«   |   »

Flyers in the Ointment, Part Two: Updated

by lewwaters

CCGOP LogoReaders will recall the July 23, 2016 post, Flyers in the Ointment addressing the Clark County Republican Party mailing out flyers that promoted favored candidates over others in direct violation of their bylaws.

In a subsequent post this blog mentioned their displeasure in seeing Republican John Blom defeat incumbent Republican David Madore and more will be being released here in following days.

Below is a short excerpt of audio sent me of a Friday, Aug. 13 committee meeting at the Clark County GOP headquarters where such displeasure was being expressed along with efforts to justify violating their own bylaws with the questionable mailers.

Party bylaws, which were made public are very clear in expressing a “no position” position shall be taken when more than one Republican is vying in a primary.

Simply stated, it is the voters of Clark County that are to determine which candidate they feel is best suited to advance to the general and not the leadership of the party.

Other audio which will also be posted in subsequent days will show how some members of this committee are highly displeased with the outcome of the primary election in District 3 of Clark County.

They also show an effort of what can only be described as “collusion” on the part of a member of an “up and coming” media site for the party to continue sidestepping bylaws by submitting articles in the future to the site and they be posted as if not actually from the party.

Years ago this blog began warning citizens of this group that was taking over the Clark County Republican Party and was scoffed at.

In 2014 and often since this blog and its author has been attacked for shining light in on nefarious actions taken by this same leadership.

They see nothing irregular in their conduct to ensure what they want in government is what happens and to them, just as with far leftists, “the ends justify the means,” even if directly violating their own bylaws.

You that are still remaining in the Clark County Republican Party need to clean house and elect new leaders.

Leaders that will listen to you and still believe in cooperation with diverse views, just like President Reagan adopted with his “big tent” policy, not dictate from the top while pretending to be a “grassroots bottom up” party.

Take back your party!

UPDATE: Aug 26, 2016 the Lazy C reporting the Clark County Republicans are considering a “neutrality resolution.” Do they really require a separate resolution calling on them to abide by their existing bylaws?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Help keep this blog active with a voluntary contribution at the PayPal button at the top of the sidebar on the right. Thank you.

Posted on August 24, 2016 at 2:13 PM in Clark County Issues   |  RSS feed

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

9 Comments to “Flyers in the Ointment, Part Two: Updated”

    
  1. Carolyn Crain
    August 24, 2016 at 3:37 PM

    Nicely stated blog piece!

    Like

  2. Friend of John Galt
    August 24, 2016 at 5:10 PM

    Good points … The “official” Republican party should remain “honestly” neutral during the primary process. (Just like the Democratic national party did in the race between Hillary and Bernie.)

    But there are obvious weaknesses in the “no party” primary system in Washington. As noted, the voters have a difficult time figuring out who is a “Republican” or a “Democrat” or a “something else.” Take a look at Marc Boldt. Is he a “Republican” or a “Democrat” or what? He ran with an endorsement from a very left-wing Democratic group and made several DIFFERENT claims about his “party” affiliation during his primary campaign. Is that truly a candidate that Republicans want to put forward as “their candidate?” Or, look at the debacle where Madore ran for the Council Chair and was opposed by Mielke and Stewart along with Marc Boldt. That split the vote, leaving Madore out in the cold (wether this is good or bad lies in the eyes of the beholder) — but it was clearly the plan by “someone” who encouraged the piling on… The so-called “jungle” primary used here was one of the not so well thought out ideas by those who were frustrated with primaries that put up “unelectable” candidates (a particular problem in California, where the Republicans who voted in primaries tended to be far, far to the right of the electorate as a whole). Of course, Washington, quickly copied this primary system. Sadly, as demonstrated by the Council Chair race in 2012, it’s not that difficult to “game” the system if you have too many candidates seeking office from one party.

    (I note that Oakland, California set up a REALLY stupid system where people could give “preferences” (1st, 2nd, 3rd) for the various candidates. They ended up with a real wacko leftist on the Oakland City Council, because (in a large field) too many people put her in as a 3rd choice… and then the 1st and 2nd choices didn’t reach the minimum % of the vote to stay in the race.)

    Like

  3. lewwaters
    August 24, 2016 at 6:43 PM

    I agree with you on this Top Two Primary system and the Democrat, Republican and Libertarian Parties have all three come out opposed to it.

    Unfortunately, it was a voter approved initiative so were pretty much stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

    Like

  4. Norm A leSane
    August 24, 2016 at 8:12 PM

    I have to disagree with Mr Galt’s friend, regarding the characterization of the Clark County Chairman race. Tom Mielke was the very first of the three sitting Commissioners to file, what passed between Madore and Mielke after that I cannot say but Mielke did not withdraw and Madore filed after Marc Boldt. Jeanne E Stewart filed on top of Madore and I believe taught him a lesson on consideration in politics, one he was unwilling to absorb. Madore made his own bed. Don’t you think it is time he be allowed to lie in it.

    Like

  5. lewwaters
    August 24, 2016 at 8:19 PM

    Neither this post nor the CCGOP meeting are actually about Madore, even though he is mentioned as the subject of the flyers in violation of their bylaws.

    From what I hear, he isn’t ready to lie in that bed of his own making as we will soon be seeing around Sept. 1.

    Where that venture ends up remains to be seen, but I hear he has hired two reporters already known to the community and has an open public records request filed with the county much like the newspaper has.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Norm A leSane
    August 24, 2016 at 8:41 PM

    I also disagree that the Party has any role in choosing who will advance, that is the job of registered voters and ought to be the job of registered republicans.
    The policy of sharing resources at no cost and with no literacy test, or loyalty oath or quiz or donation, or promise of a job or other quid quo pro, intended to weed out people who do not look, think, dress, or act like you or adore you or agree to hire your son and or daughter in law, is time tested and ought to be honored. If you have issue with a candidate or stance it is for you individually or as a group separate from the party, to bring those questions to light and get an answer that the public can judge. That is not the role of the party. While only one or maybe two of the items I just checked off have occurred, the fact is that unlawful action will be the direct result of adopting such a resolution.

    Dennis Henry

    Like

  7. Steve Lappier
    August 25, 2016 at 7:27 AM

    Question to Friend of John Galt. You stated Marc Boldt was endorsed by a very left-wing democratic group. What group would that be?

    Like

  8. Steven Nelson
    August 25, 2016 at 12:40 PM

    I wonder if it would be Okay to violate the spirit of the Constitution, but not the words?

    Like

  9. Dennis Henry
    August 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM

    Steve Lappier, that would have been the young Democrats of Clark County, Who were I understand sternly rebuked for not toeing the democrat party line. Can’t blame the YD though.

    Dennis Henry

    Like

    
%d bloggers like this: