Spokane Convention I: Soviet Style Elections

LUKE ESSERFor seventy + years the Soviet Union, the Russian Communist Empire, dominated its citizens with absolute totalitarian rule. The Government owned and controlled everything. Nevertheless, throughout that time, they held “free elections.”  How did they do that? The key was controlling who was allowed on the ballot: the nominations. The Communist Party dictated who could run for each office. Mission accomplished.


On May, 22, 2008 The Executive Board of the Washington State Republican Party issued a “resolution” to “clarify” rules of the 2008 Washington State Republican Convention (May 29-31, 2008). Luke Esser sent it everywhere and, at that late hour, four days before the filing deadline, re-designed the filing form, rejected previously submitted filings, and began implimenting the Executive Board’s provisions in the preparation of Convention Ballots. It stipulated  that while all 37 of Washington’s elected delegates to the National Convention would be “elected” at the Convention, 19 of them would be in elections where the nominations would be made by persons not elected by anyone, and freedom of speech would be expunged for ALL Convention elections.

  • No floor nominations would be open for these positions. That was against the rules.
  • No speeches would be allowed by any of the candidates, themselves, for ANY delegate position. That was against the rules.
  • No comments on or debate about who was running for ANY delegate position was allowed. That was against the rules.
  • No questions could be asked of, or about the candidates for ANY delegate position. That, too, was against the rules.
  • If you did not vote for a candidate on the ballot, your ballot didn’t get counted. That was against the rules.


If 157 people attended a caucus where there was only one nominee allowed and only one person voted for that one nominee, he was considered elected, not just by a majority, but unanimously.


No actual majority could do anything about it.


Welcome to Esser Democracy.


The process did not “clarify,’ but blatantly violated the Washington State Committee’s legitimate rules for the State Convention, and violated several National Rules for the conduct of any State Convention.


Although literally hundreds of candidates committed to McCain filed to be on the controlled ballot, they were not allowed to run.


Instead, State Convention Delegates got to choose their representatives from ballots like this one in the 5th Congressional District (scan of actual ballot):

 (click to enlarge in another window)



108 thoughts on “Spokane Convention I: Soviet Style Elections

  1. Alex

    Don’t you like Kool-Aid? It comes in many different flavors, and I am sure you can find one that you like.

    Besides, I have always liked the idea of a smiling pitcher running around and breaking through walls. There has to be something there that appeals to you, Doug, and Kim.


  2. Alex

    I never say “peace man”, I always say “peace” as a valediction because it is what I wish to others.

    You are trying to cast me as some kind of hippie with your insults. I have already told you, on another thread, that I am not going to have you judge my faith, or tell me what I am. That is between me and God, and he is my judge, not you.

    I do not smoke Marijuana, and never have. If the heavy stuff that I am on is the Word of God, well then I guess I am on some pretty heavy stuff.

    Peace be with you Alex,

  3. I heard speeches at my caucus from everybody, at least 20 or 30. There was an 18 year old who was missing his prom to run. There were two guys, possibly Indian?, don’t remember their names, Fahad? Sheihk? who said they were for McCain, but they were sitting with Ron Paul people and screaming obscenities at McCain supporters. Mike Chittick spoke. Jason Bontrager spoke. Dullain Erlich spoke. Kyle Anderson, Tim Eyman, Roz Strong. They all spoke. They all gave speeches, told us what they did, who they were supporting. I guess I was at the good, rule following convention. Too bad you missed it. It was awesome. We had lots of people speak in between votes and we played the initiative game with Tim Eyman, who was cool. He mentioned his adopted daughter. A physician in our delegation also talked to us about health care. That was the best part. There’s a lot of us worried about what’s happening in health care. Lots of questions and answers. Too bad you guys missed it.

  4. That’s great, Anna, but you must realize you were not in the “good, rule following” caucus as you suggest, you were in the good “rule-breaking” caucus. If the activities you conducted, as above described, were any more than informal conversation between votes it was in direct violation of the official Convention Rules.

    Other Caucuses followed those rules.

    Article II
    Sec. 9. There shall be no nominating, seconding or candidate speeches for officers of the convention, national delegates or alternates, or presidential electors.

    Article V
    Sec 4. The order of business and, with the exception, at the discretion of the caucus chairman, of speeches by Republican candidates running for office in areas included in the congressional district, the only matters to be considered at the nine congressional district caucuses shall be as follows:
    (a) Call to order by the temporary chairman. The temporary chairman shall be a member of the Republican State Committee Executive Board from that congressional district designated by the Permanent Chairman of the Convention. If such person is not present or is unwilling to serve, a temporary chairman will be appointed by the permanent chairman of the Convention.
    (b) The temporary chairman shall appoint a temporary secretary.
    (c) Nomination and Election of the permanent chairman.
    (d) Nomination and Election of the permanent secretary.
    (e) Appointment of tellers by the permanent chairman.
    (f) Election of 1 delegate and 1 alternate to the National Convention allocated to the winner of the presidential primary in that district, and election of 2 additional delegates and 2 additional alternates to the National Convention, all of whom reside within the district.
    (i) Adjournment.

    For those of you who don’t follow this, Anna is relating the events of a Congressional District Caucus, held on Friday, when the Convention broke into smaller groups according to the nine different Congressional Districts in the State.

    She uses the term “convention” to confuse a District Caucus with the whole convention, and, perhaps, to suggest that the procedures her caucus followed were universal.

  5. Doug

    There is a biblical tradition that I believe you live by, and it has finally dawned on me what it is. Legalism. You are a legalist, where the letter of the rule and the law is more important than the spirit. You know the rules inside and out, and yet, you miss the point of them all.

    You will fritter away counless hours arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, but miss the entire world beoynd that pin head. Like I said before, it is the devil’s theology, where your sole object is to prove not that you are right, but that everyone else is absolutely wrong.

    You have never answered my previous question to you of who you support.

    Everyone here knows who you don’t support, which is just about every candidate, except a few fringy candidates who according to you are “overwhelmingly popular” but never seem to get any traction generally. You speak about these waves of supporters and of a conservative uprising, and yet your revolution of millions of like-minded conservative supporters never seem to appear.

    Outside of fringy outsider candidates, are there any viable candidates (truly viable) out there that you support? Even better would be elected officials, those that have actually managed to run and win. I would be happy to have an elected official at any level of government, even a water district or weed district, as an example of who you support politically.

    I am waiting with keen anticipation.


  6. In the CD caucus I was in, everyone seemed to be friendly and comfortable with the system for the duration. Paul supporters were in the minority, but the McCain supporters let them appoint a Paul person as a teller and even accompany the votes to the counting room. There was always a representative from each campaign to oversee the vote counting. Paul folks didn’t win, but agreed the process was fair.

    On the other hand, I talked with a friend from the 3rd CD. There, Paul folks had the majority. If what I was told is correct, the Paul people took the opportunity to lord it over the McCain folks, even refusing to check credentials and do an accurate count of delegates and ballots before each vote.

    There are certainly bad actors on both sides, from what I’ve heard. I’m just glad everything went fine in my caucus.

  7. That was too bad to hear about the Indians. In general I have much respect for Indians (we are talking about from India just so we are clear) and really enjoy reading Blogs from Indians such as what can be found here.


    Two people of Indian Descent who I really respect are Bobby Jindal and Dinesh D’Souza.

    In fact at this point I am hoping that Bobby Jindal could be our next Republican President.

  8. Joel, why don’t you stop pretending to be a Christian.

    And do something about your pot smoking habit. It just isn’t healthy.

    Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

    Luke 12:51

  9. Mr. Parris:

    Wow! I thought you said not giving speech was against the rules and that’s why you were mad. Now you say giving speeches was wrong. I don’t know. This was first convention ever, I’m only 18. I thought it was really educational. I enjoyed listening to the delegates that wanted to run for national delegate. I enjoyed Mr. Ishmael and the other guys from Kitsap who spoke. And Tim Eyman was entertaining and informative. I thought learning about candidates and issues and procedure was what one did at a convention. At least that’s what my uncle told me.

    No one objected, no one was out of order. Everyone really seemed to enjoy their time there, even when we had to wait a really long time for the counts to come back.

    Our chairman told some funny stories, too. Again, it was a great time. And, again, I’m sorry you missed it.

    I can’t believe how nasty people get on these blogs. I wasn’t trying to be nasty, just wanted to let you all know that at least my Congressional caucus seemed to run just fine. And I apologize for using the wrong word above. I didn’t mean to offend, just share.

  10. Anna,
    You misunderstood me. Perhaps I misunderstood you, as well.

    I had made the point that the Party elite had engineered rules that were unfair and violated higher rules.
    I thought that you were making the point that I was wrong based on the caucus you experienced.
    If all you meant was that you had fun and that speeches are informative, I have no disagreement, but I’m not sure why you would post that on this thread.

    It seemed more likely to me that you thought I was wrong about the rules and I wanted to point out that I was not.

    If your caucus allowed speeches by candidates for delegate, they did so in violation of the rules, but the rules, themselves, were bad. I’m quite convinced that the Convention would not have, knowingly, approved rules shutting down all speeches, but the McCain team led them to do that, blindly. They shut down debate on everything that they could, repeatedly, throughout the Convention, just to keep the delegates in the dark: In the dark about the rules, in the dark about the National Delegate Candidates, in the dark about the Credentials cheating, and in the dark about the importance of Platform issues.

    They are the Dark Side.

    They are in complete control of the State Party mechanism.

  11. Joel,
    You reference:
    “… a few fringy candidates who according to you are “overwhelmingly popular” but never seem to get any traction generally.”

    Name two.

    I can’t think of anyone who meets the terms of your accusation.

  12. Doug,

    I though the democrats were the dark side. I’m a republican and I take offense at that. I presumed you were right wing, too, especially since your website posts the name “Reagan,” the greatest man ever to serve in office according what I’ve been taught, and based on what I have read.

    And I felt that with the three RROO experts they had on the stage that everything went well. Wasn’t that the whole point of bringing them in? To help control the chaos and obey the rules?

  13. Anna, both the Republicans and the Democrats are the dark side.

    You will realize that after you get stabbed in the back a few times by the Party Establishment and the self proclaimed “Mainstream Republicans of Washington State” who controls the state party.

    By the way the self-proclaimed “mainstreamers’ are hardly mainstream. They are what is also known as the Country Club Republicans or Republicans in Name Only (RINO).


    At one time they had as their head Former Governor Mike Lowry’s (who came from the very liberal 7th Congressional District) transportation secretary. This was after he worked in the Lowry adminstration.

  14. Anna,
    When the Dark Side walked out to prevent Republicans from engaging in Platform debate (one of only two official functions of the delegates for which many had sacrificed work and spent money and travelled far) they demanded a roll call vote on the chairman’s ruling and got it although they didn’t have close to 50% of the delegates on the floor. That was under Kirby Wilbur and, even though it exhibited the OBSTRUCTIONISM of the McCain leadership, it was proper under the rules.

    But when it was crucial, when there were close votes on the rules and even on the right to debate the rules and examine the evidence of massive Credentials cheating, before Kirby was elected (with my endorsement), with Luke Esser and his hired-gun parliamentarian chairing, we couldn’t get any votes counted. That was not “things going well” as you thought. That was blatant cheating to control the Convention illegally, but seamlessly. Those who, like yourself, don’t understand the rules couldn’t see it. It was the perfect crime.

    Unless someon reports it…

  15. Just one last reminder that Thursday is the last day to mail in your form to become a PCO. Friday by 4:30 is the actual deadline if you want to personally hand it to them at the election office.

    Except for King County, elections in Washington State are handled by the County auditor’s office so please contact them for more information (at this late date unless they have the form on line you probably would have to visit them personally anyway).

    Here is the list of auditors.


    For King County all you have to do is download this form.


    Fill this form out.

    Mail it in an envelope to the following address:

    Elections Division
    Department of Executive Services
    919 SW Grady Way
    Renton, WA 98057-2906

    Remember its now 42¢ to mail a letter or if you are in the area I guess you can hand it to them personally. However they must have it in their hand by 4:30 PM this next Friday June 6.

    And don’t forget to put a dollar bill into the envelope as that is the amount they require to file.

    Once you do that and if there is no other person filed as PCO in your Precinct then you are in, King County Republicans be damned. They can’t remove you. And forget about them trying to make you work on campaigns stamp licking and sign waving. You are busy. There’s a PCO meeting next week, sorry that is the day I am washing my hair. You don’t have to do anything for them and still they can’t remove you. But you are there when the critical votes are needed.

    So sign up next week and email like minded friends in King County. Yeah, we all hate the Republicans but this is actually a way to stick it to them because they can’t remove you once you are elected.


  16. Doug

    Your complaining of illegality always seems to me to be sour grapes over being out-maneuvered by others who are better at parlamentary procedure than you, and most importantly have more votes that you. As you know, most “rules” are created by the body of any group, and can be amended if enough are there to muster a majority. You clearly do not have the majority that you imagine yourself to have. You don’t have the numbers, you don’t have the skills to win. Your only solace is to cast dispersions on your conquerors. You are a winner Doug – in your alternate universe. I am really sorry for you, but that is really what is going on here. You call it a gift, of seeing that which no one else can see. Maybe you are a prophet. But, what it looks to me to be is just self-delusion and obsessive compulsive tendencies married to a very creative imagination and admittedly a good sense of the dramatic.

    I feel bad that you are now trying to sour Anna’s entire experience and indoctrinate her into your sad philosophy by telling her that everything she saw (and you agree that this is what she saw) was a lie and that she didn’t actually see a well run convention, but instead part of a larger insidious plot of evil doers that are active and knowing pawns of Satan himself.

    That is what it is, isn’t it Doug, the Devil is running the GOP, and people like Rob McKenna, Luke Esser, and John McCain are all servants of Satan, and secretly high priests to Satan. I am waiting for your next “breaking story” with unrefutable proof of animal sacrifice and the drinking of blood at the WSRP. When can we expect that installment in the Chronicals of Doug?

    This drivel is truly pathetic and sad proof of the bankruptcy of our party, but it is you and your blithely ignorant followers that are some of the most bankrupt in the lot.

    You have never answered my question of who you support. Your tactic is really to be expected, you simply turn the question around and change the subject. You never answer the question, but then again, I should have expected that.

    I have to give you credit though Doug, at least you haven’t sunk to the level of Alex, and simply began accusing me of smoking Marijuana as your only answer.

    I will keep praying for you and the party and the country.

    With your active work to elect Christine Gregoire and Barack Obama, God save our nation, and shame on you.

    And as hard as it is to muster on days like this…


  17. Aren’t they also known as Evans Republicans after the very liberal Republican governor/senator Dan Evans?

    I believe someone also calls them Bundy Republicans due to the fact that Serial Killer Ted Bundy at one point of his life actually did work for Dan Evans and Dan Evans’ people actually put him on an anti-Crime committee in Seattle. Also Dan Evans wrote a letter on his behalf and another extremely liberal Republican former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro said of his remembrance of Ted Bundy while working for Evans is that Bundy had “Good Ideas”.


  18. I meant to type then Governor Evans wrote a letter on Bundy’s behalf when Bundy was applying to law school. I doubt Bundy would have been accepted without that letter.

  19. Here is a list of people who have contributed to the socialist arm of the state Republican Party.



    And their Federal PAC.



    Unlike the links I gave the other day these do update the information so bookmark the links and refer back to them often.

  20. I was in attendance for the CD-1 Caucus as it appears that Anna was, and I was very upset about the way things went. The first and second ballots had two names on them of people that we never even saw, much less heard speak. Yes these people could have been Stalin supporters and we had no way of even identifying who these people are who are supposed to be representing WA at the national Convention. There was no place to vote for “none of the above”. The election was a fraud. We never saw or heard any of the 10 At Large candidates for National Delegates or Alternates either. In fact we never even saw their names. These 20 people were hand picked in a back room somewhere. So that’s 19 of the 37 Delegates and 19 Alternates that are false representatives of the Washington State Republican Party. I hope that these 38 McCain appointed Delegate/Alternates are tossed out by the National Credentials Committee as they should be

    I am glad that Anna had a good time. Perhaps someday she will be able to see through the propaganda.

  21. Joel,
    You are right about one thing. I haven’t answered your question about who I support.
    You don’t know because you haven’t done the (easy) research.
    Whether or not what I say about rules and procedure is true is not determined by your “image casting” and vicious attacks on me.
    You are, aparently without knowing any facts, drawn to the false, as you are so inclined.
    Peace, man.

  22. I see that I placed on my post “sign up next week”. Well I guess that is what I get for cutting and pasting. Three days, today, Thursday, and then by 4:30 pm Friday is all the time you have left.

    And if you are mailing your form in then it has to be mailed by tomorrow because regardless of what postmark is on the envelope if they don’t have the form in hand by 4:30 Friday it’s not valid.

    And you must include 1 dollar with your form as that is the fee for filing.

  23. “With your active work to elect … Barack Obama, God save our nation…”

    Our nation won’t be saved unless there is a dramatic change in its direction.

    Someday soon I will write a complete explanation why Obama must win for there to be any chance for our nation to be saved. It is looking at it beyond a short sighted view of just one election, but unfortunately it is dead on.

    But until I do right that post it just suffice to say that our only chance is for the Frog to jump, and with McCain the frog will be boiled alive without even realizing it. If you don’t know what that means Joel, too bad, I don’t have time to explain that now and I know most people who read this blog knows what I mean. Perhaps they can explain it or perhaps I will after a few days of you pondering it.

    Also, suffice to say it took Carter to give us Reagan and only with another Reagan we have a chance to save this country.

    Also consider this. Someday, someday, the Democrats are going to win a Presidential election. I think it will be this year but for the sake of argument say it isn’t. Well the next Presidential election they are going to put someone as liberal if not more liberal than Obama. That has been the trend of the Democratic party for the last 20 years or so. Each candidate for the Presidency has been more liberal than the last. So, say Republicans do win that election. You have to admit that someday Republicans will lose one. And unless by that time the country has made a total change in direction, the kind only a Reagan can accomplish then that Democratic President will be unimaginably liberal.

    So, you are only putting off the inevitble by not electing Obama and in the process destroying the only chance, the last chance we have to save this once great nation.

    It took a Carter to get a Reagan, and we did survive Carter. I am not saying there won’t be some dark days ahead because regardless who wins this year there will be. But I guess it has to get worse before there is even a chance of it getting better.

  24. Right=Write.

    Sorry for the error.

    I will write a more complete explanation in the future but for now that should suffice.

  25. I believe that if McCain wins this election he will make things so bad that he will (or if he doesn’t run the Republican candidate) lose the next election.

    I already am pretty sure that’s what is going to happen this year with Bush, but for the sake of this article lets say McCain does win.

    So, you are only putting off Democratic control of the Presidency by electing McCain for four years and in the process you lose the last chance we have to save America.

    Whoever wins this election will lose the next one. Remember that.

  26. article=argument.

    Sorry again.

    Up late last night. Guess that is why I won’t be writing the more complete post right now, but from what I posted above you should at least get some idea why Obama must win for us to have even a chance of saving America.

  27. People who have been paying attention to what you are all about, Joel, know why you so consistently attack Doug.

    He wouldn’t support your Marijuana initiative last year.

    You know even if it did pass (you didn’t even get near enough signatures to get it on the ballot) it would have been struck down because of Federal Law.

    Yeah, I am for federalism and no, I don’t think it is right, but that is how it would have been.

    Oh, and although I support federalism, on the state level I wouldn’t support the legalization of your pot.

    So I guess you just have to go on, Joel, smoking your pot illegally.

  28. Kim,

    What on earth are you talking about? What initiative did Doug not support? You are a little looney.


  29. What did the GOP party leadership and the McCain people actually win in Spokane? Ok let’s see. They stifled debate on the platform and stacked the deck with McCain Delegates going to the National Convention…

    But what will this cost the GOP at the state level by trying to ostracize and alienate the Ron Paul supporters?

    In states like Texas where voters consistently elect GOP candidates, the GOP can afford to marginalize Ron Paul supporters.

    In Washington state however, the GOP state leadership cannot afford to alienate ANY voters especially considering how close Dino Rossi lost his last election for governor.

    So the GOP leadership at the state level played dirty politics against Ron Paul supporters… Do they really think that will help Dino Rossi’s campaign??? These guys are not only corrupt, they are extremely short-sighted!

    I know many Ron Paul supporter’s that are so disgusted with the chicanery they seen in Spokane that they are now stating they are dropping their support for Dino Rossi. Most unfortunate.

    The numerous dirty tactics I seen speak volumes about the GOP party in this state and if it continues then you can expect the Democrats to keep control…

    We seriously need new leadership at the state GOP. Corrupt and incompetent… Not a good combination.

  30. Dan,
    Wow…I don’t know what I walked into, but “Stalin supporters?” Unbelievable. I know everyone spoke because I kept a list. I wrote down their names. And it looked like the entire body stood for the at large delegates. I met two of them the day before, just by mingling and talking to people.

    I don’t know why the Ron Paul people are so angry. The process on a national level may not be perfect, but it’s the same process we’ve used forever. My parents were big Thompson supporters, but they haven’t freaked out because he’s no longer in the race. They taught me that pur nation is a democracy and that is about majority rule. Paul didn’t get enough votes, and he’s out. Why is that so hard to understand? Lots of us didn’t pick McCain initially, but lots of us did, so he got the majority vote.

    It’s not that complicated really. Why so many sore losers, or am I just too young to really understand??

  31. “I don’t know why the Ron Paul people are so angry. The process on a national level may not be perfect, but it’s the same process we’ve used forever.”

    Anna, this is simply not true. What we’ve seen, nationwide, is the rallying round of the GOP pragmatic elite to ensure the nomination, by Democrat crossover votes, of an extremely unpopular candidate and the mechanism of that “rallying” has been the leveraging of their positions of authority in the Party structure to cheat, to cheat big and execute the politics of character assassination.

    The way representative democracy works is by electing representatives to a higher level. But the GOP elite cheated in those elections, blatantly and frequently. They used ballot fraud and violations of procedure to cheat. Across the nation and in Washington State.

    And at each level they asserted that if you didn’t approve of the cheating that had preceded it, you were an insurrectionist, trying to “cause trouble” and being disloyal to the Party.

    People who WON delegate positions were not seated.
    People who WON delegate positions were not seated.
    People who WON delegate positions were not seated.
    Get it?

    And now you call them “sore losers.”

  32. “I don’t know why the Ron Paul people are so angry. The process on a national level may not be perfect, but it’s the same process we’ve used forever.”

    So the process has been corrupt forever?

    If you can not see why we are angry then allow me to point out some of the glaringly obvious instances of chicanery and corruption.

    1) Not allowing the alternate delegates to be seated before debating & voting on the rules.

    All they had to do is move the credentials report to the BEGINNING of business allowing them plenty of time to seat the alternates during the 2 hours of speeches.

    Didn’t Dino Rossi give a speech about how important it is to have every vote counted…

    Empty rhetoric?

    2) Several McCain people promoting distorted motions in order to trick the Ron Paul people into voting for them and then the person making the motion votes againt his own motion.

    For example, “I vote to set aside this section of the platform in order to speed the process along.”

    “Setting aside” a section opens it up for future debate and would DELAY the process, not speed it up.

    Now it could be argued that such a person is misinformed. However when they vote AGAINST their own motion it shows nefarious intent.

    This was nothing more than another tactic to trick the less experienced members of the body into voting to close debate on the platform.

    3) Staging a walkout to force a quorum and not giving their delegate badges to an alternate.

    What I would really like to know is who staged the walkout? Can we get a name so we can report this to the press?

    But if you guys really think this is “business as usual” and there isn’t a problem then like I said before…

    Enjoy the Democrats stranglehold of power in this state.

    Ostracizing the Ron Paul supporters could very well cost Dino Rossi his upcoming election.

    Kudos you won.

    However you really need to see the Doctor. Evidently you can not feel your foot bleeding from that gunshot wound. Must be all the leprous rot.

  33. Doug.

    No, it is just me, I am the only “Joel” that posts here, and I only post under my name. I do have to admit, however, that both “Alex” and “Kim” have made statements that lead me to believe that “they” just might be “you”. You don’t do that do you Doug (post as someone else on your own blog)? That would really take “talking to yourself” to a whole new level, don’t you think?

    According to “Alex” and “Kim” my mistake in missing the quoted line @38 would be attributed to my much acclaimed marijuana addiction in “their” very active fantasy life – but alas it was only my penchant for quick reading and missing that.

    As I re-read the quote, I don’t know that Anna directly accused you of being a sore loser, but it could be read that way. So if she did intentionally include you, I guess there are two people on this blog saying that you are being a sore loser. But really, I like the term “sour grapes” better myself.

    I am still praying for you Doug, so God Bless.


    P.S. I really did like the Kum-Bay-Ya song, it might catch on at Reagan Wing Meetings, I can hear Ronnie humming it now.

  34. Sublime.

    You really do sound like a true Ron Paul supporter.

    Most of them have stormed meetings, made numerous frivolous and I daresay obnoxious motions, all attempting to take over meetings and to disrupt, and when they are schooled by people who actually know parlimentary procedure inside and out, then they are “outraged” that they have been outgunned by people using “procedure.”

    This is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, with Ron Paul supporters showing up to party meetings for the first time in their lives, and then being bent out of shape when the meetings cannot be dominated in the way that these newcomers want.

    In the places where Ron Paul supporters have held the majority, they have absolutely dominated and drowned out all discussion. Sadly they sound like another small group of activists that took over a central european country in the early 1930’s. Claimed minority victimhood status (which they were), and then became the most brutal and totalitarian regime history the moment that they had the opportunty. The Ron Paul supporters are crying crocodile tears about fairness and fair play, they just have lost, and don’t like it.

    My advice of course is to keep going to school, don’t be a drop out, that would be a bad thing.

    Learn your lesson, and learn how to play by the rules, and you will be fine.


    P.S. I think that David Postman does a fine job of showing all of the known flaws of the GOP, most importantly “immigration issues” which this blog advocates. I am certain if you would like to give the democrats and their communications department at the Times and PI more fodder, they would be glad to oblige you.

  35. Ahhh… the tired ol’ ad-hominem attack. I am surpised you didn’t come right on out and say, “How old are you anyway?” I admit at least you do it in a more eloquent (yet verbose) manner.

    Evidently my point was missed on you entirely or you just choose to ignore it.

    Seems to me the GOP state leadership keeps playing into the hands of the Democrats in this state by marginalizing, demonizing, and ostracizing the Ron Paul supporters. I keep hearing those speeches by Dino Rossi encouraging people to garner votes for him. “We lost by 129 votes… Each of us knows 129 people…”

    Mark 3:25 comes to mind.

    Once again just to restate my point. This state needs more GOP supporters and it is extremely myopic to alienate anyone!!!

    Do people like you Joel want to hand the governorship to Gregoire again? It sure seems like it.

    So drop the looking-down-your-nose attitude towards Ron Paul supporters… Are you so daft that you cannot even see that it is working AGAINST your own interests???

  36. Re: Joel (at 44)
    “Most of them have stormed meetings, made numerous frivolous and I daresay obnoxious motions, all attempting to take over meetings and to disrupt, and when they are schooled by people who actually know parlimentary procedure inside and out, then they are “outraged” that they have been outgunned by people using “procedure.”

    This is a statement of such profound falsehood, Joel, it puts the lie to any claim you make to Christianity.

    This is purest propaganda, and of the type directly connected to the Big Lie strategy implimented by the Michael Young McCain campaign to treat Ron Paul Supporters like the Germans did Jews in the 1930s.

  37. Sublime

    If you have completely missed this… Doug is all about alienating people. There is no big tent philosphy for Doug Parris and the Reagan Wing. You say that “this state needs more GOP supporters and it is extremely myopic to alienate anyone” and yet the Reagan Wing is all about philosophical orthodoxy, where anyone except the pure are allowed in. You accuse the “mainstream” of alienating the Ron Paul supporters, and that it is a bad strategy to cut them out of the team that needs to bring in the most number of people, yet it is that “big tent” approach that the Reagan Wing finds anathema – only the purest of the pure (as they define it) can be Republicans.

    The irony here is profound, I hope that you can see it.

    As for Doug at 46, please give me a break. And your attacks on my faith are baseless.

    Whatever you say that Michael Young may or may not have done, has nothing to do with what I had to say. I am not Michael Young, and I don’t even know that I can say that I really know him. What I had to say was drawn from my own observations.

    Please explain to me how exactly the WSRP or any party members have treated Ron Paul supporters like Jews were treated by German National Socialists in the 1930s? Have their been fire bombings, lynchings, the burning of their places of worship? Have books been burned by the WSRP or any of the affiliate campaigns? I know that the Ron Paul supporters wear pins to identify themselves, but I think that they voluntarily do that – it is not a requirement to set them apart like a required yellow star sewn into their clothes. You know, it is both tiresome and dangerous to always equate everything one does not like about another person or group with the political actions of the Nazi Party, it is alwasy hyperbole, and it minimizes the very evil actions of the Holocaust.

    You should be more careful about the words you choose or the analogies that you make. Doug, your mouth and pen are reckless.

    I would like to know how the WSRP is treating Ron Paul Supporters like the Jews were treated by the Nazis. I am curious at how you intend to back that up. By the way, the Jews were singled out, but were not the only targeted group by the Nazis. Others suffered under that evil regime as well.


    P.S. I am still praying for you Doug. I hope that someday you will see the error of your ways and come back to the light. HE is waiting for you.

  38. Subby…

    What did you mean about asking your age? Your age was never an issue. Your views were.

    By the way, thank you for the compliment. Even if it was verbose.


  39. Joel, thank you for showing us by quoting David Postman what I had already suspected. You are not a Republican, never have been a Republican, and are probably just a Leftist Democrat plant.

    Now, can you just beg of on the pseudo-Christian crap. We know you aren’t a Christian either.

    And about the pot calling the kettle black. I thought pot was green but you would certainly know more than I.

  40. Joel, all the following claims are untrue:
    “Doug is all about alienating people. “
    “There is no big tent philosphy for Doug Parris and the Reagan Wing. “
    “the Reagan Wing is all about philosophical orthodoxy, where anyone except the pure are allowed in.”
    “…it is that “big tent” approach that the Reagan Wing finds anathema – only the purest of the pure (as they define it) can be Republicans.”

    But your earlier claims are worse. You said, of Ron Paul supporters:
    “Most of them have stormed meetings, made numerous frivolous and I daresay obnoxious motions, all attempting to take over meetings and to disrupt, and when they are schooled by people who actually know parlimentary procedure inside and out, then they are “outraged” that they have been outgunned by people using “procedure.”

    “Most” would equate to at least 5,000 people. Since you allege SIX separate occurances, that equates to over 30,000 different events: instances of storming meetings, making frivolous motions, attempting to take over meetings, attempting to disrupt, being schooled by their parliamentary superiors and becoming “outraged.’ Yet you have failed to support an accusation of even ONE event for even ONE person.
    How do you find time to attend all these meetings? Or are you just reporting for the vast “Joel” network?

    Or are you just engaging in libel?

  41. Doug.

    Where did you come up with the number “six”? I am just curious, I don’t recall saying that there were six occurances.

    As for their being a “vast ‘Joel’ network” I am utterly flattered to think that I am that important. But the Lord can help me from letting pride take over I am sure.

    How do you get “5,000” as being the same as “most” you have a way with words, but even more creative skills when it comes to math. I don’t know how you get there. Please explain.

    I don’t think it takes that much of a defense by me, just read your posts, and your statements about all of the evil Republicans that you call RINO, Traitor, (insert Doug’s insulting term of choice here) throughout your blog. There is no big tent philosophy for you Doug. That may be my opinion, but I think that it is a reasonable opinion to have based on what you and your biggest supporters write. I think it is clear that you believe that most of the WSRP and its leadership are not Republicans by your standards, and at best sell-outs. Subbys point was that we should not alienate people, but that is exactly what you do, you want a party of people who think, act, and believe (exactly) like you do. If they don’t, they are not real Republicans and they are evil. I am rather sure that it sums it up accurately.

    You don’t have to attend every meeting to know things. I would ask you to do the same then – do you attend every meeting and report what you know first hand in all cases? Where do you get that kind of time to do this all day long?

    As for Alex at 49, you can’t be serious that making a reference to someone like David Postman (as a detractor of Republicans and a pawn for Democrats) could be proof of being a Democrat. The only thing that this kind of response tells me is that you are even more parochial and closed minded than I could have ever imagined. You should know that it is always a good idea to keep an eye on what others are writing and saying, even when you don’t agree with them.

    As for libel Doug, libel requires a number of things, including an identifiable victim. This is, as almost all posts are, opinion, not statements of fact, and what you consider to be “free speech” could be deemed by others to be “frivolous motions” or the like. I can’t imagine that you would be advocating a “class action” lawsuit on the basis of libel captioned such… “Supporters of Ron Pau v. Joel” now that would be funny really, coming from the group that hates lawyers and lawsuits more than any other political party. I don’t like lawyers either that much, but come on Doug, you have to be kidding. Just when I think I have heard you say the most irrational thing yet, you astound me once again.

    As for your continued drivel regarding marijuana use, it is you that seems to know the most about it. In actual fact, my son had to tell me what that smell was several years ago, becuase I didn’t even recognize the smell of it. Call me sheltered, but I really didn’t (and still don’t) know that much about marijuana. The fact that you are obsessed with this is really pathetic. Why not get from out of your hiding place with your sad sniping and actually have a meaningful dialogue. Is that possible Alex?

    After discussing issues on the Reagan Wing, I have to say that I should re-read Alice in Wonderland, just to get centered and find some normalcy. Thank God the KJV is also a rock and reference point to come back to after exchanges like this.


  42. Alex.

    It just occured to me, according to you I probably am not a Christian, since you think all Catholics, like me and Rob McKenna are going to hell.



  43. Joel,
    You ask:
    “Where did you come up with the number “six”?”

    You alleged that MOST Ron Paul Supporters had:
    “…[1] stormed meetings, [2]made numerous frivolous and I daresay obnoxious motions, all attempting to[3] take over meetings AND to [4]disrupt, AND when they are [5]schooled by people who actually know parliamentary procedure inside and out, then they are [6]“outraged” that they have been outgunned by people using “procedure.”

    You also ask:
    “How do you get “5,000″ as being the same as “most”[?]”

    There are over 13,000 Ron Paul Supporters in Washington State alone. 5,000 is an extremely generous underestimate of what ‘most’ of them would number, or at least a number for which your statement makes you responsible…

    Or is backing up your trash talk too much to ask?

  44. Come on Doug…you are using tortured logic to flail away on arguments you are clearly losing. You use the tactic of repeating a statement of someone you disagree with, and apply, at best, an exaggerated meaning, but more likely, an entirely different meaning. You then use that exaggerated claim, or false meaning as a bogey man for your arguments and attacks. Your twisted logic is demonstrated by the ridiculous contention that Joel says there are 5000 folks who stormed the meeting! Come on, that is not what he meant. To suggest that he is claiming he was at 30,000 meeting, another over the top conclusion.

    I think you are a conservative, but sometimes I wonder. The personal attacks, and alienating ways, will indeed, ensure the Republic of Hussain Obama, and her Majesty, Christine. I wonder if that is by design, and there truly is a Obama/Parris/Greggoir/Paul conspiracy? Maybe? Maybe not, I hope it is not.

    I like the “Peace” closing, but since Joel is know for that, I will only add, may the peace of the lord be with you.

  45. I don’t even remember who said it above, but are people really wanting Obama to win?? What is right wing about that? and what is Republican about that? My parents say half a republican is better than a whole democrat. That’s pretty simple math to me.

    And I can’t believe people are saying they won’t vote for Dino Rossi because of the Ron Paul thing.

