretty much taking control of it. Even though Ron Paul has stopped campaigning, knowing he cannot win, Nevada’s CCGOP has now erected an anti-Romney sign to promote Ron Paul, who even you all agree doesn’t have snowballs chance. http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/jun/04/clark-county-gop-erects-billboard-totuing-ron-paul/

    The group then refers people to Oathkeepers, a group I joined at the beginning but have shied away from due to their more extreme positioning since, aligning more to Ron Paul

    While the billboard is but one county GOP, I am reminded of when our county GOP began erecting a booth at the Farmers Market to promote the party. Did Campaign for Liberty assist or cooperate with the GOP in promoting it?

    NO! They erected a booth of their own to promote themselves over the GOP, making sure they were always right next to the GOP’s booth.

    That was in 2010 last I checked. It reminds me of a quote from a well connected Ron Paul supporter at the 2008 GOP State Convention, “We are trying to integrate with the Republican Party; they see it as a take-over.”

    Is it “integration” to work against the party interest?

    An April 10, 2008 interview on American Underground Network, this same supporter said, “I am not here to tell you the Republican Party is Great… It has been high jacked by the Neo-Conservatives… and it has been altered from the time that they don’t even know what is right any more.” That is the opinion of one who even admitted only being involved in politics but a very short time, but now had all the answers.

    They went on to state that Ron Paul Libertarians must take over the Republican Party “the appropriate way and not by force.”

    Nick, congratulations on making it to 43. That would have you being born right about the time I was in Vietnam.

    Sean, when I see some support of the party instead of constant criticism and promotion of Ron Paul ideology only, perhaps I’ll be willing.

    But if ya’ll are truly Conservative Republicans, trying to force a favorable pathway for “Liberty Candidates & activists” (euphemism for Ron Paul supporters) does not show it.

    Christian, I’ll see you when you pop in the next time to tell us you are done here, okay? 😉
48. 
    Christian Berrigan
    July 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

    Kelly, I am putting you on notice to cease and desist declaring me a liar in public without evidence to support your accusations. It is libel. Review this: http://www.ehow.com/how_2087263_prove-defamation-character-claim.html I believe #1 and #2 are no problem for me to prove — #3 is developing and is your only defense at this point because now #4 is no problem, as from this point forward I am formally putting you on notice that you do NOT have my consent to call me a liar in public. You never did, but now you cannot even claim ignorance of that fact. Your only absolute defense is truth, and with regard to your accusation of me being a liar, you have none. I’m serious about this. You can contradict what I say, make all sorts of claims, disagree, debate, and deny — no problem. We are all free to even make asinine statements. But your freedom to swing your verbal fist ends where the nose of my character and reputation begin, and your public declarations that I am a liar qualify for such prohibition. You need to immediately stop proclaiming that I am a liar. This is the last time I will request a simple cease and desist. After this, I will demand public retractions, apologies, and, if I can justify it, restitution. I’m serious. Stop it. Consider your next actions carefully.
49. 
    lewwaters
    July 11, 2012 at 3:02 PM

    Welcome back, Christian.
50. 
    Scruffy Scirocco
    July 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM

    “Sean, when I see some support of the party instead of constant criticism and promotion of Ron Paul ideology only, perhaps I’ll be willing.”

    Lew, what is “the party?” The people who have been running candidates like John McCain and Rob McKenna and telling us we should support them because “the party” supports them?

    It’s time “The Party” wakes up and realizes that we ARE the party, and we’ve been quiet for entirely too long. We represent conservative values, and gauge our candidates on those values, not by how much Republican karma they’ve accumulated in their political career.

    It matters little what other conservative movements in other parts of the country have done vis-a-vis the Ron Paul campaign. There are conservative values that the Ron Paul folks share with us: Smaller government, adherence to the constitution, fiscal responsibility to name a few. Are you saying you don’t hold these values, Lew? Yes there are things we disagree with Ron Paul on – for me Ron Paul’s foreign policy is a non-starter and should be enough to keep him well away from the white house. But so what? It’s irrelevant. Ron Paul is not going to be nominated, nor will he be elected – likely he won’t even run in the next cycle. There are plenty of local issues a bout which the Ron Paul supporters are 100% in agreement with the rest of the conservative movement – more so than a lot of the so-called Republican leadership. Refusing to embrace their support merely because you don’t like their choice of presidential candidate is the sort of thinking that most of us grew out of when we graduated kindergarten.

