Big Changes For Clark County R3publican Party

by lewwaters

Ron Paul supporters Kenny Smith and Brenda Poletti have won Chair and Vice-chair of the party. Too bad, the party was showing signs of improvement.

This blog is not a part of the new R3PUBLICAN Party and will not support the party, they have their own official mouthpiece.

I will support individuals I feel are worthy of being elected, regardless of party affiliation., conservatism being the determining factor. And I do not mean the Ron Paulian version of what they claim is conservatism.

Elephant 1

UPDATE: No doubt indicative of what to expect, it has taken two weeks to finally place a notice on the R3publican Party website of the leadership change.

22 Comments to “Big Changes For Clark County R3publican Party”

  1. Personal opinion here… if Tom and Tani win we all win. They will work well together and come with contrasting and complimentary talents or strengths which we could all benefit as they work with the board which has tried really hard but has not been able to stabilize due to the constant changing of the guard in the seats. That change is one reason I think it would be great because we get to keep Kenny in his position and not play musical chairs with that seat too. He is building a good base in his legislative district and given a little more time maybe the whole of the party county can benefit from some stability.

  2. I have to say, I’m astounded about the gender requirements in the state law regarding party central committees. What business is it for the state to be involved in internal structure of a political party? What if I wanted to form a “men’s” or “women’s” political party to focus on gender issues? So, are political parties a private association of like minded people or is it a governance mechanism of the state? This is especially puzzling, since party affiliation has been specifically downgraded in the elections, where candidates are identified with “Prefers (name of party)”. To tell the truth, I’m looking for the candidate who “Prefers Chocolate Ice Cream.”

    I understand your concern over the newer (and younger) Ron Paul libertarian element. But please don’t have a knee jerk disapproval of them. I agree that some of the Libertarian viewpoint is, perhaps, naive and that some elements of their general platform might have many more unintended consequences than many of them realize. But this is exactly the group that can “save” the Republican party from complete obscurity.

    The Libertarians are for maximizing liberty. This is a good thing. There has been way too much of the attitude that “there oughtta be a law” — where one group tries to impose their standards on everyone else.

    Example: Helmut laws for children riding bikes. Now, do I think it’s a good thing for a cyclist to use a helmut? Absolutely. Do I think that the government ought to mandate it? No.

    The arguments I’ve had on this topic with a neighbor went something like this: Well, if a kid gets seriously injured, the we (the taxpayers) would have to pay their medical bills and support them possibly for the rest of their life.

    Shouldn’t the next question be: Then why are we providing all this care and support by the taxpayers? There was a time when such things were handled through voluntary donations (or quasi-insurance through mutual protection societies). How is it morally correct to force people to provide support for irresponsible bicycle riders? Based on that justification, what else is required to be forcefully collected from the taxpayers? (Taxes are taken under threat of force — think not? Send in your tax form without payment, and see what happens).

    Don’t worry, I also think the Libertarians need to be a little more tolerant of the more socially conservative block in the Republican party.

    If the Republicans do not embrace the Libertarians — who are likely to learn from the realities of life — then the Republican party will shrivel and die as the elderly members “shuffle off this mortal coil.” The Libertarians might well be able to supercharge the existing Libertarian third-party and possibly attract many of the (now majority) Independents — many of who are former Republicans.

    Too many of the so-called “mainstream” Republicans are not anti-statist. Rather as “good government” Republicans, they simply think that they would manage the Democratic-created welfare state “better” than the Democrats. But that attitude reflects a thought process that “big government can do big things.” Hopefully, the lesson in Obamacare is that big government CAN’T to big things — at least, not very well and with a multitude of unintended consequences, and at a price that’s probably double or triple the worst estimates. (Indeed, I believe that Government does nothing (yes, nothing) well. The few things it gets right (like the efficiency of our military) is done at a cost that’s several orders of magnitude higher than truly necessary. (Come on, the F-22 aircraft came to $361 million EACH (by some estimates). Or, the $13 Billion (yes, B – Billion) cost of a new Aircraft Carrier (USS Gerald R. Ford). Marvelous technology? Yes.Reasonable price? Well, no.)

  3. My concern over Ron Paul followers is far more than a knee jerk reaction. It is the result of the last 5 years of dealing with them.

    And there have been plenty since, it’s not knee jerk by any means

    And, the requirement of opposite sexes is laid out in RCW 29A.80.030

  4. Alright Lew. You’ve really got me curious, and I see John also. What’s this about state law requiring the chair and vice chair of county political parties to be of the opposite sex. (Sound’s sort of homophobic to me). An explanation would be good. A reference to the RCW, or whatever it is would be gooder. Both would be goodest. Thanks.

