On March 4, by publishing an article about Ruth Gibbs’ 11th District GOP Caucus (Ruth Gibbs opens GOP hunting season on Ron Paul delegates), I drove Ruth into her obsessive/compulsive mode and she began working to discredit me and the article (by any means necessary) with all the Rain-Man tenacity of Dustin Hoffman preparing a case for Judge Wapner.
Ruth spent countless hours on her vengeance project calling dozens of people (and if you’ve ever been on the business end of a phone call from Ruth Gibbs, you know how long each one of them took), making false claims, pressuring people, inspiring people to attack me, trying to get my allies to make politically “incriminating” statements or disavow each other, and doing muckraking research to find anything that could make me or anyone on the slate I supported, or anyone who endorsed the slate, or anyone who worked with anyone who endorsed the slate, or who worked with anyone who worked with anyone who endorsed the slate or their family or their friends, look bad on any basis whatsoever. The Clintons employ whole offices of people doing this sort of thing.
On April 9th Ruth published her work-product, “THE TRUTH FROM RUTH GIBBS” at Sound Politics (http://soundpolitics.com/public/2008/04/post_7.html) and emailed it to everyone she could around the Republican Party suggesting they forward it out, in turn, to everyone on earth.
In that 9,600+ word, 221 paragraph, “expose” Ruth uses the word “lie,” or a derivative, against me 52 times and the “truth,” (in contrast to what she says I’ve said) another 12 times to smear me. Some of the allegations are repetitions, to be sure, but there are, in fact, a lot of them. Her allegations against Ron Paul and his supporters are just as prolific.
Every single allegation of any substance that Ruth makes is false.
She makes other allegations that are true, but entirely substance-free, irrelevant to anything, but, perhaps, her own peculiar brand of myopic fundamentalist culture, like the “shocking revelation” that one of the candidates on the anti-amnesty slate for State Delegate has painted pictures of “almost nude” women.
That’s almost interesting, Ruth.
In one technical sense, however, I don’t think that Ruth is always lying about me lying. That is to say, I believe she has been deceived on much of this and has a measure of sincerity even though it’s probably mostly self-deception. Some of that is based on a salient inability to think logically and, to the degree to which she has a true disability, I want to try to avoid making fun of Ruth for it, even though she is attacking me viciously and without justification. Ruth (the “Republican with a brain”) displays a consistent inability to think clearly or, to some degree, to comprehend what she reads, for which handicap, under normal circumstances, she should be more pitied than condemned, in the same way that it’s not nice to make fun of Jr. High School boys who are short, slow and uncoordinated. On the other hand, if they want to avoid embarrassment, short, slow, uncoordinated Jr. High boys probably shouldn’t try to turn out for the Varsity Basketball team, and it is Ruth’s own foolish dedication to her driving ambition that has put her in leadership roles over and over again for which she does not have adequate cognitive skills or discernment.
My brothers and sisters, most of you shouldn’t want to be teachers. You know that those of us who teach will be held more accountable. James 3:1 (NIV)
I have come to the conclusion that I should give a more full response to Ruth’s slanders, despite the downside of doing so.
The downside of responding to scurrility is considerable:
Any single person can make up innumerable lies. For instance, On last August 23 you were in one place. Some place. We all were. There were, by contrast, many places you were not (like Antarctica), but someone could claim you were in any of millions of places you actually weren’t. A small pack of liars can come up with hundreds or thousands of fabrications and alterations of them, without much effort, in a short period of time to slander someone. If you ignore such lies, people may say you have not “been able” to defend yourself, but if you answer any of them, it can be used to claim credibility for any lies you didn’t take the additional time to refute. At the Sound Politics blog there is a large pack of enthusiastic liars among the blog commenters who can quickly fill a discussion thread with so many fabrications that, if you took the time to respond to all of them, you could do nothing else with your life. To complete the analogy, It is much less time-consuming to claim someone was in Antarctica last August 23 than it is for them to document where they actually were.
And, while the only downside to the accuser who lies about people is the danger of losing credibility, anonymous posters have no such problem. They can just slander others and, when exposed, simply change identity and disappear. They can’t “lose face” because they don’t have any face.
Nevertheless, it is not because I need to speak in my own defense, but because I have had such wonderful defenders that I feel obligated, in this instance, to respond to Ruth Gibbs’ false accusations. Some have said such nice things about me I feel I have a certain obligation to them to document the facts. (And, of course, to attempt to eventually live up to the compliments, if that’s possible).