    This is sounding more and more like the Ron Paul movement is some sort of boogeyman that conspiracy theorists use to defame anyone they don’t understand or disagree with. If the Ron Paul movement was as coordinated and all-powerful and dangerous as it’s being made out, why isn’t he the nominee? Come on, folks, let’s have a reality check and start talking instead of accusing. We’re all on the same side.
51. 
    lewwaters
    July 11, 2012 at 10:02 PM

    Ron Paul is not “the party.”

    There are many true conservatives not pleased with McCain or McKenna and also see that Ron Paul is not the answer.

    While Ron Paul obviously will not be nominated, many of his followers will not open their eyes and will continue making efforts that will disrupt and disjoint conservatives, which will give Obama a free ride back into office.

    Those Ron Paulie (Paulbots) have openly said Ron Paul or nobody and as I have shown, are actually engaging in anti=Romney activities already, still trying to push Ron Paul.

    We also have those mesmerized by him that are intent on imposing his ideologies through the party by taking it over. If you haven’t guessed yet, the majority of Republicans have continually opposed Ron Paul and his ideology by never once awarding him with a single state primary win. That is not only a rejection of the man, but of his ideology as well.

    Don’t be fooled, this is but an effort by some to fool many of you into adopting the very ideology you say is a non-starter.

    If we are truly on the same side, it’s up to them to get behind who has the best chance to win and not to be working to force or trick people into accepting the very ideology they earlier rejected.

    Like I have said, the GOP does need change, but Ron Paul’s rejected ideology is not it.
52. 
    calleduntoliberty
    July 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM

    Lew, do you understand that the PCO race in Clark County has nothing to do with the presidential race? You are equivocating. There is no way at this point for anyone in Clark County to help Ron Paul get elected. You are grasping at straws, and you need to get past this obsession and look at what is really going on: A bunch of conservatives are running against moderates in an attempt to level the playing field for conservative candidates in our county. If you can’t get on board with this movement, then I question whether you are, in fact, a conservative. I begin to wonder if you are not an establishment operative, sent to drive a wedge between conservatives every time they unite to defeat the RINOs. You use the same arguments that Brent Boger, a known establishment hack, uses. I think you need to change the name of this blog to Clark County Establishment Shill.
53. 
    calleduntoliberty
    July 12, 2012 at 9:01 AM

    Another concept that appears to be lost on most critics of this movement is that whether or not these PCO candidates win will be decided by the voters. We are not trying to get appointed to LD 18 Senate and Rep seats, or Washougal City Council positions – we are appealing to actual voters to elect us, and the message we are preaching is that these establishment hacks don’t own the Republican party. The letter that Marla Riley wrote shows very clearly who she thinks owns the party, but she is mistaken. All voters have a right to be precinct officer and represent their precinct, not just establishment hacks. I guess we’ll find out what the voters think. We are going around asking them. What are you doing?
54. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM

    Are you going around telling voters your intent is to reshape the party into a more favorable party to support Ron Paul’s ideology?

    You people focus on the Presidential aspect, but shy away from the other intent, that of creating a Ron Paul party and re-writing the party platform to be in line with Ron Paul’s ideology that voters have continually rejected.

    Why not just stand up and tell these voters it is to change the party to be friendly to Ron Paul and his supporters?

    Why do you make every effort to not let people know what you really stand for?
55. 
    calleduntoliberty
    July 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

    I suppose, on some level, my own presence among the PCOs does weigh the body toward a more conservative bent by one vote. I’m not sure what significance this really has in terms of advancing a particular agenda. It isn’t like the PCOs get to decide if the country goes back to the gold standard or balances the budget in the next three years (I wish). My own goals have been clearly stated for all who care to read them: http://calleduntoliberty.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/a-pco-manifesto/

    Beyond this, I would very much like the opportunity to see conservatives in my county run for office without having to fight Republican Party money in the primaries. Ask Mike Appel how he feels about that. How do you feel about that, Lew?
56. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM

    I’m all for true conservatives. I’m even all for conservatives with a slight lean towards Libertarianism in certain areas.

    But I remain opposed to Ron Paul Libertarians masquerading as conservatives.
57. 
    Scruffy Scirocco
    July 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM

    Lew what is this insidious “Ron Paul Ideology” that you reject? Please be specific. Smaller Government? Fiscal Responsibility? Constitutionally limited government? Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms?

    I got involved this year specifically to stop the Paul camp from the sort of thing they did in 2010. But that doesn’t mean that everything Paul stands for is unreasonable. In fact, if his foreign policy ideas wasn’t criminally irresponsible, I’d say he would be the man we want in office.

    Please Lew, tell us specifically what about Ron Paul’s domestic agenda you object to, so we can see if you’re really the conservative you claim to be, or if you’re just a mouthpiece for the Republican establishment.