  5. I edited my previous comment to include it, but it is RCW 29A.80.030

  6. Incidentally, there is an effort currently to undo that requirement. SB 6356

  7. Friend of John Galt you would have benefitted greatly, laughed outloud, and shook your head in certain disbelief at the symposium I attended last week. Polarization of Modern Politics vs Historical Data concerning the same… a stupid comment about there being no room for religion in a political debate, a realization or rather a reminder that this is really not new, and a personal analysis on the part of the speaker that if parties did not stop in-fighting they die by imploding after massive losses of party members due to the conflict leaving them with the feeling that “my party left me”. Not a perfect event by the standards of non-partisan data but fairly close to accurate in my estimation.

  8. We may be divided and polarized, but haven’t seen a repeat of the Burr-Hamilton duel of 1804.

    Now, that was some serious political arguing 😉

  9. Lew, Many of the items you listed here, were supported and actively endorsed by Kenny Smith. Kenny is a tireless worker, great strategist, as indicated by the successes in the 18th District. I am not just referring to the candidates, but am also referring to the PCO involvement. Kenny has coalesed that District into an amazing machine for victory. I dont’ see Tom or Tani being able to do that. I am not sure Tom has the time, and I don’t know that Tani has the contacts. Kenny does, because he is out there doorbelling, rallying the PCO’s, encouraging them, and getting the job done. Please call me, if you would like add’l info. Thanks. Debbie

  10. Lew @ 8:33 PM.

    I think that may have had more to do with personal insults, just the same your point is well taken. That kind of thing couldn’t happen nowadays as C-span may not be able to move their camera quick enough to cover the action, and the networks would have to tell the combatants to hold on a minute until after an important message.

    BTW, thanks for that RCW. There must be a story in there someplace. Reminds me of too many other things government is supposed to control.

  11. The problem is that as great as this looks on paper the fact is that the GOTV program was an abysmal failure in the city council elections.

    The only thing that matters for a party organization is outcomes. Anything other than ideological differences, the outcomes on the new regime seem weak.

    Voting for a Paulbot is never a good idea. But we have both the government… and the GOP… we deserve.

  12. I am not positive, but believe the RCW was a result of the move to Equal Rights.

    Will have to watch and see if they repeal it now, the bill passed in the Senate and now to the House. My guess is the House will kill it, but we’ll see.

  13. The Bill has not passed out of the Senate… it’s on 2nd reading in Rules so it hasn’t yet made it to the floor. There’s a companion bill in the House that seems stuck in committee.

  14. Debbie, I do not have any real preference, I am not even a part of the party any longer.

    As I said, I have no dog in this hunt. The list was sent to me to post.

    I agree, Kenny will likely win the chair and I recommended Tani as an offset, a balance.

    Two Ron Paulies at the helm of the party will surely end in disaster, I believe.

    There is a lot being said in favor of Libertarians, but I cannot ignore that the Libertarian Party has been in existence over 40 years now and has won very few actual elections. While I agree with much of their views, they also have an equally strong left of center side.

    But in the end, whatever they do tomorrow is what they do, I’ll still be me with my current views and values.

  15. The companion bill is HB2263.

  16. Correct, I misread it or confused it with another I was looking over about the same time. I stand corrected

  17. I find it strange, Debbie, that your sole opposition to Tani seems to be she endorsed Ciraulo. Fair enough, but you give absolutely nothing in support of Brenda. Who is she, besides Daniels wife?

    What has she done? What party involvement has she had? Who has she endorsed besides Ron Paul?

    Her facebook page hasn’t seen a post since October 2013.

    Since you want people to select her, shouldn’t you list some reasons or experience she has? Tani has her statement out, where is Brenda’s?

  18. I do not understand Debbie’s argument since we all know elected people who endorsed democrats rather than republicans for seats. This is not about an election of the past rather it is about the party leadership. For the record I endorsed Lyle Lamb as did my pac, the CCBG. I still want Tani Zarelli for the position.

  19. What I find odd in Debbie’s line of reasoning, does it mean the Clark County R3publican party will have the same attitude this year in regards to Herrera Beutler, since she endorsed Marc Boldt against David Madore in 2012?

    I don’t know Brenda Poletti, never heard of her before or saw her name connected to anything. All I have seen is the claim and emails from Debbie and Dick Sohn that basically amount to she isn’t Tani.

    I have to believe she a good person and very well might be the best choice, but based on what? Her endorsing Ron Paul?

  20. It looks like sexism is alive and well in Washington. I can’t understand why RCW 29A.80.030 hasn’t already been rescinded. Not very enlightened of the Legislature.

  21. My understanding of it Craig, was it was passed to fight sexism and ensure females had an equal outcome in the position.

  22. So they used a sexist bill to fight sexism? Must have been a Democratic majority that passed the law. That’s the only thing that could explain such ignorance. To suggest that women don’t have what it takes to fight for and obtain a political position is the very definition of sexism.

%d bloggers like this: