Clark County Conservative

Clark GOP Playing Dirty Again?

68 Comments to “Clark GOP Playing Dirty Again?”

1. 
   CarolynCrain
   May 18, 2014 at 7:02 PM

   Really not okay since it seems that they want “only their picks” to run.
2. 
   lewwaters
   May 18, 2014 at 7:06 PM

   If they are doing it with PCO’s, who else are they trying to undermine?

   No different than I saw back in 2010
3. 
   CarolynCrain
   May 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM

   I got one of these phone calls back in 2012 when I ran for PCO. I stuck with it. I hope everyone else does too. You know they are doing stuff in other races as well. It is obvious as heck.
4. 
   Tom Sharples
   May 18, 2014 at 7:32 PM

   Well I guess you also have to ask – do you really want PCOs in office who have so little conviction that they’d withdraw because their opponent asked nicely?

   Last time around, I got one of these letters too, but I didn’t ask my opponent to withdraw. Since, as it turned out, he was part of a particular religious denomination who’d been prodded to run against me and several other PCO candidates, and had the local votes from the same religious denomination sewed up, he won by a large margin without any campaigning. But subsequently he NEVER showed up to any CCRP meetings, NEVER posted any yard signs in support of local candidates, NEVER made any phone calls, NEVER did any canvassing – and this time, apparently decided not to run.

   Again- is that the kind of PCO you’d want in office?
5. 
   Friend Of John Galt
   May 18, 2014 at 7:34 PM

   FWIW, Jaime Herrera-Beutler only scored 41% on the Heritage Foundation score card. The first Democrat on the list scored a 39% — so that hardly shows Ms.Herrera-Beutler to be particularly conservative. Admittedly, on her specific record, she missed quite a few votes on the issues used to rate the legislators.

   Compared to other WA representatives in Congress, Jaime is tied for third place with District 8 (District 4 and 5 had 50% and 48% — All the rest are Democrats, who topped out at 15%).

   See the scorecard at http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/

   Note, I’m not necessarily in full agreement with the Heritage Foundation’s positions — but this does give an idea of where our representatives stand on the issues.
6. 
   lewwaters
   May 18, 2014 at 7:46 PM

   I want PCO’s and elected people willing to point out errors or misgivings in party direction some of the time.

   I do not want extremist views running things. That is a large reason I walked away from the Clark GOP, one thought permitted.

   It was the so-called establishment back then and now seems to be a far right faction
7. 
   Ron Fitch
   May 18, 2014 at 8:02 PM

   It seems the objective was to get more active PCOs, ones who are willing to put forth an effort to get Republican candidates elected. I don’t see a problem with that.
8. 
   lewwaters
   May 18, 2014 at 8:10 PM

   If someone filed for the position, doesn’t that indicate a willingness?

   Whatever happened to get out and tell voters what you stand for to win instead of seeking to get your opponent to drop out before it even gets going?

   And, if it is really a sincere effort for Republicans, why the urgency of stressing not to forward it or speak of it?
9. 
   K.J. Hinton
   May 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM

   For me, the question is this: did ALL PCO candidates get this?

   Or just the ones Berrigan wanted?

   If it were the select few, then that was the motivation. If it was everyone registered in a contested race, then the issue of motivation and willingness to work would be the likely motivation.

   Which was it?
10. 
    Dennis Henry
    May 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM

    Laughable. If it weren’t true. I thought we were past all of that. The tired establishment line just cracks me up, see Mark, Christian and Dan, you guys are the establishment now.

    Well, in the immortal words of “Who?”
    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss…,
11. 
    Tom Sharples
    May 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM

    “If someone filed for the position, doesn’t that indicate a willingness?”

    It didn’t in my case, two years ago. As what happened subsequently showed very clearly.
12. 
    Tom Sharples
    May 18, 2014 at 8:27 PM

    And Lew while I certainly agree you want divergent views on the central committee (which we have) you also want folks who at least care enough to show up and maybe post the occasional comment on the Columbian.
13. 
    Kevin VanGelder
    May 18, 2014 at 8:32 PM

    Lew, this is a simple case of saving both parties campaigning funds and time. If they can amicably agree as to which person would be better for the job it’s better for everyone if the person less excited drops out (that also saves cost of printing that race on the ballot). There is no ill-will here or attempting to force anyone out, if the other person really does want to be in the race then that’s great. If Christian had suggested (and he never ever would) that we should attempt to force our opponents out of the race then you would have a leg to stand on, but he didn’t. I’m not familiar with what happened in 2010, but this isn’t playing dirty so using this to say that you think there is foul play for other races is pretty silly.

    I agree with a lot of what you say, and I also agree that we shouldn’t be afraid to call out our own party for dirty politics, but this is not “playing dirty”
14. 
    Dan Barnes
    May 18, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    Please, Tom, who is the divergent opinion on the CCRP Board?
15. 
    Dennis Henry
    May 18, 2014 at 8:41 PM

    This smells of the same stuff as took place at the Party convention. disenfranchising the active voting members of the precinct in favor of a prearranged slate of opponents. The email contains all the rebuttal points required. These actions need something sterner than a “please stop”.

