2008 Washington State Republican Party Convention Spokane, WA
Point of Clarification (I learned these words at the convention): I supported John McCain at this convention, but not all of the vote suggestions by the delegation leaders.
Day One
I arrived at the County Convention early Friday morning and quickly made my way through the credentialing to take my seat as a delegate of the Washington State Republican Party. When I came into the main convention hall, I noticed some friends from previous Republican events and I engaged them in conversation mostly concerning the form of the meeting, but also about the issues that we would be discussing.
I sat with my delegation in Snohomish County and had a chance to look around. 1,300 Delegates decked out with in either McCain or Paul gear. Not to mention the hundreds of delegates, visitors, staff and press.
It didn't take long after the gavel was pounded by temporary chair Luke Esser for me to realize that this convention was going to be anything but conventional. Partisans formed around their respective leadership groups to receive information on how they were to vote on any certain issue and what signals they were to look for. Paul supporters used flags and other less conspicuous means of communication while the McCain supporters used bright YES and NO signs.
One of the first items to be discussed was the credentials report. One of Ron Paul's supporters made a motion to strike the Skagit County Delegation from the floor due to, what she called, irregularities. The convention rejected this motion by a more that 2/3 margin. Whether or not there were irregularities, I do not know, because I was not there nor was any evidence given. I believe the main reason that the convention rejected the motion to strike outright was because it would be wrong to disenfranchise over 200 delegates based on unsubstantiated allegations.
At this point I became quite angry due to the name calling by some of the Paul delegation behind the Snohomish County delegation. Those of us that were voting to accept the decision of the credentials committee and the proposed rules were called communists and fascists and compared to Adolf Hitler. We were also told that we would burn in hell. All of these comments were extremely offensive and did not help the cause of the Paul delegation in Snohomish County.
The credentials report continued to receive challenge after challenge from the Paul campaign with the desire to seat as many alternates as possible due to their great ability to win alternate seats at the various county conventions. This was a necessary goal in order to be able to make amendments to the proposed rules. Without those amendments, the majority would have their way throughout the convention.
The convention succeeded in adopting the proposed rules before all of the delegates had been seated, but based on my estimated counts of Paul vs. McCain delegations it would have not mattered in the long run.
The convention elected Kirby Wilber from KVI as the conventions permanent chairman. I believe that both Luke Esser and Kirby Wilber did an excellent job and were graciously fair to the minority giving them more than ample time to express their views and concerns. Kirby and Luke should be commended for their patience and calmness in the face of repeated objections and people like me who didn't know what they were doing.
With the rules and the credentials being passed by the convention, we moved on to our individual congressional district caucuses. I do not know how other caucuses went, but I will give a brief recount of the 2nd Congressional District. I sat in the middle of a cluster of Paul delegates and had a great time. They were all extremely courteous and the young man to my right shared a part of his lunch with me. These folks were passionate about their country and concerned about getting the Republican Party back on track.
Before the caucus convened, a McCain unity slate was distributed which was followed almost entirely by the McCain delegation.
There was some confusion at the beginning of the caucus concerning the election of the allocated delegate and alternate. These allocated delegates were chosen directly by the winner of the Presidential Preference Primary and therefore only one name was on the ballot. Some people did not think this was fair, but I don't believe that they fully understood that these were delegates that were already won by John McCain.
There were 157 delegates seated at the 2nd Congressional caucus and by my count 68 were Ron Paul supporters and 89 were McCain or other supporters.
There was a lot of discussion by the some Paul supporters as to their disapproval with the voting machines, but due to the adopted rules of the parent convention, the caucus was unable to do a physical count. Both parties had representatives who were allowed to watch the counting of the ballots and no objections were made by those representatives.
The voting took an incredibly long time and it amazed me that the computer could not work faster. The party chairman Luke Esser explained that it was more a question of man power than computer power.
The 2nd Congressional District elected the McCain unity slate of delegates to the National Convention to the disappointment of the Chairwoman of the Paul delegation who requested that all of the Paul supporters who did not follow their slate to see her. She believed that she had more votes in the room than she apparently had.
The caucus adjourned at 7:00pm and I met up with my wife and children for dinner and to explore Spokane's beautiful Riverfront Park.
Day Two
After a terrific night sleep in the Red Lion River Inn, I returned to take my seat in the convention hall looking forward to a discussion on the platform and the resolutions that people had put forward.
Right away a Ron Paul supporter stood up and moved that we accept the McCain unity slate of electors and delegates that were sitting on our chairs when we walked in. Most people in the audience thought that this was a great sign of unity, but it was apparent to me that her reasoning for doing so was that the Paul campaign knew that they could not do anything about the delegates and the electors and therefore wanted to spend as much time as possible on the platform and the resolutions.