    FYI, this organization was formed interdependently of the Ron Paul supporters. There was much discussion with the Ron Paul Caucus during the various conventions – I don’t recall seeing YOU there – and the two groups realize that we agree on more than we disagree on, and we can set aside our differences to reshape the LOCAL Republican party to more appropriately reflect the conservatives of this county and not exclude real conservatives from seeking office or being heard just because they haven’t been sprayed with Republican magic dust by the “party”.
58. 
    Scruffy Scirocco
    July 12, 2012 at 1:31 PM

    “I remain opposed to Ron Paul Libertarians masquerading as conservatives”

    *snort* That’s like saying that you’re tired of people like Jesse Jackson and Sheila Jackson Lee masquerading as liberals.

    You seemed to be long on rhetoric and really really short on facts. I’ve graciously offered to host a get together this weekend of like minded people and we could sit down over a friendly adult beverage, enjoy the hot weather and discuss it like adults, but apparently you’re not comfortable in a forum where you don’t control the mike (like so many other establishment Republicans – something we saw over and over at the various conventions).

    Lew are you familiar with the “no True Scotsman” fallacy? You’re guilty of it now.

    Libertarians. . .hm. What does that mean, and what would a “true conservative” find objectionable? Isolationist foreign policy? Agreed in principal. The idea of withdrawing precipitously from the world stage would be catastrophic. That doesn’t mean that the current course is the correct one. Do you disagree that we should maybe slowly dial back the level of US involvement around the world and let people sort things out without our help? Quit sending US foreign aid to countries from which we only get vitriol in return?

    Legalize drugs, perhaps? Sounds like a bad idea to me, but at least when they made Alcohol illegal they had enough respect for the constitution to pass an amendment that allowed them to do it.

    Tell me, Lew, is there any part of The New Deal that you’re particularly fond of and that you would like to see retained and expanded?
59. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 1:33 PM

    Approve homosexual marriage, legalize all drugs, return to an 1800’s economy, blame America for terrorists attacks. His alliance with Code Pink I find troublesome as I do his recommending people vote someone like Cynthia McKinney in 2008 after he dropped out.

    There is also his blind opposition to defending America against terrorism as he did in opposing going after bin Laden and Saddam, calling a congressional vote approving it as “unconstitutional” since it was a “Declaration of War.” Sorry, but how do you declare war against an ideology?

    His push for Letters of Marque and Reprisal is especially troublesome and shows how out of touch he is.

    Many of these a re written into the party platform (though not all) and rewriting to adopt such liberal views will not bode well for the GOP, even at county level.
60. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    Bray at the moon all you wish, scruffy, you just continue to prove what I say about Paulbots.
61. 
    calleduntoliberty
    July 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    Sean is a Paulbot? This is an amazing development.

    I think you are confusing Dr. Paul’s position on Gay marriage with Mitt Romney’s. http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf

    Dr. Paul believes that the state should not be the arbiters of marriage at all. I heard Lars Larson saying the same thing the other day, so unless Lars is a recently-converted Paulbot like Sean, I think maybe that is a common Republican stance.

    Dr. Paul would make drug regulation a State responsibility rather than a Federal one. This is per the Constitution. By definition, the President would have no say in legalizing or not legalizing if Dr. Paul had his way.

    Dr. Paul has no alliance with Code Pink or Cynthia McKinney, this is just you being a demagogue. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008.

    Dr. Paul voted to go after Osama bin Laden. You are confusing him with George Bush, who said that he wasn’t concerned about bin Laden. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o For Dr. Paul, bin Laden and his minions were the faction we were at war with, because they attacked us.

    Your bit about the platform is asinine. Dr. Paul has a lot of things he would like to write into the platform: balanced budgets, auditing the Fed, sound money, civil liberties, less government departments, etc. I am a lifelong conservative Republican, and all of these positions appealed to me. In fact, as soon as I heard him talk, I recognized that he was far and away the most learned candidate on economics and monetary policy. I would love to make the Republican party ‘more favorable to his ideology’, but there are a large faction of big-government RINOs standing in the way, as well as some crotchety intellectually-lazy bloggers. I’m not mentioning any names though…
62. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    When I say Ron Paul, I mean Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

    While he might have reluctantly voted for retaliation, he had this to say first,

    Statement on the Congressional Authorization…
    September 14, 2001
    Mr, Speaker,

    Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.

    To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.

    The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we’re offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.

    Apparently, he does not realize that the last few times such letters were issued, there were no takers nor does he realize that as signatories of the Geneva Conventions, we are barred from using mercenaries in engaging in warfare on our behalf. Don’t confuse using private security agents with issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to hunt down people.

    That you bray my point on the platform is asinine is exactly what I would expect from a Paulbot.

    I am amzed too at how many Paulbots are suddenly “lifelong Republcians.”

    Me, I’m not. I’m just a lifelong conservative.
63. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM

    By the way, your bull shit on Bush not being concerned with bin Laden is also right out of the Democrats playbook.

    What he actually said in full at the March 13, 2002 Press Conference when question was,

    Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part — deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of —
    THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.
    Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.
    So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
    And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
    Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
    THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
    But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we — excuse me for a minute — and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things — part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
    And we’ve got more work to do. See, that’s the thing the American people have got to understand, that we’ve only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I’m not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

    You’ll find the full quote, in context beginning on page 6: http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-13/politics/bush.transcript_1_votes-on-judicial-nominees-block-nominees-charles-pickering?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

    It’s kiond of funny, a “lifelong Republican” using out of context Democrat talking points to support Ron Paul.

    What next, LOL?
64. 
    calleduntoliberty
    July 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

    Lew, I feel certain that if you stop writing and just read what I said, you will see that I did not take Bush out of context at all. He did, in fact, say that in the vast scheme of his war on terror, Bin Laden wasn’t a concern. To Dr. Paul, Bin Laden and his minions were THE concern. That is the difference in their foreign policy. Bush went after entire countries, and Paul only went after the people who attacked us.

    So when you accuse Dr. Paul of ‘opposing going after bin Laden’, as you did above, you are demonstrably wrong. It really isn’t hard to look these things up, and you can do it before commenting next time.

    I think the larger point here is that you will stretch truth, or even say things that aren’t true in order to drive a wedge between conservatives who are advancing conservative causes locally (which, by the way, have nothing to do with foreign policy). When you make yourself an enemy of conservatives, you become an agent of the RINOs. Is this the role you see for yourself? You are calling people ‘Paulbots’ who voted for Santorum and Gingrich. You are saying that I am not a lifelong Republican…I’ve been a registered Republican in three states since I turned 18. It’s just plain stupid to say something like that when you don’t know what you are talking about.

    I really think you should consider the change to you blog name to ‘Clark County Establishment Shill’. It just fits the purpose of this blog way better than calling yourself a conservative.
65. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM

    Context means a lot, called.

    Try reading the entire in context full quote I gave you.

    AS for Ron Paul opposing going after bin Laden, I refer you back to his own words on preferring A Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

    Then, I refer you his claim of he would not have approved the mission that got bin Laden: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54822.html

    Try as hard as you want, there is not enough lipstick in the world to make that pig anything but a pig

    If you wish to continue commenting here, I suggest you tone down your words directed as this blog.

    There is a whole internet out there for you make an ass at of yourself.
66. 
    Sean Emerson
    July 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM

    Sorry, my newsfeed got mixed up and posted me as Scruffy Scirocco. It’s me, either way.

    Lew, I am no Paul-bot. You should know better than that. Fortunately, I – like you – have a record I can refer to. I wrote this four years ago, specifically addressed tot he Paul-bots:
    http://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2008/10/you-should-be-very-careful-when-voting.html

    I’ve also discussed Paul’s recent campaign, and raised many of the same concerns you do:
    http://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2012/05/is-ron-paul-still-viable-candidate.html

    On the subject of Paul’s slavish devotion to his weird interpretation of the war powers under the constitution, I wrote this:
    http://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2012/05/unconstitutional-wars.html

    I caucused for Gingrich, and was very active in that role, as anyone here will tell you. I voted a conservative slate in Tacoms to send one Santorum and two Paul delegates to Tampa. This was a political calculation – Romney at that time did not have 1144 hard delegates, and even though it was obvious he would be the nominee, I felt it would be desirable if other voices used their leverage to demand a seat at the table and a voice in the administration. One thing I don’t want to see is another presidency like Bush, where the whole cabinet is loaded with cronies.

    Your points:
    Approve homosexual marriage irrelevant if Paul thinks this is good or not, under the 10th amendment, this is a state issue. I know of nobody in the Clark County Conservative movement who is actively promoting this issue.

    legalize all drugs – Whether you think this is a good idea or not, please show me the constitutional authority under which the current war on drugs is being waged. I don’t think legalizing them is a good idea, but the way it’s been handled certainly isn’t working very well either.

    Return to an 1800′s economy – Oh, BS. That’s a straw man argument and you know it. Keynesian economics as it’s been practiced since Roosevelt is unsustainable. The Government should have little or no role in managing the economy, and every time it tries to “help” it’s just made things worse. The Great Depression lasted much longer than it should have because of government interference. There have been several books written on that. The only sustainable economic model is Austrian economics.