    Isn’t that biting off your nose to spite your face???

    Poor President Reagan. If these things are being said by republicans about republicans, I bet he’s up in heaven totally flipping out. Please explain the rationale behind this kind of thinking. I know I have a lot to learn, but it sounds like you guys are saying 2 + 2 does not equal 4??? What up??

  46. “And I can’t believe people are saying they won’t vote for Dino Rossi because of the Ron Paul thing.

    Isn’t that biting off your nose to spite your face???”

    Yes it is. It is short sighted on the part of the state leadership to pull all the shady tricks at the state convention.

    It is also short sighted of some of the Ron Paul supporters to now rescind support for Dino Rossi over what they saw at the State Convention.

    However I blame the State GOP leadership more than the Ron Paul supporters.

    In fact I recently spoke with some of the Ron Paul supporters who were at the rules committee and they informed me that they specifically brought up these points at rules BEFORE the state convention. They felt the new rules would hurt the Rossi campaign by alienating much needed votes from Ron Paul people. The majority simply would not hear it, specifically King county.

    I recently spoke with our county GOP chairs asking them to bring this to the attention of the state GOP leadership and try to correct the damage.

    They agreed. Also I would like to add that NONE of our county delegates participated in the walkout. We have some good folks here in my county.

    So people like Joel can sit here on this forum and pit us against one another and play word games. Some of us want the GOP to have a future in this state and we are actively working to bring the Ron Paul people on board and repair the damage.

    People like Joel just want to smear Ron Paul supporters and play petty word games.

    I’ve had my share of online forums to spot a troll when I read one.

  47. Sublime,

    But it shouldn’t be about the GOP or chairs or counties or parties right now..That’s the politics part. I’m talking about individuals. Why would anybody want to not vote for Rossi or McCain right now and risk getting stuck with Obama and Gregoire?

    My dad explained what happened years ago when a guy was running against George Bush Sr, Ross Parrow?? He said that republicans were mad at Sr, so they voted for the 3rd party guy and Clinton won, and we were really sorry about that.

    He said we should have learned our lesson. He learned his–he said not to split the vote, and a vote for a third guy or no vote is a vote for the democrats. And he told me again. Half a republican is better than a whole democrat. That sounds pretty simple to me.

    I don’t care who’s mad at who. I want republicans in office. I don’t want to inherit bad debts and deficits and have to pay a lot in taxes when its my turn. Aren’t you guys all adults? Play the games, but vote for the republican ticket.

  48. “Why would anybody want to not vote for Rossi or McCain right now and risk getting stuck with Obama and Gregoire? ”

    Concerning McCain, The Ron Paul supporters feel that McCain is nothing more than a Democrat with a Republican label. McCain is not a conservative.

    Many McCain supporters I speak with are unware that McCain actually was going to leave the GOP and ally himself with the Democrats a few years ago.

    Concerning Rossi, some of the Ron Paul supporters I have spoken with feel the Washington State GOP leadership is completely corrupt after what happened in Spokane and they feel that Rossi’s silence makes him complicit.

    Concerning your statement, “I don’t care who’s mad at who. I want republicans in office. I don’t want to inherit bad debts and deficits and have to pay a lot in taxes when its my turn.”

    All I can think to suggest is get involved and speak some sense to the GOP leadership to stop alienating new GOP voters.

  49. Anna,
    The history of the twentieth century was a struggle between freedom and socialism.

    We defeated German National Socialism with guns in WWII.
    We defeated Soviet Socialism with economics and military policy in WWIII (the “Cold War”). But we have not defeated American democratic Socialism in our own nation.

    For more than seventy years we’ve been slowly losing our nation to socialism, program by program, through the constant expansion of government jurisdiction and the constantly encroaching philosophy of government as the solution to social problems. We are now indoctrinating our children in Socialism and Sexual License with tax dollars through the public school system.

    The Republican Party is the only hope of reversing that trend and returning to the freedom established at our founding and undergirded by the Constitution. But we have not had a Presidential Candidate who was committed to that crusade for 24 years and, as a matter of policy, we have become a Party that endorses bigger government, and a continued, but slow, march to full socialism, without announcing it.

    Candidates like John McCain say they are for “smaller governent” but, in absolute fact, they are for “smaller government than the Democrats are currently proposing” which is LARGER that the governemnt we have NOW and continues our inexorable slide into government dependency. That dependency is not only a drag on the remaining infrastructure of freedom, but on the psychology of our citizens. People get used to Government running things and, as happened in the Soviet Union, lose the belief that we can live without it.

    John McCain holds two beliefs that are, in fact, quiet agenda items of his proposed Presidency that are both more immediately dangerous to this nation that Primeval Islam. Both would result in the rapid expansioin of governemnt and both would attack our economic well-being like cancer attacks healthy cell tissues.

    1. He wants to open our borders to give welfare benefits to tens of millions of government dependents of other countries, legalizing, in the process, the unlawful acts of tens of millions of alien criminals who live by identity forgery or theft or other crime. By itself, unless we drop all Federal and State welfare (which he does NOT contemplate), this would sink the American Economy. Please read this paragraph over and over again until you get it. John McCain’s CIRA policy would, by itself, ruin our economy.

    2. He wants to put a Cap on American Enterprise to stifle it by a factor adequate to cool the sun. It’s called “cap-and-trade” and it, literally, would ration the use of fuel to business and industry, wiping out the less well-to-do enterprises (small business) at once, throwing a huge advantage to large corporations, but, in the end, chaining all American Enterprise with the fundamental principle of SOCIALISM. The science is clear. We cannot effect the global temperature, even if we were to stop using all fuels altogether and McCain woud chain the future of Free Enterprise, the engine of our prosperity, to that impossible task. There is no alternative, down that path, but economic ruin. It is economic suicide. It would, BY ITSELF, establish a precedent that would end American Freedom. If you didn’t get paragraph “1.” try reading this one until it dawns on you what is so important about where the GOP is going.

    McCain has many other programs that are moderately Republican in nature, extending the Bush tax cuts (that he voted against) for instance. He is “better” than Obama. He is “better” than Hillary. How do they make up for his suicidal programs?

    If you got to vote to elect staff for the preschool where you sent your own children (pretend you have some) and there were two candidates. One of them pledged to kill all the children and the other pledged to let a third live, would you vote for either candidate, thus lending your endorsement to that candidate? One is clearly better. Half a killer is better than a whole maniac. Or would you do everything in your power to prevent either from getting the position? John McCain is still NOT our nominee. There is still hope. All things are possible.

    Your father is right, Anna. Slowly descending into Socialism is better than getting it quickly. But shouldn’t the GOP be offering an alternative?

    Leukemia is better than Rabies. It takes longer to die from it.

    But I want America to live.

  50. But Doug,

    We had alternatives: Thompson, Guilliani, Tancredo, Duncan, Paul, Huckabee, and Romney. And the majority chose McCain. And democracy calls for a majority vote.

    Isn’t that right? And you say McCain is not our nominee. Isn’t he the presumptive nominee because our system calls for selecting our representative through the caucus and primary, and he’s the one that got the most votes.

    If that isn’t true, does that mean that Hillary still has a chance against Obama and that she also still has hope? Yuk! I hope not!

    This is better than my government class!

  51. Anna,
    You’re quite wrong. A clear, overwhelming, majority of Republicans did not choose McCain.

    He won early primaries on Democrat crossover votes and didn’t even get a majority vote in the Washington State Primary after everyone but Paul had dropped out. No one but Paul had any money left (except Romney who is a tycoon and was funding his campaign out of personal credit).

    About 26 percent of Republicans like McCain.

    Yes, Hillary could still, in theory, get the nomination. You like Obama better than Hillary? Would you vote for him if he was the Republican nominee?

  52. I was there at the 41st District Caucus. I saw (or more accurately, didn’t see because it was hidden) firsthand the cheating. I did not attend the State Convention, but it was probably more of the same, slathered on thick. If I had not been expecting the cheating, I would not have known it was there. There are tons of ways to cheat, and not very many ways to rectify the situation.

    I get the feeling that the National Republican Party is deliberately choosing McCain because they want him to lose. This is why you can read some of his selected speeches on his website, but you get to watch every single archived speech on Obama’s website. When they don’t even bother to make him give a rousing speech on his own website, something smells fishy. I think the same can be said of Dino Rossi. The upper party members literally don’t want him to win this election either. I think I know why, but I’m not sure.

    I may only be half a Republican (pro-choice, pro domestic partnerships), but I’m an honest one, and I really despise knowing that my party ran such a dishonest election. They couldn’t even bother to give the appearance of fairness!

  53. But 26% isn’t bad when you’re splitting the vote how many ways? 8? And what was Ron Paul’s percentage? And the odds get better from there right? So now, with just McCain and Ron Paul what are the numbers? I’m looking for it on the internet.

  54. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he’ll jump out. But if you place a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will boil to death.

    If you can’t see the significance of that analogy with McCain then you can drink the kool-aide with the rest of the Republicans.