Another sign that the Paul campaign were less concerned about how the platform read and more concerned with raising objections to prolong the discussion was the fact that on items 9 and 13 of the platform, some Paul supporters moved to set aside the items for discussion without submitting written amendments in the allotted time.
In my opinion, the platform committee could have avoided most of these challenges if they would have included stronger language about the right to bear arms and the right to life, but they chose instead to be broader on those issues which prompted those who feel strongly on those issues to join with the Paul delegation to set those specific items aside.
In the end we debated the platform for 3 hours and managed to add one line about the right to bear arms in one section and we changed the language slightly in another section.
We broke for lunch at 12 o'clock and came back to discuss the resolutions that were submitted and suggested for approval by the platform committee.
Right away I noticed a difference in the McCain delegation. The signs had completely disappeared as a sign that the McCain campaign no longer was guiding their delegation. I think this was a mistake because by allowing their delegation to be splintered along single-issue lines, it condemned the convention to take longer than was originally planned, which is exactly what the Paul delegation wanted.
There were two packets given out before the resolutions were to be debated. One packet was the resolutions that the platform committee suggested we adopt and one packet was the resolutions that the platform committee suggested we reject.
Most of the resolutions in the reject packet were written by Ron Paul supporters and due to time constraints there was no way that the convention would get to the rejected packet due to the convention rules. An astute Ron Paul supporter quickly moved that the convention adopt all of the suggested resolutions and move on to the rejected packet. Since the McCain delegation had been broken the motion carried. In the approved resolution packet there were some poorly written resolutions and terrible policy recommendations and I can not believe that the State Republican Party would want to put their name on all of those recommendations.
Regardless, the McCain people did not care about the state resolutions and were more concerned with sending a message to the Paul delegation that they did not appreciate the threats, name-calling and the repeated obstructions and they began to slowly file out. However, a quorum call showed that there were still enough delegates to continue business and the Paul delegates put that time to good use.
They succeeded in passing a resolution that before the United States of America takes any military action against an enemy, the House of Representatives must declare war against that enemy. This horrible resolution is incredibly short sighted and unrealistic. While I agree that if we are attacked by another nation it is the constitutional responsibility of the House to declare war against that nation, this resolution would bind the hands of the Commander in Chief until such time when the House can get a quorum. During this delay the President would be powerless to defend our country. Also in the case of an enemy like Al-Qaida which operates in many different countries and is difficult to define it would be impossible for the House to properly declare war against that enemy. There are many other reasons to oppose this resolution, but the point is that this embarrassing resolution could have been avoided had the McCain delegation stayed strong and cared a little bit more about our state's platform and resolutions.
After this resolution was adopted many remaining delegates filtered out and the convention was adjourned.
This was an incredible educational experience for me and it was great to get a first hand look at party organization. I came away from the convention proud of the Republican Party and energized to help elect Republicans up and down the ballot.
For other details please see Jim at the Spokesman Reviews blog
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/elections/2008/blog/
Cross Posted at http://intransigentconservative.blogspot.com/
Regarding the Skagit County delegation...I voted against striking the delegation (along with many Paul supporters) because we wanted to hear the evidence first. I made a motion to extend credentials discussion for 10 minutes in order to hear the details of the corruption that happened. At that point, the McCain "sign flashers" got word to vote that down and most McCain supporters fell in line and voted No. Alas, the details were never brought to the attention of the delegates.
I don't know exactly what happened in Skagit, but after the Certified Mail Return Receipt was presented that proved Mr. Esser indeed signed for the letter disputing the Skagit county delegation prior to the filing deadline, the McCain leadership knew the details of such accusations could not be heard or it would cause major damage to the reputation of party leadership. Regardless of what candidate we each support, we are Americans first. It was disgusting when the motion to hear the evidence was voted down per McCain leadership direction.
Another massive fraud that was suppressed allegedly happened in King County's 41st district. At that district convention a bunch of Paul delegates were elected to be state delegates. The custodian of the records for the 41st district did not turn in the names of the people elected, but rather filled in the names of people she wanted to send. I am not positive, but I believe the chairperson must sign a sworn affidavit on the form that contains the name of the delegates. If that is true, the 41st district chair committed purgery. The McCain/WSRP leadership was well aware of what happened because Esser himself appointed a chairperson to dismiss the case and not hear the evidence. Again, the fraud was dismissed on an "untimely filing" technicality.
I met a lot of very nice, moral Republicans this weekend. Unfortunately, by following the leadership of McCain, many Republicans unknowingly compromised their morals to suppress evidence of blatant cheating. I believe many Republicans "woke up" to the corruption when the McCain delegates were ordered to leave so they could force quorum to be broken. I believe as time goes on more details will come out that fully expose the magnitude of cheating.
One last point - corruption can be easily identified when a rule is made that no one can record the proceedings with a video camera. People who follow the rules don't ban video recording. Those who plan to cheat and don't want evidence of that cheating outlaw video cameras. I wonder why the WSRP banned video recording...
Posted by: Paul Delegate on June 2, 2008 08:56 AMAnother issue: "I think this was a mistake because by allowing their delegation to be splintered along single-issue lines, it condemned the convention to take longer than was originally planned, which is exactly what the Paul delegation wanted." What everyone SHOULD want, is to cast their own vote as they see fit. Not going along with whatever brainwashing sign is being flown.
One last reminder, only congress shall have the power to declare war, according to our constitution!!! The president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. So, the resolution did not say anything that is not already expressed in our constitution.
Posted by: Tara on June 2, 2008 09:24 AMIf you think the "name calling" is a one sided issue, then congratulations, you are a good person for not doing it yourself, and had some good McCain supporters around you. But there has been plenty of name calling done on the McCain side too. People make mistakes, but to think it’s a one sided issue is naive.
One glaring problem I found with your writeup was your misquoting and analysis of the "war declaration" resolution.
If you misquote something you can always draw on extremes with ease. Read the real one again, read the part about "war declaration powers" No president has needed such powers in the past. So why now? This is about attacking other nations, not stopping us from defending ourselves.
BTW, here is the real resolution:
“Therefore be it resolved that the Republican Party should support
formal declarations of war passed by the House of Representatives and
repudiate “authorizations to us force” or any other delegation of war
declaration powers to any other body.”
So you think we will have enemies that are so perplexing and difficult to identify that the house could not write up a sufficient declaration?
I don’t see how that could happen. The house could make a proper declaration to meet the circumstances of the situation; they make complicated resolutions all the time, nothing special there. Why do you want to make war so easy?
If we ever did have a situation where the house could not define it, what makes the President more qualified to define the targets and objectives? More importantly, if our leaders cannot define the enemy we probably don't know enough to go take the target out without killing innocents and causing massive collateral damage as we perform guess and check military actions.
Thanks for the report, newbie. Better you than me. I can't stand meetings and this type is the hardest to sit through.
Posted by: swatter on June 2, 2008 11:46 AM1. There was never a demand to not use video. There were many people around me both McCain and Paul people who were videoing the preceedings. Secondly, the entire convention was being broadcast on TVW so why would they care if ordinary people used cameras.
If the woman had proof of wrongdoing by the Skagit County convention then she should have stated in her motion that she wanted the merits to be debated. She made a mistake and only moved that the entire Skagit County delegation be stricken.
2. In regards to the name calling, I would not have mentioned it if it were only one or two people making comments, but there were at least five in a group who were saying the offensive things. There was no name-calling at all in my area of the Snohomish Delegation by McCain people. I agree that when tempers get heated things can be said, but never in my life have I been called a communist, a fascist, and Adolf Hitler. Such people have a party already, it's called the Democrat party.
3. On the signs: The McCain people had signs and the Paul people had flags, hankerchiefs, and people running up and down the aisle doing either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Please explain the difference. It's incorrect to say that all the McCain people were brainwashed for voting in a block when the Paul people were voting in a block.
4. On the war resolution: Congress has the ability at any time to stop funding the military action if they so choose. The Congress funds the war therefore they support it. (John Adams directed our fleet to attack the French without a declaration of war.)
Posted by: Ken on June 2, 2008 01:22 PM"There was never a demand to not use video."
This is absolutely false. Numerous people were threatened with expulsion from the convention if they did not quit shooting both photos and video. One was threatened with arrest. This was done selectively targeting Ron Paul-associated people. I was threatened three times myself on that issue alone. (I was threatened by staff on several other frivolous issues including simply passing a piece of paper to a legal delegate!!!) The harassment was extreme. They were acting like fascists. Each time I demanded to see rules, I was literally told to obey the staff, without rules, or I would be ejected. They were very hostile that I would even question if there was a rule. And there wasn't. The seargents at arms as well as Security staff and police were lied to about what the Ron Paul people were "going to do," BEFORE the convention started and prejudiced against them. McCain leaders were spreading lies about what "the Ron Paul people want to do" throughout the convention (like: "they just want to stretch out Platform Debate") I have enough material on staff misconduct to do at least three articles with sworn affidavits and photographic evidence.
"If the woman had proof of wrongdoing by the Skagit County convention then she should have stated in her motion that she wanted the merits to be debated. She made a mistake and only moved that the entire Skagit County delegation be stricken."
This is absolutely false. You must not be familiar with Roberts Rules at all! The only way the merits of ANY issue can be discussed is by making a motion first. Discussing the merits is INHERENT in every motion. That is EXACTLY WHAT SHE WAS DOING. Nicole WAS A MEMBER OF THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE who was ILLEGALLY silenced from bringing up the merits and indisputable evidence in that Committee by the McCain/State Party regime.
After we opened debate (and we had more than ten speakers with extensive materials, sworn affidavits, etc. The McCain team, aided by Esser parliamentary cheating from the chair, closed debate to PREVENT THE FACTS from being discussed.
"...never in my life have I been called a communist, a fascist, and Adolf Hitler."
Have you ever been called a mental retard, kook, Neo-Nazi, KKK-associated, pro-narcotic drug promoting, pro-abortion, pro-prostitution LIAR who will do ANYTHING to get elected? In writing? As a part of a financed, orchestrated public campaign? That's what the McCain team printed up and distributed on every chair in caucus after caucus after caucus about Ron Paul people in at least four counties. It was a full-fledged hate campaign of unprecedented proportion. Ruth Gibbs and her husband were distributing such scurrilous material AT THE SPOKANE CONVENTION itself. When we found such stuff (but not as bad)attacking McCain on the Convention chairs we officially disavowed it (and suspected it was a McCain operation to make us look bad).
"It's incorrect to say that all the McCain people were brainwashed for voting in a block when the Paul people were voting in a block."
We used signals for complex parliamentary motions during rules and credentials the first day. I know State Senators who can't follow that stuff without help. The second day, for platform debate, we discarded them preemptively and told everyone to vote their conscience. Had the McCain team not been so anti-debate (the Party elite have ALWAYS been), the convention would have learned that they have more in common with the new Ron Paul people than the McCain Pro-abortion, open borders, Global Warming, anti-democratic leadership. That's why they were so desperate to close down platform debate and engineered the illegal walk-out.
Not to mention the McCain county chairmen ALSO violated that rule by walking out of the convention. A repeat of Nevada? Yes.
Furthermore, when a Roll Call Vote was requested NUMEROUS times when Luke Esser was chair, it was not allowed. So it really makes me wonder why it was suddenly allowed (which I feel it should have been the entire time) when Chairman Kirby Wilbur was in charge? Or rather, WHY did Luke Esser strike it down EVERY time?
Furthermore, you neglect to mention that the McCain delegates, or at least some of them, were trying to stall the remaining time at the convention by requesting a quorum count by county. Gee - maybe they should have stuck around for the FIRST quorum count?
Posted by: Brittany Fleming on June 2, 2008 08:11 PMI admit to voting with the group I was with on several issues, but only when I felt that it was the right thing to do. If I didn't understand something, I asked. I didn't make uninformed Lemming decisions. I overheard others asking AFTER the vote what they were voting about. I think the numerous motions, points, and such were confusing, and some guidance was necessary, but I also think it is up to individuals to make the decisions and ask the questions before blithely following the herd.
Posted by: Amber Green on June 3, 2008 09:27 AMThe subtext that most Ron Paul supporters took from the organized walk-out was that it broke unity on something that everyone should've had a chance to hear debate on. Once the delegation was selected the convention was about issues and not personalities. When a little earlier the McCain camp gave an ovation to the Paul campaign for accepting the unity slate as it was printed...later in the day they're walking out. It obviously made the celebration of unity a bit hollow.
I'd like to also add that the McCain voting block was broken several times and was not the monolith that it has been described as. Both campaigns voting blocks had a conscience at times.
The walk-out in my view was not illegal but probably not exactly wise. The McCain campaign could use some grassroots activism to at least give the impression that people are considering him in this state. The whole drive back from Spokane I didn't see a single McCain sign or bumpersticker and when November comes I'll bet the same is true.
Hopefully there is enough water under the bridge to get Dino elected.
Posted by: Tracy Green on June 3, 2008 10:15 AMAnd Doug, thanks for proving Ken's point about how so many of the Paul folks are rude and have nothing better to throw out than epithets. BTW, how's the groin doing? Sorry I missed that. Hopefully he kneed you hard enough that the world won't have to worry about any "Little Dougs" running around.
Posted by: wfp on June 7, 2008 11:54 PM