    It is a defining moment for the Clark County GOP, does the Central Committee and leadership truly want the party to succeed or do they want it to fail?
16. 
    lewwaters
    May 18, 2014 at 8:46 PM

    Kevin, if it wasn’t an effort at dirty underhanded politics again, what was the need for “Do not talk about this email. Do not forward this email.?”

    That, to me, indicates it wasn’t sent to everybody or that it is just an effort to wean filers not really interested in the Republican view.

    Since there is no pay involved nor any officialism, other than voting or speaking at central committee meetings, why would someone even file if they were not interested?

    But, why the need for the secrecy if on the up and up?
17. 
    Tom Sharples
    May 18, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    No-one seems willing to address my original question: Do you really want PCOs in office who have so little conviction that they’d withdraw because their opponent asked nicely?

    And that also answers your question Lew – they filed on a whim or because someone with an agenda asked them to – not because they really wanted to do the work.
18. 
    lewwaters
    May 18, 2014 at 9:11 PM

    If they filed on a whim or because someone put them up to it, would they canvas their precinct to ask for votes? No.

    If they are unopposed, will there being elected and not being active have any effect or keep someone that really wanted the slot out? Again, no.

    If contested, isn’t it between those who canvas their precinct to introduce themselves and seek votes, not someone from within the party that isn’t even the chair of the party to seek out some to provide encouragement on trying to get an opponent to withdraw?

    And again, if on the up and up, why the need to urge recipients to not forward or speak about the email?
19. 
    Bryan Levesque
    May 18, 2014 at 9:17 PM

    This is very sad. I decided to run as a PCO out of BG and the day I signed up online my wife received multiple phone calls from Katja Delavar asking for an immediate call back. When she did not, I received an email from her asking me to call her THAT NIGHT. When I called, I was presented with the same script from the email and asked to call my fellow running mate to “decide which one of us should run, and which should drop out”. Look I’m not dumb, she wanted ME to drop out. My friend also decided to run as a PCO out of Camas, he got a call from Kenny Smith Saturday, again following the email footprint. The whole thing is flat out BS. I don’t appreciate being lied to. I was told that “it would be a pain in the ass for voters to have to choose between 2 PCO’s running” Yet, just 2 years ago when Brandon Vick was running unopposed for 18th LD seat, the current CCRP had Peter Silliman run as a write in candidate, because “the voters should decide and Brandon shouldn’t simple walk in with out having to earn it only because he was ‘the chosen one'”. Okay, so what the hell now? Isn’t that exactly what they are trying to do? This is not about Brandon, whom I publicly support, and Peter, a man who in my opinion is a great man that I would have been 100% fine with as my rep, it’s about being honest. Don’t tell me one thing once, then go against it later simply because it no longer falls in line with the person you want to win. Next, isn’t one of the biggest issues us “conservatives” have with the Liberal D’s is that they feel they know better than us and that we are too dumb to make decisions on our own, and that we need them to make decisions for us, again because we are too dumb? So, tell me how this is not the exact same thing? They are trying to take the decision away from each precinct and make the decision for us, because we are too dumb to pick a person to represent us ourselves? Again, I have a HUGE problem with this, HUGE! Thanks for shedding the light on this Lew. I’m sure I have little to no shot at winning, but there is NO WAY I will simply step aside because ANY group thinks they know what’s best for me and my neighbors. I will run, and I will let my neighbors decide form themselves who they want to represent them. Again, the funny things is that me and my opponent are probably 99.99% the same, so in the end who ever wins, the representation will be the same. This should NEVER happen.
20. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 18, 2014 at 9:40 PM

    Bryan Levesque you are right. I got the call to drop out in my race for pco in 2012. I didn’t even know about the Liberty Alliance group at that time. I had met Christian Berrigan a couple of times. All of a sudden there was a concerted movement to gut the party of “establishment republicans” in favor of their personally selected ones. They created a slate and posted a website to direct people to the lists of preferred. I have attended almost every meeting and am constantly entering the discussion regarding the direction the board wants us to go. I am really sad that Kenny Smith is involved in this. I hoped he would be above this. This behavior is divisive and not a good example of free representative form of government. The Liberty Alliance group motto was to sacrifice political gain for principle. In other words to deconstruct the Republican party so their own ideals would be the rule of the day. The only way it can be seen because otherwise they wouldn’t hide and do backroom deals and all the things they claim to hate about the “establishment”. This is so sad. Please do run and please win. The party is a huge tent full of people who do not always agree on 100% of everything but agree on almost all of the major issues. It is time that the tent is diversified a bit more.
21. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 18, 2014 at 9:42 PM

    Lou I still have the old Liberty Alliance Group list with preferred vs allied ratings for those pco’s that they endorsed. Perhaps it is time to dust it off and post it?
22. 
    lewwaters
    May 18, 2014 at 10:00 PM

    I notice that the webpage they were so proud of in 2012 is gone.

    Feel free to post what you have, Carolyn.
23. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 19, 2014 at 12:03 AM

    Well, I have a couple of copied postings that they made. Please remember one thing… many many of these people are my friends and I am sure that like my friend Tom Sharples they did not work to undermine the representative form of government. I do not know if they all even realized that they were on a slate agenda. I know that the main players did like I know Lisa Ross did because she said so in her speech the night that the members voted for the new board in December of 2012 and I believe that consequently was the very reason she was not elected to be on that board of our Republican party. People do not want to work with a stacked deck that leaves them feeling they really do not have a voice once they have made their initial vote. Another thing that I have come to realize that that not all of the people are really there for the pco effort but are there to vote in the board members in December or like our recent mid-election that was held. This one is a really long list but it is their pco slate from 2012.
    Liberty alliance:

    PRECINCT BALLOT NAME STATUS
    434 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    436 Kelly Stoner ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    441 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    483 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    487 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    543 John “Kevin” Grant ALLIED
    550 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    553 Steven P. Madore ALLIED
    555 Nicole Eastridge PREFERRED
    560 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    563 Pat Anderson ALLIED

    570 Christian Spartacus Berrigan ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED

    571 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    572 Michael Frome ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    573 Pat Weidenaar ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    575
    577 Mary Sue Davis ALLIED
    615 Erik Mattson ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    617 Brian J. Rohan ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    624 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    626 Daniel L. Haase PREFERRED
    627 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    628 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    629 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    630 Gregory H. Smith ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    632 Richard Colwell ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    633 Adam Baldwin ALLIED
    634 May J. Pelletier ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED

    635 Dan Poletti ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    636 Duane L Brumfiel PREFERRED
    638 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    640 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    641 Frank Decker ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    643 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    646 Nick Yonko ALLIED
    649 Teo Micu PREFERRED
    652 Summer Sorensen ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    653 Allan Dunham ALLIED
    654 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    656 Garry R. Lee PREFERRED
    658 Stuart Lockhart ALLIED
    659 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    662 Gregory Noelck PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    664 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    668 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    669 Alan Svehaug PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    672 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    674 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    677 Damon Clinch PREFERRED
    678 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    679 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    680 Josephine Funes Wentzel PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    681 Stuart Knight ALLIED
    682 Eric M. Heredia ALLIED
    683 Mary L. Thurston ALLIED
    685 Heidi K. Oswalt ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    686 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    687 Gary Schaeffer PREFERRED
    688 Allen L. Rogers ALLIED
    689 David G. Wagner ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    691 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    692 Jeremy Brock ALLIED
    693 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    694 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    695 Lynn Costello PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    697 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    698 Robert C. Moon ALLIED

    699 L. D. Wilson ALLIED

    710 Joseph Inman PREFERRED
    720 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE

    PRECINCT BALLOT NAME STATUS
    440 Troy Walton ALLIED
    444 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    445 David Palmer ALLIED
    446 Patrick Flynn PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    447 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    448 Richard F. Herlein ALLIED
    449 Jack Kitchen PREFERRED
    450 Mike Ouellette PREFERRED
    451 Jon D. Sellers ALLIED
    452 Andrew Boyes ALLIED
    455 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    456 Ron Branch ALLIED
    480 Michael L. Williams ALLIED
    485 Gary S. Sims ALLIED
    490 Sharon M. Erck ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    491 Daniel Oberreuter ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    500 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    502 Cory Allmaras PREFERRED
    505 Edmund J. Goodwin ALLIED
    515 Justin D. (Dale) Smith PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    522 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    527 Peter M. Silliman ALLIED
    538 Jason Dearmin ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    540 Tom M. Mielke PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    545 Larry R. Slattery ALLIED
    580 Ray Cochran ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    581 Troy McCoy ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    582 Jeff Meeko ALLIED
    583 Abraham Aho ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    584 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    585 Caleb Blanton PREFERRED
    586 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    587 James (Jimmy) Kramer ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    588 Cheryl Jones ALLIED
    590 Ed Hall PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    591 Jeff Loehr ALLIED

    592 Kenny Smith ALLIED

    593 Warren Chapman PREFERRED
    595 Daniel Melhorn ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    600 Nathan R. Noorlun ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    603 Lacey Marsolek PREFERRED
    605 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    610 SID Sutherland PREFERRED
    613 Stephen Mosier ALLIED
    618 John Anderson PREFERRED
    620 Gary A. Byers ALLIED
    625 Kevin VanGelder ALLIED
    631 Marilyn Sangmeister ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    644 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    645 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    647 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    648 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    690 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    696 Cheri M. Berg PREFERRED
    900 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    903 John P. Hynds ALLIED
    905 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    910 Paula M. Arsenault ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    912 Katja Delavar PREFERRED
    913 Cory Barnes ALLIED
    914 Sharla Evans *Endorsed by her opponent Brent Boger ALLIED

    917 Joseph John Keller ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    920 David Knight ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    925 Charles P. Miller PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    935 John W. Bryden PREFERRED
    947 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    950 Thomas Hann PREFERRED
    951 Brian Kashas ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    960 Jase Stefanski ALLIED
    961 Jacinta M. Cox ALLIED
    962 Joel Shellman PREFERRED
    963 Clint Riemer ALLIED
    964 Christopher R. Scott ALLIED
    965 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    966 Michael Wilson PREFERRED
    967 Ryan Carver PREFERRED
    968 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    985 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE

    50 Matthew Hansen PREFERRED
    55 Lorraine Logan PREFERRED
    60 Robert Mayer PREFERRED
    70 Guy Drennan PREFERRED
    90 Ryan Colgrove PREFERRED
    100 Johnathan Bunn ALLIED
    110 Laney Maxwell ALLIED
    120 Jenny Price PREFERRED
    130 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    147 Steven J. Nelson ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    150 Kathleen Metzger ALLIED
    153 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    160 Ray Rauscher, Jr. PREFERRED
    170 Jim Johnson PREFERRED
    175 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    180 Armando Saldivar ALLIED

    190 Mark Engleman ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED

    200 Frankie White PREFERRED
    220 Ramona White PREFERRED

    225 Dick Sohn PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    240 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    245 Nancy Limbaugh ALLIED
    250 Neil Wagner PREFERRED
    255 Jett Hoskins ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    257 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    290 Rosmarie Schuchman PREFERRED
    294 Nicholas Cotton ALLIED
    296 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    325 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    327 John Hallinen ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    330 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    335 Patricia (Patti) Davis PREFERRED
    337 Eric Jenks ALLIED
    340 Mark Lowenstein ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    350 James Pemberton PREFERRED
    360 Roy Pulver ALLIED
    370 Tyson Jones ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    390 Matthew Weeks PREFERRED
    395 David Williams PREFERRED
    400 BobbiJo Delany ALLIED
    410 Karl Stump PREFERRED
    415 Alan D. Halgren PREFERRED

    420 Lisa Phifer Ross ALLIED

    423 David Morgun PREFERRED
    424 Phil Way PREFERRED
    425 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    426 Carol L. Brown ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    430 Joseph Winton PREFERRED
    435 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    453 Tyler Conway PREFERRED
    460 Trevor W. Winton ALLIED
    470 James Randall ALLIED
    565 Eric Siegler ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    566 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    639 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    642 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    650 Bryan Asbury ALLIED
    651 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    660 Mike Garrison PREFERRED
    663 Warren P. Higley PREFERRED
    670 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    673 NO PREFERRED CANDIDATE
    675 Tom Sharples ALLIED

    520 NO CANDIDATE FILED
    525 Kenneth Richard Fuller ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    528 Mary Nevius PREFERRED
    *Endorsed by her opponent: Willie Bourlet
    530 David Couto ALLIED/PREFERRED-UNCONTESTED
    535 Ron Fitch PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    536 David A. Darby PREFERRED/UNCONTESTED
    537 Lesli Collum PREFERRED
24. 
    K.J. Hinton
    May 19, 2014 at 8:26 AM

    Plus, of course, the optics of upholding a Stolen Valor, beat my wife type like Hedrick for anything is bad juju.
25. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 19, 2014 at 8:56 AM

    I so agree KJ. I would’ve said it myself with links but thought uh well… I do appreciate the fact that you handled it so much.
26. 
    Dan Poletti
    May 19, 2014 at 12:25 PM

    I expected this post when I got a call from Mary Graham last night berating me for my horrible intimidating ways (Nice to meet you, by the way, Mrs. Graham). At the time, I had no idea what she was talking about, but apparently it was because my name was on this email after I volunteered to run withdrawal forms down to the election office if people couldn’t do it themselves. Lew, predictably, didn’t wait to hear the truth, but was so gleeful that he got hold of a private email that says ‘don’t forward this’, that he just couldn’t wait to ask any questions about it first.

    In any case, the anger from people like Carolyn Crain does puzzle me. She has called Lisa Ross multiple times and had her friends do the same trying to get Lisa to drop out. Lisa is a very strong volunteer in the party, much more active than Carolyn. So I’m trying to figure out how Carolyn can be angry that we are asking people if they are serious about being a PCO after they fail to show up to any of the meetings for two years? That conversation is off limits, Carolyn, but constantly badgering Lisa Ross isn’t?

    I’m not going to say a lot yet, but there is a story in the works that Lew knows nothing about that is going to make this post look pretty darn silly. There is definitely something untoward going on with recruiting, but it wasn’t on our side. Stay tuned.
27. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 1:28 PM

    I look forward to your story, Dan and won’t be surprised to see you dig yourselves in deeper

    Incidentally, I did not just “get ahold” of the email, it was sent to me by a recipient not too happy that it was written and they received the phone call.

    If you look on my facebook page, you will see others not to pleased about it.
28. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM

    I contacted Lisa Ross once. I never had anyone else call her personally. I have heard people did. Apparently she wasn’t willing to get the message that running for legislature and splitting the ticket of Republican votes was a disastrous idea in a state with a top two advancement plan and a democrat district. That has nothing to do with me. I am running my race against my opponent who happens to be Jim Moeller a democrat. The rest will work itself out one way or the other.

    As I said above many of the people on that list are my friends and not all of them are pleased with the e-mail that was sent out. The fact that there are pco’s who have contributed for decades to the efforts to strengthen the party in our county making an effort to get more people to run for PCO should make everyone in the party happy and I appreciate the effort by Mary Graham to promote the continued growth of activism within our ranks.
29. 
    Dan Poletti
    May 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM

    I should add that I am very much in agreement with Bryan Levesque above that he has every right to run for PCO. To my knowledge, nobody is trying to bully or trick anyone into quitting. The situation right now in the party is that a number of PCOs are signed up who never attend anything except Organization meetings to elect the board, and they can’t be reached the rest of the term. Their presence on the rolls ensures that quorums can’t be reached and certain business can’t be done as a result. If Bryan or anyone is running and plans to come to the meetings and represent his precinct, then more power to him. We want as many of those as we can get. If people are running just to fill a spot and not participate, or worse..if they are being signed up without their knowledge or consent, we want to know about this, especially in races where another willing candidate has entered to run. That is the reason for the phone calls, as far as I understand. As I say, there will be a story on this very soon that will turn this post on its head.
30. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM

    I believe people reading the email and the urgings to not speak of it or forward will form their own opinion of what it all means.

    The way to deal with PCO’s not being active is to run others for the position, not surreptitiously go behind everyone’s back to encourage only some to withdraw in favor of those you want in the position.

    And by “you,” I mean the party, not so much you personally.
31. 
    Craig Sayre
    May 19, 2014 at 2:10 PM

    This conversation is why people despise politics and don’t want to get involved. Who needs the hassle? You’d think the at least the people in the same political party could get along without trying to gut each other.
32. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 5:36 PM

    LOL, Too funny. Apparently someone has heard and is a little upset. Below is a copy of an email sent to me by Christian Berrigan hisself just now.

    Email regarding contacting fellow pco candidates
    From: Christian Berrigan (skyisthelimit.csb@gmail.com)
    Sent: Mon 5/19/14 5:16 PM
    To: ‘Miscellaneous’ (christian@tread-not.com)

    Hi folks,

    I understand I’m being skewered on social media today. I haven’t had time to check it out because I’ve spent the whole day investigating improper and fraudulent PCO application online filings at the elections division all day. Here is a letter I sent this morning at 8:30 am after Mary expressed concern about the email I sent on Sunday. I’m sending this copy to a few folks in the hope it will clarify my position.

    There is one error in the email however which I’ve corrected – the example I gave about someone telling a PCO opponent that they were expected to work 2 hours per week is wrong. Apparently the person represented that they would have to work about 2 hours PER DAY.

    I’m going to post this to my facebook in a little bit but wanted to make sure you received a copy directly.

    From: Christian Berrigan [mailto:skyisthelimit.csb@gmail.com]
    Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:28 AM
    To: Somebody
    Subject: Email regarding contacting fellow pco candidates

    Dear Somebody,

    I understand that you have some objections to an email I sent out to some PCO candidates giving them ideas about how to talk to their opponents and ascertain their level of enthusiasm about being a PCO.

    I would like to state plainly for you what my logic and opinion is about this email. It is not my goal for you to agree with me, but simply whether or not you agree with my thought process, for you to at least know what my thought process is, first hand.

    First I want to state some things that I firmly believe to be truth:

    1) There were no false statements in the email.
    2) There is nothing wrong with a candidate contacting their opponent to determine their level of interest and discover whether or not a person is willing to withdraw.
    3) There is nothing wrong with conveying one’s excitement about being a PCO to another person.
    4) The suggestion/goal which was clearly stated in the email was to merely discover if the other person will independently OFFER to withdraw, and to do so by simply conveying one’s own excitement. This is in no way an act of intimidation. Someone might claim it to be manipulative, and I might argue that point, but it certainly is no act of intimidation.
    5) Not only is asking someone to not forward an email no violation of decorum, but in fact is common practice in political communication.

    I believe most people would agree with the above statements.

    I have an example of what I believe actually is intimidation tactics. One of the new PCO candidates which was recruited in a precinct I believed to be vacant – I believed it to be vacant because the former PCO resigned in the middle of the 2013 election cycle – received a phone call from his opponent. His opponent is the same PCO which previously resigned! In that phone call he was told that if he wanted to be a PCO he must canvass his entire precinct multiple times per year and would be expected to spend at least two hours (ed: per week per day) working his precinct. Has there EVER been a PCO – new or existing – who has ever been told this is their minimum requirement? Did the person saying these things actually intend to do that level of work themselves? I doubt it. THAT is an intimidation tactic, and a disingenuous one at that.

    Now to explain my motivation and reasoning.

    MY RECRUITMENT STRATEGY/CRITERIA

    The vast majority of my PCO recruitment was directed toward vacant precincts, with a minority directed toward precincts with PCOs who have had non-existent or nearly non-existent participation. If a PCO is unwilling to come to even a single central committee meeting or any other party event, I would consider that precinct in need of an upgrade. This is why in all my recruiting I always stated that the minimum expectation I had of a PCO was to attend the quarterly central committee meetings. I believe that if a new PCO is willing to do that, they will likely make new friends and discover other activities in which they will become interested in participating.

    CULTURAL CHALLENGES WITHIN THE BODY OF PCOS – “THE SPECTATOR PCO”

    I believe that one of the most singular damaging actions of the past has been the recruitment of PCOs by telling them that all they need to do is go to one meeting every two years. This was common practice in the past and has resulted in a culture of what I call THE SPECTATOR PCO. I have reason to believe that practice may still be continuing. This has been an extraordinarily destructive tactic and has resulted in the apathy and lack of participation lamented by so many candidates running for major offices. This is not a culture that can be reversed overnight, nor will it ever be if we set the initiation bar too high for new prospective PCOs. But it certainly won’t ever be solved by simply allowing spectator PCOs to continue to file unchallenged. This is the main reason why my suggestion to a candidate when calling another was simply to express their excitement and interest and see what happens. Often (but not often enough in my opinion) the response is “well if you’re that excited about it you can do it.” Is that a bad thing for the party or a good thing?

    The biggest damage that we can do to the party and to the welfare of our party’s candidates is to recruit more spectator PCOs. ANY upgrade of interest in a precinct is an upgrade to the party and an incremental step in solving this problem. This problem was not created overnight, and it cannot be solved overnight. But it must be solved if we want to win elections and have republicans dominating the political landscape of Clark County. Improving the culture of dedication and participation within the PCO body is one of the major things which animate me and motivate me to be involved with the party.

    For the above reasons I stand by the email that I sent. While I acknowledge that you may disagree with my tactics, I trust that you do not disagree with the motives I’ve outlined above. If you choose to characterize my email to others, please do so with the above statements in mind. Thank you for your concern.

    Sincerely,

    Christian Berrigan, PCO – Precinct #570

    To begin with, the person who sent it to me is not the person (the ‘somebody’) he addressed the secondary email to.

    There is nothing in the initial effort mentioning “improper or fraudulent PCO applications.”

    If he’s been too busy to see how he is being “skewered,” how did he know to copy me the email?

    Enjoy the effort, I will dissect it more as I can, but as I said to Dan, if this is the “story” he was mentioning, they just dug themselves in a little deeper 😉
33. 
    K.J. Hinton
    May 19, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    Every dictator in history had the best of intentions.
34. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 6:33 PM

    Jesus this thread is hilarious!
35. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 7:19 PM

    One point Christian makes I just have to respond to: “Not only is asking someone to not forward an email no violation of decorum, but in fact is common practice in political communication.”

    Uh, isn’t this the very thing we are complaining about C-Tran recently doing over an email received by the city manager?

    Why would anybody complain about C-Tran hiding something, then turn around and justify themselves doing it too?
36. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 7:45 PM

    I’m curious, Lew, can we expect anytime soon to see your thoughtful, detailed, and objective analysis on the differences between the pre-2012 CCGOP bylaws and the bylaws as they exist today–post “Paulbot” infected influence? Perhaps you’d like to do an expose on this issue and enlighten all of us as to where the concentration of power existed then and where it exists today?
37. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 7:54 PM

    I guess you forget, Frank, I am not a Republican. I speak out against what I see wrong with Democrats and Republicans too.

    My blog has never been set up to benefit Republicans in particular, hence my calling it “Conservative” and not “Republican.”

    Now, care to address Christian claims of asking something not to be spoken of or forwarded being no violation of decorum when many are complaining of C-Tran doing just that?

    I’m curious how it is no violation of decorum for who I suppose still has a leadership position within the GOP, but it is a violation of public trust for C-Tran.
38. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 8:02 PM

    Please don’t side-step my question, Lew, it’s a legitimate one. If you are going to call out the CCGOP and make the assertion that the current leadership is no different than the previous, then it’s a legitimate request that you demonstrate how that is factual. The one place that can be analyzed objectively is the party bylaws. If your assertions are accurate, then the bylaws should reflect that, should they not?
39. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 8:24 PM

    Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the email sent out to some. It is irrelevant and nothing more than an attempt by you to highjack the discussion and divert attention away from the real subject.

    Feel free to justify the email, if you can.
40. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 8:45 PM

    My question has everything to do with the subject. The title of your post is “Clark GOP Playing Dirty Again?” for christ’s sake. You use the email to support your assertion that the current party leadership is no better than the last. If that was actually factual, which it is not, then the changes post-2012 change in leadership should by default reflect that assertion. They of course do not. The truth really seems to be what is irrelevant to you here. The truth is that for decades our state has been dominated by liberalism and the democrats? Why? Well, because for decades the Republican party has been dominated by the establishment who care more about controlling party power and position than they do about winning elections. They got away with it because of 2000 year old PCO candidates that never knock on a single door or speak to a single voter, choosing rather to be a ‘place holder’ that showed up at the occasional central committee meeting to approve the bidding of the establishment leadership. The PCO Liberty Alliance (you and KJ refer to them as the Paulbots’) changed that decades old status-quo. Now there are exponentially more active PCO’s, party bylaws that decentralize power and return it to the PCO’s, and actually doing something–boots on the ground work if you will to take our state back. For that reason I COMMEND Christian and the party leadership for both the email and the tactic. Their efforts will ensure that the old guard establishment will not return anytime soon and that the direction and decision making power of the party resides where it belongs, with the PCO’s.
41. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM

    Frank, this may come as a big surprise to you, but you don’t direct the discussion or call the shots here.

    Address the attempt of the email or go away.

    I will not tolerate RonPaulian tactics.

    You wan a discussion on differences in leadership, put something up on Poletti’s
42. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 9:13 PM

    Jesus, do I have to put paint-by-numbers notations on my comments Deleted, off topic & irrelevant

    Any more off topic attempts at highjacking will also be deleted Lew
43. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 9:22 PM

    If you were really interested in my view on past party leadership, all you would need do is view through the archived posts.
44. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 9:24 PM

    Off Topic
45. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 9:42 PM

    Perhaps this is “on topic”, Lew?

    Deleted. Piggyback something else, not me

    I strongly suggest you change the name of your blog to remove the Conservative portion of the name. Conservatism by it’s very definition is pro first amendment and clearly freedom of speech is not part of your blog philosophy.
46. 
    lewwaters
    May 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM

    I strongly suggest you worry about your own dismal efforts

    Then, study the first amendment, it only applies to government, not private websites.

    I refer you back to my commenting policy, “spam and off topic comments will be removed at blog owners discretion”
47. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 19, 2014 at 9:55 PM

    It is not a big tent when a group in control uses their position to attempt to get people who wish to become actively involved in their party’s politics to stop being involved. The current party leaders have a motto “sacrifice politics for principle” so that means they do not wish to actually win seats and are willing to allow the liberal democrats to do so if the Republican isn’t in lockstep with their ideals across the board. That makes your statement above wrong Frank.

    The establishment republicans as you all keep calling them are people who worked hard to keep an office open for the public to visit and for pco’s to meet and the board to meet. The office was staffed by volunteers who by the way also had jobs and donated money. They knocked on doors and manned phone banks. So before you go on about the establishment republicans I personally would appreciate it if you would quit deciding who is and who is not a republican or republican enough for you. It and all language like rino, etc. are divisive name calling rude and socially impolite unacceptable hostile titles. I am so tired of this bs. People do not need a leadership team inside a party to tell them how to think and force them all to agree.

    As a leadership team you have one job and only one job that is to win elections in the legislature, governorship and other state races, congressional races and presidential races. To do that you do not need to create a new party or restructure core principles. You do not need to set defined “my way or the highway” policies. You have to recruit volunteers; run an office for visibility, meetings and phone banking; hold fundraisers and support candidates with training or information.
    Stick to your job and the rest will take care of itself.

    There is absolutely something wrong when a group of people thinks that they should secretly attempt to retain power by coercing the potential volunteer to drop their effort to run for pco office. If there weren’t something wrong it would not have been made with the attempt to hide it and everyone knows that. No amount of excuses will excuse it. There is no pardon to be had. You might as well stop arguing because your stance is indefensible.
48. 
    Frank Decker
    May 19, 2014 at 10:20 PM

    In a surprising turn of events (not really), your comments, Carolyn, have been deemed “on topic at the blog owner’s discretion”, while mine have been deleted. You’ll understand, therefore, why it is pointless to address your comments directly. All that said, of course, assuming that this comment won’t be delete by said blog owner at his discretion 🙂
49. 
    Ann Bellows Laurier
    May 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM

    First, thank you so much, Lew, for bringing all of this shameful mess to our attention. I want to commend Carolyn for a well written response, to which I totally agree. I am saddened by Mr. Decker’s sophomoric comments.
50. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    Piggyback someone else, Christian
51. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    Oh Lew I’m sorry. You suggested that the references Dan made to another story were suspect, and so I thought I would post a link to the story. Since it was related to your remarks in this thread I presumed it was relevant. I forgot that since it didn’t support your narrative it would be de-facto irrelevant. My mistake.
52. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM

    Give it up, Christian. Apparently your piece is not receiving the notoriety you wish, so you decided to link it here and draw readers.

    You and Dan want to build up your little hole in the web, do it the way I did mine, by years of work.

    By the way, maybe you should reread your initial email.

    Oh, by the way, it’s my constitutional right to determine what I want shown here.
53. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 2:50 PM

    Typical Lew…. you always know exactly what I’m thinking. I was just trying to follow up on YOUR reference to the story, which you obviously chose not to reference yourself because it didn’t support your prior assertions. Hundreds of people are reading the piece all over from the state party on down, but I was REALLY hoping for just three more readers by posting it here. Darn!
54. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 2:59 PM

    Since you have so many readers, you don’t need it here, do you, Christian?

    Love the childish insult effort, so typical 😉
55. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 3:03 PM

    By the way, Christian, if you people spent less time concentrating on centralizing your power and control over the party and more on what is actually happening in the region, maybe you could win an election.

    You do remember those, don’t you? Seems your efforts didn’t fair very well for you last year.
56. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM

    Yes Lew it would be great if the old guard wasn’t using illegal and fraudulent means to try to consolidate their power. It is quite a distraction!
57. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 3:13 PM

    LOL, yes, everybody is out to get you, poor baby.

    Funny since I too discussed it with Cathie Garber. Seems her take is somewhat different than what y’all wrote.

    If I decide to post the Part Two I wrote this morning, maybe I’ll include that
58. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 20, 2014 at 3:15 PM

    Christian I am personally going to ask you to stop attacking Republicans now. These people that Dan Poletti named in his blog are good people. It is time for this to end. As a party leader you are not only throwing around false accusations but are embarrassing the party again.
59. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 3:38 PM

    I don’t believe that the people who had applications filed for them did anything wrong. It is the person who did the filing who was in the wrong, and any person who claimed someone wanted to file for PCO when in fact they did not. I believe that limits the number of people “in the wrong” mentioned in the article to two.
60. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM

    Tell me, Christian, what does any of that have to do with “you have one opportunity THIS WEEKEND to convince your opponent to voluntarily drop out of the race. We have a very successful way to make this happen with a phone call. Please pay close attention, then make a very nice, friendly and cheerful call ON SUNDAY to see if they will withdraw.”
61. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM

    Yeah you’re right Lew, I should discuss the article and scandal you don’t want to post elsewhere where people have posted it. Thanks for the reminder.
62. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 3:54 PM

    Christian, have you lost your ability to dance? That wasn’t a very good effort to divert attention away from your original email.

    Part two, if I decide to post it, dissects that post of yours with truth I received from the Elections Office and reasoning.

    But this post is about your back handed effort to encourage selective candidates to withdraw in favor of ones you find more suited to your whims (I suppose)

    Maybe you don’t wish to discuss it, but I like to have the subject I write about discussed first.

    As I told you before, it’s my constitutional right to determine what discussions I wish to be held here. I’m sure you understand 😉
63. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 3:58 PM

    My email to Mary Graham you have posted here is my response to that issue. I really don’t have anything to add to it. People ask their opponents to withdraw all the time. While you might have an issue with the tone of the email, the email itself is a non-issue in my opinion. That will not change.
64. 
    CarolynCrain
    May 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM

    What e-mail to Mary Graham? I do not see it?
65. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 4:08 PM

    Whether or not I have an issue with it isn’t as important as the PCO candidates you upset with it, Christian.

    My issue isn’t that you asked for some to withdraw, but you seem to have carefully chosen selected ones then went behind everybody else’s back, encouraging secrecy in doing it.

    And at a time that lack of transparency from C-Tran has been a big issue.

    By your reasoning expressed in your email to Mary Graham, it’s okay for you to not be transparent, so why shouldn’t C-Tran?

    And it might not be an issue to you, but it sure seems to be an issue to several others, especially those who feel they were wronged by it.

    And still, your subsequent claim of some mass conspiracy against you by “establishment operatives” in filing fraudulent candidacy’s is completely irrelevant to what your expressed intent was in the first email.

    But, I just have to ask, since it such a “non-issue” to you and I guess a couple others, why the effort to flock here to counter it and divert attention away to your claimed conspiracy? Most people ignore what they consider a “non-issue”
66. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 4:08 PM

    It is posted at May 19, 2014 at 5:36 PM above and was written prior to any of the application controversy of yesterday. It is also on my personal facebook timeline. I sent it at 8:30 am on Monday morning.
67. 
    Christian Berrigan
    May 20, 2014 at 4:15 PM

    Your assumptions that my attempt to discuss the other issue here was motivated by a desire to divert is presumptuous. I think if I wanted to divert attention I would not have provided you with my response to Mary nor would I have posted it on my personal facebook.
68. 
    lewwaters
    May 20, 2014 at 4:24 PM

    Not so presumptuous since you declare it such a “non-issue,” then try to link to another site countering it and then come here to discuss your conspiracy instead of the subject.

    Then again, the very first paragraph of your effort over there at liberty something or other says, “On a day when the local chatter among establishment sympathizers has been on an email sent by Christian Berrigan urging PCO candidates to call their opponents in order to assess their level of enthusiasm, the real news story is that there was a very good reason for making those phone calls, namely, that several of those candidates never wanted to file in the first place.”

    But, now you say it is really a “non-issue” to you?

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE! Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.