  55. Oh, I forgot your age. You probably don’t understand the Kool-Aid reference.

    Well during the 1970s there was this cult leader called Jim Jones. It was kind of like the Heaven’s Gate cult that existed in the 1990s but of course you are probably too young to remember that either.


    Well this Jim Jones was a community leader in San Fransicko who Democrats loved to be seen with but to cut a long story short his whole commune moved to British Guyana where he set up a community called Jonestown.

    Well again to cut a long story short when everything came to a head as things often do with cults he had his followers prepare glasses of kool aid with poison in it for them to all drink.

    They all knew there was poison in the drink and some had to be forced to drink the kool aid but most of the cult members drank the kool aid happily. Why? Because Jim Jones told them so.

    In reference to this incident Bill O’reilly has more recently popularized the term “drinking the kool aid” to mean someone who strongly holds on to the party line even when it is so obvious that the party line is false and will lead to destruction.

  56. Oh, here is another analogy from the 1970s that could be applicable here. Do you know who Richard Nixon was? Well probably you know that he was forced to resign from the Presidency. I doubt you know that he signed in Affirmative Action or that he enacted price and wage controls upon America.

    Well, perhaps you also know how it was him who opened up relations with China.

    Well there’s a saying that developed, “Only Nixon could go to China”. What that meant was that before Nixon went to China he was known as a strong cold warrior. He was seen as highly anti-communist.

    Had a more liberal Presient tried to warm up China US relations that President would have probably been accused of being soft on communism and resistance would have been built up against his initiative. But with someone perceived as so strongly anti communist as Nixon was pushing a policy of opening up relations with China, well people thought it must be okay, whereas if the President didn’t have the “commie fighting” credentials that Nixon did the same people would oppose it.

    So, how many liberal policies will McCain be successful promoting because he is perceived as (or at least will be protrayed as in the Press as) conservative whereas people would not trust the same proposals if coming from such a known liberal as Obama?

    One area that I am pretty sure this will be the case is Global Warming. If such a pro-business President like McCain (not true of course but that is how the press will protray it) is for this Global Warming pact it can’t be that extreme can it?

    Well, yes, yes it can.

  57. Applesauce,

    So let me get this right, you didn’t see the cheating, while witnessing the absence of cheating firsthand, which was cheating, though you directly saw what you didn’t see, and if you hadn’t known about the cheating you wouldn’t have seen it, but it was witnessed firsthand by you by not seeing it because it was “hidden.”

    And then you didn’t attend it, but you know that cheating was there, and worse, and also knew that it was there at the State Convention as well.

    Where were you able to learn this dark art of divination to discern cheating when you don’t see it, and can’t see it?

    This is a Christian community at the Reagan Wing, and witchcraft and divination and all other dark arts are cast out as the works of the devil that they are. Be gone with you Legion.


    P.S. The fact that you are pro-choice and pro-domestic partnership, the Reagan Wing will not welcome you at all, you will be asked to leave, and it will be recommended that the door not hit you on the way out. Doug will be sure to sanitize all of the places that you touched. I however, will be happy to talk to you, even if I don’t agree with everything you believe. But then again, Alex, Kim, Doug, and his toadies think I smoke marijuana and am a democrat plant. Oh well. Go in peace and don’t miss this place.

  58. 26 or 33, but then you add Romney’s % to McCain, and Guillilani’s % to McCain, and Huckabee’s and Thompson, etc. and now McCain has overwhelming majority, right? My dad and mom chose Thompson first, but then he dropped out when Washington voted, so they picked Romney, and now they will pick McCain. And lots of people I talked to liked Romney all the way, and still do, but they are gonig to vote for McCain.

    And even Ron Paul’s main guy, Lou Moore, said he would vote the straight republican ticket in November. So if he can do it, why can’t you guys?

    And my dad’s trying to explain the Pat Robertson and Barry Goldwater stuff to me now. Sheesh. I think some of us republicans are nuts!! Maybe the problem is that republicans are “individualists,” and votinng the majority is hard to do because we’re hard headed and we want what we want, BUT Like i said earlier, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. That could be ugly! 😮

  59. “And even Ron Paul’s main guy, Lou Moore, said he would vote the straight republican ticket in November. So if he can do it, why can’t you guys”

    I’ll vote for Dino. But McCain? No way in hell…

    I can not in good conscience vote for McCain.

    McCain-Kennedy. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Lieberman… on and on.

    Republicans need to stop acting like the Presidential election is some sort of football game and start checking into the voting records of socialist shills like McCain.

  60. Anna,
    You say, “…lots of people I talked to liked Romney all the way, and still do, but they are gonig to vote for McCain.”
    To be sure. They’ve been told he is the Republican Nominee.
    He probably will be. But long before it was even “probable” he was:


  61. Linda.

    Jim Jones was an Evangelical, Assemblies of God, to be exact I believe. He got people to drink the Kool-Aid because they believed he spoke for God, and at the end of the day God told them to do the things they did, and no one dared question a man speaking from God’s authority.

    Not unlike some of the preaching that goes on here by Psuedo-Evangelicals and other Protestant fringe groups that have fallen away from the true Church.


  62. Joel, at 69,
    Quit putting words in other people’s mouths.
    Try to learn a little civility.

    at 75,
    Jim Jones denied all fundamental evangelical beliefs, including the inspiration of Scripture and that Christ was the Messiah.

    Tell us what the “true church” believes, Joel.

  63. at 76..

    That is easy; the true church believes; that all of sinned and come short short of the glory of God & Justification comes through Grace alone, not works.

  64. Joel,

    You should know the difference between a sin of commission and a sin of omission if you are christian. Sometimes, truth is discovered through the absence of something that you expect to see, but don’t.

    At the 41st District Caucus, I expected to see speeches by more than one slate. Instead, I saw a captive audience and only the establishment seemed to be allowed to speak at all, DURING A ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER MEETING. I expected to see fair and open ballot counting proceedures. Instead, I saw that the ballots were counted in secret, instead of in the open. I expected to find basic civility and the appearance of fairness. Instead, I saw threats being made if one of the non-annointed speakers actually tried to speak in the approved parliamentary fashion.

    As for Doug et al, we agree on a great many things: the war, the economy, immigration, gun rights, the immigrant welfare state literally destroying our economy, among other

    Joel, Doug Parris doesn’t speak for God, and neither do you. Just because you’re a Christian, just like most other people claim to be, doesn’t mean that I should automatically bow to your superior claim to “the truth”. There’s plenty of other Christians out there who think differently than you do about a great many issues. As Thomas Jefferson said, God intended me to actually use the brain he gave me.

  65. Doug.

    I will add to what RBN has said, and I do not believe that it is inconsistent.

    We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, Of all things visible and invisible.

    We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ the only son of god. God from god, light from light, true god from true god. Begotten not made, of one being with the father, Through him all things were made.

    For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, By the power of the Holy Spirit he was made man. For our sake he was crucified died and was buried. He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures And is seated at the right hand of the father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead And of his kingdom there will be no end.

    We believe in the Holy Spirit, the lord and giver of life Who proceeds from the father [and son], Through the father and son is glorified, He has spoken through the prophets.

    We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church We believe in communion of saints, the resurrection of the dead And the life of the world to come.

    That is about it Doug.


  66. Doug.

    Why exactly are you suggesting that I should “learn a little civility”? I am serious here? Because that is what you want on this site? Is it because you want Sour Apples to be treated in a particular way, differently from others? What is it exactly?

    The reason that I want to know Doug, is that for you to now request civility from me seems amazingly disingenuous. Although, I have no interest in quoting you and your favorite supporters in this and other posts, I can go through this blog and and put together a compilation of your “greatest hits.” And I can assure you that anything that I may have said at 69 which you consider “uncivil” would seem to be polite enough for an audience with the Queen of England in comparison to what I could put together from your own site.

    In my view, you have made incivility a highly refined art Doug, unless you have simply “redefined” as you often do, the meaning of civility, so that it only has a very specific meaning as ascribed by you. That is a possibility, since even the commonly understood meanings of words can sometimes have very unique meanings in the Lexicon of Parrisology.


    P.S. I really do want to know why you think I need to learn civility? I think that I actually, in an ironic way, spared him/her from your wrath. How do you like them Apples?

  67. Doug.

    What I said about Jim Jones is not inconsistant with your statements at 76. Whether he was still preaching and believing evangelical and Assemblies of God doctrine at the time of the Jonestown mass suicide is not the issue. In all honesty, I doubt that he was. But the fact remains, that is what he started out as, and many of the fundimental tenents of those denominations have as their presumption “pastor is always right,” if pastor is wrong, refer to the rule that “pastor is always right.” Evangelical and “holy-roller” churches with their fluid and unstructured way of doing things (they loathe “tradition” you know), are highly susceptible to cults of personality. Just turn on any of the “christian television” stations, and every show is named after the pastor, or if it is not, there is very little between the “hour of power” organization and the cult that surrounds the “annointed”.

    The Church is to be the “body” of the Christ, but most evangelical churches today are more like corporations in the “religion market” with marketing plans, customer service centers, and celebrity CEOs. And the religious magazines and materials look like Forbes, Fortune, and Business Week, or at the very least a stock prospectus.