    Blame America for terrorists attacks, blind opposition to defending America against terrorism, Letters of Marque and Reprisal – that’s foreign policy. I thought we had agreed that he was incompetent on foreign policy. Why do you bring it up, and what does it have to do with local politics?

    All of these issues are legitimate matters for debate, and if you, Lew took the time to sit down and actually TALK to people instead of trying to marginalize them with sterotyping and ad hominem attacks, you would discover that there are some very thoughtful people in the Ron Paul camp. yes, there are some fringe 10%ers who want to canonize the man, but by and large, these folks have some good points, and are willing to discuss the differences, which appears to be more than can be said for you, based on the vehemence which you’re exhibiting here and your resistance to my offer to come over and pow-wow with the folks you’re demonizing here so you can write something more coherent next time.
67. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM

    Advocating the approval of homosexual marriage is not an irrelevant matter. Maybe to you, but not to conservatives.

    No BS on returning to an 1800’s economy. Ron Paul can deny it all he wants, the economy then is well documented as being much worse than we see today.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.SdDcVdEh2k

    http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm

    One of the best pro & con posts on the fed that I have run across is at: http://commentarama.blogspot.com/2009/12/audit-fed-pros-and-cons.html

    By the way, I wrote off Gingrich when he teamed up with San Fran Nan Pelosi to advocate a Global Warming commercial.
68. 
    Sean Emerson
    July 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM

    Nice way to twist my words, friend, but on a national level homosexual marriage most certainly is irrelevant. Or do you follow the constitution? What does the 10th amendment say? And it’s a non sequitor to the conversation at hand, since I’m aware of no one in any local conservative campaign, Ron Paul or otherwise, who advocates it.

    LOL! you’re going to compare the financial conditions of the horse and buggy century to those of the information age? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day! The idea that the boom and bust cycles of the 1800’s is an indictment of a free-market banking system and an endorsement of Keynesian economics is the same logic that the abuses by the capitalists in the early industrial period was an indictment of capitalism and an endorsement of Marxism. Are you sure you’re a conservative, Lew? Or did you just go to public school?

    The problem with the federal reserve is that it’s still not independent. Banking regulations imposed by congressional acts effect how banks do business, and consequently promote or force bad business practices and discourage good practices. Witness the community reinvestment act that ended up trashing our economy in 2008. (For a thumbnail synopsis, I wrote about it here: http://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2008/10/whose-economic-policies-are-at-fault.html)

    The Federal Reserve takes credit for the economy when it’s good, and scrambles ineffectively like hell when it’s bad. It’s a flea arguing over who’s steering the dog. Interest rates have been held artificially low and this has delayed the recovery by converting private debt into public debt. No one on the federal reserve really has any idea – or they’re not willing to publicly admit – why the economy tanked, or what really needs to happen to put it back on track. Federal guarantees under the federal reserve system should be in the form of emergency support if a well-run bank (i.e. a bank that has qualified for Federal reserve status through good banking practices and regular audits) is hit with an artificial run, and that bank should be under obligation to balance the books eventually. The fed should not be in the business of managing day-to-day banking business of America, setting overnight loan interest rates, etc.

    To tell you the truth, I would have been just as happy to write off all the candidates and start over. Once again, I will go to the polls and hold my nose while I vote. It’s been 30 years since I voted for a national candidate. I’ve always been voting against the other guy. And I frequently observe that with 270 million people in this country, these two idiots are the best we can find to lead us?
69. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 9:59 PM

    Spin city, as usual.

    I guess if rape were approved at state level, you and Ron Paul would approve?

    I guess you missed one big point made in the Pro & Con link I gave you. That of giving control of our economy back to the politicians who would likely repay campaign donors with favorable economic condition for them, not the country.

    I am not pro-fed, but also see that Ron Paul is wrong.

    It needs some major changes and possibly more oversight (or do you not realize Bernake, a pitiful director, is before congress frequently). Ron Paul would like the conditions present in the 19th century to return, which would be a disaster.

    Just because they had horses and buggies doesn’t mean congress wouldn’t screw the economy up as bad as they did back then.

    Congress showed the inability to handle the economy as the founders intended and used the amendment process, given to us by the founder by the way, to correct it.

    Overhauling it is the answer, not just ending it and giving politicians even more economic power.

    But you keep on letting Ron Paul tickle your ears.
70. 
    lewwaters
    July 12, 2012 at 10:17 PM

    Comments are now closed, frankly because I am tried and bored babysitting Paulbots.

    I will leave you all with one last link to cry over

    Ron Paul Faces Long Odds in Last Stand