Ruth titled her attack, “THE TRUTH FROM RUTH GIBBS.” But in the interests of brevity, I suggest we refer to it with a shorter title, albeit one that still gives Ruth credit for it. Let’s just call it “GIBBerish.” I’m going to try to handle the allegations in the same, somewhat jumbled and confusing order as Ruth did in her “Gibberish,” but consolidate them so I don’t keep repeating myself, unnecessarily, the way she did.
Falsehoods in Ruth’s introduction:
- 1. Ruth says I told “blatant lies smearing 11th District” Republicans. It is an absolute fact that I made no derogatory remarks at all about 11th district Republicans in general, or any specific members (except Ruth) or the candidates on her “leadership slate.” It is, therefore, impossible that those (non-existent) remarks contained “lies.” To the contrary, I said, “There were some great people on the Gibbs slate and I don’t hold them responsible for what happened.”
- 2. Ruth says I told “blatant lies smearing King County Republicans.” I was highly critical of some Republicans who do not reside in the 11th District, but Ruth fails to even suggest any single “lie” I told about them. Her claim is a falsehood.
Section 1 falsehoods:
- 3. “Mr. Parris claimed this was HIS slate of conservatives” Absurd. I made no such claim. Ruth entirely made this up.
- 4. Ruth says I lied about “who put out the slate.” The only comment I made about the origin of the slate was that “The Reagan Wing has been a part of an effort to create delegate slates in every Washington Legislative District…” and that is, literally true. It also disproves her claim in #3, above, that I said it was MY slate. When I say my organization is “a part of” an effort, it makes explicit that it involved more than me and more than my organization. What part of “part of” doesn’t Ruth understand?
- 5. Ruth says that I claimed “all who endorsed this slate were also[conservative]” This is amazing and absurd. My article made no claim whatsoever about the endorsers. I didn’t even use the word “endorse,” or “endorsement” anywhere in the article. How stupid does Ruth think we are? The endorsers of the slate, however, are, in fact, individuals or groups known for advocacy for conservative issues and that is patently obvious, Ruth’s subsequent slanders notwithstanding. Her claim about my supposed blanket pronouncements is an unadulterated lie.
- 6. Ruth posits: “The Doug Parris lie that the leadership slate was composed of Pro Amnesty people and liberals.” Again, this is pure fabrication. I did not make ANY derogatory remarks about the individuals on her slate (except Ruth herself) at all. But more on this in Part Two.
- 7. Ruth claims: “Doug said on his website that I was pretending to be for Huckabee, but I was really supporting McCain.” Close, but not exactly true. I find no conflict for Ruth between supporting Huckabee and McCain for several reasons, including the similarity of their positions (on Illegal Alien Amnesty and support for radical environmentalism, for instance), the fact that they were so cozy during the campaign, and the overnight transformation of the Huckabee camp to a McCain camp (Ruth Gibbs included). I recounted the fact that the whole caucus was orchestrated (like Huckabee’s candidacy) to benefit McCain, that the Huckabee “campaign” in Washington was simply treading water waiting for Huckabee’s endorsement of McCain (three days later) and that MCain’s speaker said (and I quote, word-for-word) “John McCain wants to thank Ruth Gibbs for all her help.” To expand on that: Ruth Gibbs was in control of every facet of the caucus. Virtually every speaker promoted McCain, none Huckabee. There was no speaker for Huckabee, though there were speakers for both McCain and Ron Paul. She controlled the decorations. There were McCain signs inside on the walls and outside, all around the the building, nothing there for Huckabee or any other candidate. And Ruth had already verbally pledged to support a McCain candidacy.
- 8. This one is a beauty: Ruth says of herself, “I sent an email out AFTER that convention encouraging people to go to the polls in the Primary on March 4th and vote for Huckabee. One more lie by Parris!”
One more lie by Parris, huh? Well there is a little problem with that. The 11th District caucus after which Ruth claims to have sent her Huckabee letter was held on March 1. The Primary Ruth actually distributed letters for was February 19, ELEVEN DAYS EARLIER. March 4th was a big day for Ruth, but not the one she wants us to think. March 4th was the day Huckabee OFFICIALLY dropped out, OFFICIALLY endorsing McCain. How many poor, imaginary voters went out to the polls on March 4th and tried to vote for Huckabee because of Ruth’s imaginary letter, only to find empty, imaginary polling places, forgetting that they had already voted on Feb. 19th? We’ll have to consult Ruth’s imagination for the answer.