    Yet, traditions that date back to the apostles are rejected as “dead tradition” and “cult practices” by the likes of John Hagee. He should talk, as the head cult leader of his own heretical cult of those that have fallen away from the Holy Catholic Church.

    But there really is no convincing you Doug. What everything really comes down to for you is “who” you disagree with. Once you have picked those that you support, your positions will shift wildly to support the person that you like. I think I remember you supporting Richard Pope at one point, because he wasn’t Jane Hauge, and then went on to extoll the virtues of a person who is absolutely insane. You do that elsewhere as well. If someone gets on your bad side (like me), then everything that they say is attacked, and you engage in the devil’s theology of attempting to prove that that person is absolutely wrong. I have no expectations of changing your mind – you will do that yourself when it suits your purposes.

    I am pretty much done with this bloge, and all of the meaningless and Alice-in-Wonderland debates. There is so much better that can be done out in the real world than waste ones time here with the intellectual backwater dwellers of the GOP. Things like getting Dino Rossi elected or some legislative candidates elected are more important. I just pray that your “revolution” doesn’t completely wipe out everything good. But then again, in reality, this place is just a place for tempests in teapots anyway. I really don’t think that you are that effective, so perhaps I should stop worrying that you really can change anything anyway (good or bad).


  68. I thought it was interesting how Jim Jones was very popular in Democratic circles.

    If he was popular with Republicans we would never hear the end of it but somehow the fact that he was popular among the Democrats is all but lost to history.

  69. “Well there’s a saying that developed, “Only Nixon could go to China”. What that meant was that before Nixon went to China he was known as a strong cold warrior. ”

    Excellent point Linda. And who did Nixon actually send to China to represent the USA.

    George HW Bush.

  70. Linda @ 81

    How is it that you have determined that Jim Jones was popular in Democratic Cirlces? How is that so, and what do you base that on?


  71. Joel, at 78:
    That’s a nice cut and paste of the Nicene creed. I remember the last time I saw that technique used: as a statement for one of its authors on the back of the original cast soundtrack recordings of the musical, Hair. I was hoping, instead, for your own words.
    At 79:
    You ask, “Why exactly are you suggesting that I should “learn a little civility”?
    You frequently, if not always, begin by intentionally misconstruing something your indended victim has said and treating them, personally, as if they were guilty of your distortion. In this manner you asserted (after derisively ridiculing his/her “name”) that “Bitter Apple” claimed to have “seen what he/she didn’t see,” when, in fact, he/she was only claiming to have discovered what was hidden. You twisted his/her words for ridicule.

    These are the actions of a cruel and unscrupulous person. “Bitter Apple” may be “pro-choice and pro domestic partnerships” but is more of a Christian than you are. Your “deep cover” as a Christian and, even more implausably, a conservative, are acts of intellectual espionage worthy of Michael Young or Ross Marzolf. Few other people I know posssess the extreme “facility” of conscience necessary to execute that kind of trickery.

    You end that post by distorting and misrepresenting me and the Reagan Wing, as you have consistently done since you came here. From the beginning, you have been an advocate for the false. Throughout, you have been personally abusive.

    You acuse me of the same abuse in which you engage, but prefaced with this:
    “I have no interest in quoting you and your favorite supporters in this and other posts…”
    That is because your accusation is baseless. I make serious charges, here. There is no question about that. The Reagan Wing has done so since our inception. We are congnizant of the risks in doing so. As a matter of necessity we maintain a strict adherence to facts we are prepared to support in a court of law if necessary.

    You rail against us referencing “what I could put together from your own site” but, most conspicuously, do not put anything together.
    Because, as you know, we could disprove any specific charge.

    You say my“positions will shift wildly,” again without any example.

    You assert, falsely, that I supported the candidacy of Richard Pope when he ran as a Democrat against ultraliberal Jane Hague. I did not support his candidacy and said so at the time. I simply defended him against vicious Michael Young slanders used, in his campaign to support ultraliberal Hague. You appear to be repeating one of those slanders when you say I “went on to extoll the virtues of a person who is absolutely insane.” You really seem, “Joel,” to have a lot in common with Young.

    Your slander of Assemblies of God, in particular and Evangelicals in general: “and many of the fundimental tenents of those denominations have as their presumption “pastor is always right,” if pastor is wrong, refer to the rule that ‘pastor is always right.’” is another example of your distortion.
    Everything about your statement is untrue.

    Your presence, here, has been as an advocate for myriad falsehoods.

    I want to commend your decision to move on. We will enjoy that commitment as long as you hold to it. But I am reminded of the sentiment of pro wrestler Brett Hart when he finally left the stable of Vince McMahon. Brett was glad to be free of Vince’s manipulation, but sad to see the end of the “Brett Hart” wrestling character he and Vince had created. He longed, ironically, to see the end of the story in which he played “himself” at Vince’s direction.
    When you are gone we won’t get to see the solitary rapture, into the blue, of the character “Joel” and his consummation, with the Hair god, into the kingdom of “Peace, man.”

  72. Joel,

    That link I provided:


    If you would have gone there you would have seen a picture of Jim Jones and Governor Moonbeam.

    And then it also said the following.

    Jim Jones was once a popular community activist in San Francisco who contributed cash and coordinated volunteers to support both causes and political leaders.

    He could turn out thousands for almost any event or effort. During the 70s he appeared with many prominent politicians including then State Assemblyman Willie Brown. In 1976 Mayor George Moscone gave Jones a seat on the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission. Governor Jerry Brown was even seen attending services at the Peoples Temple.

    Can you imagine if instead of Marxist Democrats doing this it was conservative Republicans? We would never hear the end of it, even today from people just like you Joel.

    And yeah, Joel, you are so obviously a leftist Democrat and not even a Christian as you pretend. It is so obvious that you google’d the information about Christianity and that is why you cut and paste the Nicene Creed instead of saying in your own words your beliefs because you don’t have any.

  73. I am going to vote Obama this year as a McCain win will be devastating for America.

    Sure Obama is the more out there Marxist candidate but that is what will be his own downfall. He will make the frog jump (see analogy above).

    But McCain is socialist too but he is discrete enough and gradual enough to actually get his socialist policies enacted. With him the frog will not jump but instead will be boiled alive in the juices of socialism.

    And as for the “Only Nixon could go to China” thing well I was watching that Hannity and Colmes show on Fox and they were discussing the recent Global Warming Bill that failed in the Senate and the Liberal Colmes said well your own Presidential Candidate McCain voted for it. How often will we hear well your Republican President is for it if McCain is elected?

    Not saying it is going to be easy but with Clinton we had Republicans for the first time in the streets protesting. Just think of what a counter movement having Obama in office will generate. It took Carter to give us Reagan and only someone like Reagan can save this one great country of ours.

  74. Doug.

    As for your challenge, I could take you any day or anytime in any medium that you pick. But you are not worth the powder.


  75. “Bitter Apple’s” comment (at seventy eight)
    was discovered in our spam blocker, this afternoon, de-spammed, and, perhaps, since WordPress put it back in the thread based on the time it was originally posted, messing up number references to posts.

  76. RBN

    Doug does not antagonize people or insult them, he just speaks the Truth (absolute and imutable). He is a paragon of virtue that Doug Parris.


  77. Oh those pesky laws…

    One of my favorite movies is “The Untouchables” (Kevin Costner, Sean Connery). One of my favorite bits of Dialogue from the movie, I think applies here:

    Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?

    Ness: Anything within the law.

    Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.

    If you’re not willing to take the fight to the same level (up or down, however you perceive “same level”), you’re going to lose…and lose…and lose, as has been the case repeatedly for decades. The party establishment has paid off the ref and taken their gloves off. They are hitting you bare fisted, kicking you in the junk, head-butting you, and you’re just standing there clamoring about how “Heeey! No fair!! They’re cheating!!!!”

    Yeah, they are. So what are you prepared to do about it? Whine some more to other politicians or “authorities” who don’t care? Good Luck with that.

  78. The medium of electoral politics is speech, bleh.

    I have acted, for four years, on the assumption that there are enough Republicans who care sufficiently about the truth to quit voting these thugs back into power, if they were informed of their actual character. We started out with five people. Then there were more.

    I was not taken by surprise that the bearer of bad news about men of some power is vilified. I am not, somehow, shocked that people want to identify with those who have a “positive” public image and that pointing out corruption in one’s own Party is not the best way to acquire such an image.

    But we’ve seen the collapse, in previous decades, of numerous titans, not because someone “whined” to indifferent authorities, but because opposition to their corruption or incompetence reached critical mass. The truth overcame them.

    When Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil Empire” was he whining?

  79. Ha…. Freak! Now you “pro America surrender folks” can just wither away! The Paul/Chamberlain/Parris/Obama policy of appeasment and surrender era is exposed!

    Ron Paul Ends Campaign

  80. Kip (RBN) at 96:

    You just don’t get it, do you? Your blind loyalty to the Reich is endearing in its naivete, but your ignorance is astonishing.

    No, you can’t just lie about people because you disagree with them.

    By your incompetence you are working hard to destroy America from within by eradicating its Sovereignty, rejecting conservative judicial nominees, Capping our energy use while the rest of the world is building their economies, and tripling spending while devaluing the dollar with exponential accelleration.

    There is no objective Stalin ever had for America that you aren’t working to accomplish through your blind loyalty to McCain.

    Ron Paul supports a war on Terror, hunting down and killing terrorists, Jihadists, worldwide. You do not.

    We seek the reawakening of freedom and the restoration of freedoms that America has lost and that your candidate further threatens.

    You want, instead, a civil war in Iraq to empty the treasury of our nation in a humiliating failure to build a Democracy where none ever existed, without the cultural underpinnings necessary, ignoring the history of such enterprises – in South America, in Africa, in Central America… Freedom even dies in Europe where it is starved. And you would sacrifice all our freedoms for your stupid, self-absorbed pride. You have no other agenda. You have no other principles. All is sacrificed on the altar of your foolishness.

    You work to ensconse Environmentalists controlling our industry’s use of fuel – in the pursuit of the Marxism that drives them. You work to make tens of millions of foreign socialist voters who live by crime, enfranchised with financial bonuses, overnight.

    Your reward awaits – go to it now – depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.

  81. Doug.

    At 95 and 97 you have proved every point I have ever made on this blog.

    At least you have nearly 100 posts on this thread. I think that this might be a Reagan Wing record.

    Great work, now go pour yourself a big glass of milk and get out the Oreos.


  82. Doug.

    Just a personal question here, do you have to go take a cold shower after you get done working yourself up into a self-righteous lather like you do at 97?

    I would imagine that you need to do that, but maybe you like going around all funky like a worked up person gets after they have gone off on a rant.


    PS Just one away from 100. A red letter day.

  83. Doug.

    Just a personal question here, do you have to go take a cold shower after you get done working yourself up into a self-righteous lather like you do at 97?

    I would imagine that you need to do that, but maybe you like going around all funky like a worked up person gets after they have gone off on a rant.


    PS Just one away from 100. A red letter day.

  84. You repeat yourself a lot, Joel.

    At 98, though, you say, “At 95 and 97 you have proved every point I have ever made on this blog.”
    But you’ve never actually made a point, Joel.

    I’m still waiting for you to accept my challenge HERE to prove you don’t smoke pot, free of charge, for all to see.

    How ’bout it?

  85. Doug.

    Other than the fact that you inserted something above, which changed the numbering, so that my references no longer match the original posts (I notice that you do that sometimes, include things “earlier” in a series, which were not there at the time that the poster originally made their post). You must think you are really clever by doing that.

    You are useless to debate with, since you constantly change the subject and engage in the most rediculous lines of diversion.

    You never made a challenge before with regard to whether I smoke marijuana or not (well, at least not under you regular name – I think you have multiple personalities on this blog).

    How would I prove a negative to you on this blog? That is, how would I prove that I “don’t smoke pot” as you put it? It is a silly and unecessary challenge, and it is one completely fabricated by you. I have never smoked marijuana, as I said before, I had to have someone tell me what it was when I smelled it once. I didn’t even know what it was.

    Your ad hominem attacks on me, calling me a “pot smoker” are just your lame attempt to change the subject and “fog” the conversation.

    Although I will not “accept your challege” as it is a stupid challenge. I would be delighted to hear from you how you believe it would be able to be proved; since it appears that it is you, not me, that must have some intimate knowlege of this illicit substance. Please tell us. I am certain that all here are dying to know, I certainly am. And as you posted earlier, you are just wishing that I would die. So much for your “civility” claim from some weeks back.


    PS You are still not worth the powder.

  86. Apple at 78.

    I have never claimed to speak for God. I would suggest that you read closely my posts throughout, (my posts) not the posts that Doug and his 4 or 5 alter egos on this site “claim” that I have said. If you get to know Doug Parris for long, you will soon discover that he regularly will take something that one he does not agree with has said, and restate it in the most distorted and absurd fashion, and then “attack” the argument he has created – not the origninal argument. He also regularly puts words in the mouths of others, and attributes statements to them, which were not made by anyone than himself, and then again attacks that person for what he says that they have said – not what they have actually said.

    As an example is this long line of tripe with regard to my alleged smoking of marijuana – something that I have never done in my life. I not only have not “inhaled” but I have never even lit up or touched the stuff. Never was interested.

    So Apple, read what I have posted on this blog. And if you are involved in politics, be careful with who you pick sides with. Remember, though my enemy’s enemy may (temporarly) be my friend – at the end of the day – they are still your enemy. The Reagan Wing is populated by the disaffected and fringe of the Republican Party. The only majority that they have, or ever will have, is in their own mind.

    Ronald Reagan would be ashamed to have his name besmirched so. The Democrats could have never dreamed a group so damaging to the Republicans.

    Doug you are legend.


  87. Doug.

    Why do you refuse to submit to the psychological evaluation and prove to the world that you are not insane. Many people in the Republican Party think that you are crazy, so why not prove once and for all that you are not?


  88. Joel at 104, above:
    Your claim, that I refused to submit to a psychological evaluation, is a blatant lie.
    Please submit any evidence that I ever made such a refusal.
    No one in the Republican Party thinks I am crazy, including you. You would not spend a large portion of your free time posting derogatory attacks on me and conservative thought if you thought I was simply insane.

  89. Doug.

    Do you have proof, irrefutable evidence, that no one in the Republican Party thinks that you are crazy?

    You have made this statement, so how are you going to prove it? Prove to me that no one in the Republican Party thinks you are crazy.

    I am going to preemptively stop you from doing a couple of things to keep you from wiggling out of this.

    First, I am not going to let you “define” your way out of this argument by picking and choosing who you determine to be in the Republican Party.

    Second, whether you think of me as a Republican or not (I think of myself as a Republican), and I think you are crazy, or at the very least very troubled.

    Third, I have never said that the only thing that I had issues with you were for the sole reason that you are crazy.

    Fourth, insanity does not require that you have been adjudicated to be insane in a court or legal sense.

    Fifth, and most importantly, don’t change the subject.

    How are you going to PROVE that “No one in the Republican Party thinks [you] are crazy.”

    I would like to know.


  90. Joel, at 107:

    “Do you have proof, irrefutable evidence, that no one in the Republican Party thinks that you are crazy?”
    Of course not. This is the classical “disproving a negative” that I pointed out, here, is not possible, nor reasonable to demand. But I believe it to be true and there is no credible evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I should have prefaced the remark with something like “No one who is, themselves, of sound mind” but I think that would be nit-picking.

    “You have made this statement, so how are you going to prove it?”

    How would you like me to prove it?

    “I am going to preemptively stop you from doing a couple of things to keep you from wiggling out of this.”
    I have no need to “wiggle out” of this; I’m not IN anything. I have no moral or rhetorical obligation to prove the point to you.

    “First, I am not going to let you “define” your way out of this argument by picking and choosing who you determine to be in the Republican Party.”

    So, what you’re saying is that you can establish that at least one person in the Republican Party sincerely thinks I’m crazy, even if that person is not in the Republican Party and you won’t let me point out that little technicality?

    “Second, whether you think of me as a Republican or not (I think of myself as a Republican), and I think you are crazy, or at the very least very troubled.”
    First, let me point out that this is an incomplete sentence, but I concede that it could be punctuated to make it a complete sentence so I will respond as if that had been done.
    Next, there is considerable doubt whether or not you exsist at all, except as a creative writing project for some GOP leftist, the primary suspects being Michael Young and Ross Marzolf. Marzolf has much more experience, between the two, positioning himself as a “Christian.” So to prove your point, I would require an example of a person with, at least, a verifiable identity.
    Next, as I already said, I don’t find it credible that YOU think I’m crazy, despite your claims to the contrary. Your statement above, itself, casts doubt on the proposition.

    I’ve encountered many people in the Republican Party willing to SAY I’m crazy, but all of them, so far, are only willing to do so, like you, in secrecy and anonymity. All of them are political opponents, advocates of the GOP leftist cabal that is ruling and ruining us, dedicated to the proposition that the Party MUST STAND FOR NOTHING who would be willing to tell virtually any lie to make me go away. Since you came to this site for that obvious and explicit purpose, since you refuse to identify yourself, since you cast out careless fabrications constantly, I find your assertion that you “believe” I’m crazy to be non-credible.

    “Third, I have never said that the only thing that I had issues with you were for the sole reason that you are crazy.”
    Nor have I accused you of that. To the contrary, I assert that none of the “issues” you have are based on any belief that I am crazy since I don’t believe you think I’m crazy.

    “Fourth, insanity does not require that you have been adjudicated to be insane in a court or legal sense.”
    True. One does not have to have been convicted to be a murderer, either. But there is such a thing as true insanity and evidence of it and there is such a thing as slander. Your claim is the latter.

    “Fifth, and most importantly, don’t change the subject.”
    This is most remarkable, coming from you. As I recall the subject we were on was whether or not you were going to aplogize to Brian Thomas for slander of him we exposed, here: http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ruth-gibbs-on-john-mccain-in-february/#comment-5561

    Do you intend to get back to it?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s