- 9. Ruth references, “The Doug Parris lie of how a Leadership Slate is to be composed” I made no comments on “how ‘a leadership slate’ is to be composed,” (she speaks as if there is some accepted practice), her claim that I did is, itself, a lie. What I said was that her slate was not the expression of the 11th District unless they had voted on it. They didn’t. I was right. She composed it, herself as if she had that authority, but it was a usurpation of authority Ruth didn’t have and another Gibbs lie. She can put together any slate she wants. She can’t presume to speak for a district.
- 10. Ruth claims that it was “perfectly legal AND ethical” to use her position as temporary chair to promote one slate and denigrate the other. If she is as astute on Parliamentary Rules as she always claims, she is lying. If, as I suspect, she doesn’t understand her violation, she is simply displaying her ignorance. The most important business of the 11th District caucus was to elect delegates to the State Convention. Each nomination was a MOTION to elect that person. The whole printed ballot was a motion on the floor, by State rule. Discussion of nominations – as in RECOMMENDING ANY CANDIDATES or slate of candidates or criticizing a candidate or slate – was debate on a motion and had to be done by first obtaining the floor according to the rules. That means it was illegal for a chair, whether temporary or permanent, to do it.
- a. “If the president is a member of the assembly, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, speak in debate and to vote on all questions. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of an assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the right to make motions or debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result.” [RONR (10th ed.), p. 392-93; see also Table A, p.190 of RONR In Brief.]
- b. Ruth entered discussion of a matter to be decided by the body from the position of chair. A clear violation. (Note: I compared my position on this with one of our State’s sharpest parliamentarians, Paul Elvig (former chair of two different county Parties), on April 5 at the Snohomish County Convention, which he chaired. He agrees with me completely on this.)
11. Ruth says there was a “Doug Parris lie of unfair disclosure of the Slate to the McCain Campaign” but I made no such complaint. Whether or not she disclosed who was on her slate is of no particular interest to me. The important thing for everyone to understand is that the King County Republican Party Administrations of Michael Young and, now, Lori Sotelo and the McCain campaign are indistinguishable one from the other. The important thing to the McCain campaign was that there were no Ron Paul people on the Gibbs slate and that is an objective they accomplished through Ruth. Ruth’s allegation that I claimed there was “unfair slate disclosure” is, itself, a lie.
12. Ruth says I “smear[ed] the KCGOP also with false accusations that they shared information with the McCain campaign that [Doug Parris] (and the Ron Paul campaign by implication) did not receive.” Here is a direct quote of what I said: “She [Ruth] had gotten to work the precinct caucus lists, leading up to the meeting, that were only available to the McCain campaign (not any other Presidential campaign).” Ruth goes on to claim, “When both Huckabee and Ron Paul were active candidates, which included both when the 11th met, the KCGOP gave EQUAL information to ALL THREE campaigns.” This Gibbs statement is not true and it is easy to demonstrate.
That I am telling the truth and Ruth is not can be confirmed by simply reading Ruth’s “Gibberish.” In her “Section 1” under item “d” (the 21st paragraph from the top of “Gibberish”) Ruth is talking about how she ran strategy during the caucus: “No one got up and nominated themselves or anyone else as alternates to keep the Ron Paul people from getting elected, even though by that time I had looked at my caucus sign in list and knew who they were.” Ask yourself: what is this caucus sign-in list Ruth says she was looking at? Here it is, again: In “Section 2” under item “c” (the 43rd paragraph from the top of “Gibberish’) Ruth says, “When I was shown the slate they passed out at the 11th District Caucus, I recognized the names, and when I checked the list as to the sign in Presidential Preferences at the Precinct Caucuses…” The same “sign-in list” in both cases. This is the list of all the delegates that were elected to the District Caucus, identified by Presidential Preference. These are the lists I was referring to. These lists were not available to the Ron Paul Campaign, the Huckabee campaign had no use for them since they were doing nothing and didn’t ask for them, they were only available to the McCain campaign since the KCGOP controlled them. Ruth was able to work them.
I was telling the truth. Ruth was lying.
When she goes on and says, “the KCGOP gave EQUAL information to ALL THREE campaigns” she is lying again.
The lists the Ron Paul campaign got from the County Party HAD THE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DELETED. Ruth was able to use the presidential preferences and tells us about it in “Gibberish.” This favoritism and selective control of information by the Inside Traders had a profound impact on what happened that day. I’ll explain it in Part Two.
This omission of information, by the way, is part of the huge campaign of cheating by the McCain campaign making use of its control of corrupt GOP Pragmatic/Left elite operatives in the Party hierarchy like Michael Young and Lori Sotelo and their acomplices.
This is part of the story I announced I would break here, but have not yet so done. The reason is that the story just keeps getting bigger.