Because we need party reform "From the Roots Up".
Michelle is the author of "A Contract with Grassroots Republicans" which is gaining the support of grassroots Republicans around the state of Washington.
About Michelle McIntyre
Michelle lives in Everett with her husband Perry McIntyre and their 7 yr. old daughter, Alice, who is homeschooled by her parents. The McIntyre family is active at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church.
Conservative Grassroots Activism
Though raised by a staunch Democrat family, Michelle knew she was a Republican when she became politically aware during her high school years (1980-1984) while studying Political Science, inspired mostly by Ronald Reagan and the conservative principles of government he promoted.
Campaigns: Bush/Cheney 2000, 2004; Nick Slepko for State Rep. (46th Dist.) 1998; I-695 $30 License Tab Initiative 1999; Reed Davis for U.S. Senate 2004; Kim Halvorson for State Rep. (38th Dist.) 2006; Tom Greene for Sheriff 2007; Ron Paul for President 2008; No on I-1000 Assisted Suicide Initiative.
Elected (and Appointed*) Party Offices: PCO 46th District King Co. 2000, 2004, 2006; King Co. Convention Delegate 2004; WA State Delegate 2004; Snohomish Co. Delegate 2006; Snohomish Co. Platform Committee* 2006; State Delegate 2006; Snohomish Co. Delegate 2008; Snohomish Co. Platform Committee* 2008; WA State Credentials Committee 2008; PCO Everett 15--38th Dist.
Pro-Life Activism: Founding Editor of Life of the Party blog, covering pro-life issues and the positions of Republican candidates; Everett 40 Days for Life Campaign Coordinator Fall 2007, Communications Coordinator 2008.
Education Activism: St. Joseph Home Educators Co-Founder 2008
Border Control and Sovereignty Activism: Illegal Immigration Summit Assistant Organizer 2007
To learn more about Michelle's campaign to rebuild the Republican Party "From the Roots Up", visit: wsrpreform.blogspot.com More information coming soon!
By the way, the Snohomish Co. Republican Party holds its reorganization meeting on January 10, where we will elect a new County Chair, Vice Chair, State Committee Man and State Committee Woman as well as our State Executive Board members. If you are a PCO in Snohomish Co., you should have received your official call to this meeting by now in the mail.
Posted by michellemcntyr at December 31, 2008 05:17 PM | Email ThisHer experience in campaigns has been as a worker, not a leader. She has had no leadership roles in party politics because she is another of the negative, accusatory, loud voiced Ron Paul types who complain a lot, give little or no money to campaigns and DO NOTHING for the GOP.
She has contributed ZERO to the County GOP. She did a shift at the Evergreen State Fair, but did little with Voter ID and GOTV. She even failed to endorse Dino Rossi on her website: http://www.lifeoftheparty.typepad.com/
She is running against one of the best representatives of the party we have ever had in Snohomish County Dullain Erhlich. Dullain has high level leadership experience and has done a great job of watching out for Sno County interests in the State Leadership meetings. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Dullain is not being supported by the outgoing leadership of the party represented by Geri Modrell and Evelyn Spensor. Geri Modrell wants to place Evelyn Spensor in that position and has said so publically. Geri also wants to be on the Executive Board after leaving office and MANY OPPOSE THAT. Thats one of the reasons Geri and Evelyn want a rule change at the meeting AND THEY ARE NOT GONNA GET IT!
Michele is part of a group of Ronulans who suffer from a major misunderstanding of what a County GOP organization does. Many of the Ronulans know nothing of the fund raising required to keep the doors open and the lights on, care less about the realities of political life in the local County and live in their little ivory tower fantasy land of Ron Paul lies and blame everyone mentality. McIntyre is also under the influence and control of Doug Parris, who is a well known Ronulan crackpot.
VOTE TO RETAIN DULLAIN ERHLICH!
Why should anyone believe a word Bob says?
Now on to his claims about me. Anyone who knows me in the least, knows I'm a conservative and a pro-life activist and knows my views on traditional marriage and knows I don't have a racist bone in my body (unlike Mr. Clark) and would fight against any such hatred I come across.
As for my activism and political donations, I guess money is worth more to Bob then the hard work of volunteers.
Posted by: Michelle on January 4, 2009 10:45 AMI will not trust the judgment of Bob Clark.
From a very disappointed PCO,
Posted by: Brian on January 4, 2009 12:06 PMMany Snohomish County Republicans welcome the energy and enthusiasm of the Ron Paul supporters including (Bob, I hate to be the one to tell you this..:_)) Dullain Erhlich, as they want to help grow the party and give it a more positive conservative message, one far more aligned with the GOP platform than what has been promulugated in the past.
Michelle McIntyre is a fine, principled conservative who has worked within the Republican party for years. She does not deserve this kind of libelous attack. Being of modest means, she has given more time than she could money. But then I suppose only Fat-cat wealthy donors who have always been in leadership should be allowed to run. The way Bob sneers at GOP workers should make any unpaid voluteer who gives many free hours of their life feel ashamed of themselves. Be warned, according to Bob, if you don't give the BIG BUCKS, the party doesn't want you!
Michelle wants more power to be given to grass roots Republicans to choose candidates and participate in the process, rather than the Top Down approach where party leaders tell the members who they have to support or face party censure. She has never been involved with the Libertarian Party. But just for the record Bob, a libertarian leaning Republican is still a Republican. They can vote Republican, run for office as Republicans and be voted in as a Republican if the majority of REPUBLICANS like their views and vote for them. The American way is to let the people decide who most closely represents their views after an honest debate of the issues.
The GOP platform actually aligns with libertarian principles of a smaller limited government under the Constitution, with support of private property rights, the bill of rights, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, etc. Bob, you can read it right here and weep: http://www.wsrp.org/platform.aspx
Michelle is a soft spoken, religious Mom who respects her opponent and would never resort to or approve of any of the filth slinging lie tactics practiced by Bob Clark. She is putting forth her beliefs on the issues as she sees them honestly and forthrightly and she will let the PCOs decide if they support her views or not. This is the way decent American voters decide things.
She is no mind controlled puppet of any person or group, but an individual thinker who cares deeply about America and the principles on which this country was founded.
Bob's Clark "Ronulan" label and his categorization of all Ron Paul supporters as if they were all of one mind is completely false as well. They are a diverse, independent minded group of people who agree on many things, but disagree on others, just like all other Republicans, who supported a wide range of candidates during the primaries.
Bob's lying attacks calling Ron Paul a racist are delightfully amusing given his racist Obama smear. If a racist supports you in a campaign does that make you a racist? If Bob supports you, does that make you just like Bob? Perish the thought!
Posted by: MicheleMarie on January 4, 2009 02:43 PMTo summarize your first post, it read like "Michelle likes Ron Paul, ooga booga! Ron Paul, ooga booga!" Newsflash: people support candidates for a variety of reasons, and equate their support as agreement on all the issues is disingenuous.
As a PCO, I'm more concerned about what Michelle stands for rather than what Ron Paul stands for. She's running for State Committee Woman, not Ron Paul. HTH
Posted by: Big Tex on January 4, 2009 06:09 PMAs to Michelle, she is a strong Christian and conservative and Republican. Let's not confuse support of Ron Paul with agreement with Ron Paul over everything he and some of his other supporters believe. Michelle has no obligation to answer for David Duke, just because they both supported Ron Paul, anymore than Bob or I has to answer for the KKK, just because they endorsed John McCain.
Of course, I genereally get along with most people, but I like both Michelle and Bob, and Dullain Ehrlich too. I think Michelle would bring positives to the job of state committeewoman, and I know Dullain does too.
I am still not entirely clear, though, on the significant change that Michelle's "grassroots" plans would bring. I agree that slight changes would be good -- indeed, I have lately been inquiring (as a member of the Snohomish County GOP Executive Board) as to whether we could move back the nominating process six months, or a year, or more, so that the state/county party would not pick a candidate to back before the PCOs and others had a chance to speak.
I see no other solution than moving them earlier, and Michelle isn't really talking about that. She talks about the spring, but even that is late. To me, it's not acceptable to say that the state party can't "endorse" before then, because that's basically akin to conceding the race, because then you just don't have the money you need. We need the money AND we need grassroots control, which means we need to move things earlier.
But to me this is a relatively small change, in that it would only affect a small handful of races (one or less per year), and probably wouldn't change the outcome of any of them.
And this to me is also not a great solution, though, because our caucus/convention system is so poorly attended. And no, I don't think this is at all because the state party endorsed a handful of candidates in contested races.
I am not really crticizing Michelle's position except to say that I don't think this is a major thing, and I don't think doing it in the spring solves the problem. OK, so I guess that is a criticism. But I think we're both on the same basic page here anyway, and this is just details.
Anyway, I have not endorsed either Dullain or Michelle. I may not be able to attend the meeting on Saturday, but I think either one would make a good committeewoman.
And thanks to the rest of you for all of the kind words. Pudge, you too, and thank you for posting your legitimate challenges and questions. Now *this* is a worthy discussion.
indeed, I have lately been inquiring (as a member of the Snohomish County GOP Executive Board) as to whether we could move back the nominating process six months, or a year, or more, so that the state/county party would not pick a candidate to back before the PCOs and others had a chance to speak.
I see no other solution than moving them earlier, and Michelle isn't really talking about that. She talks about the spring, but even that is late.
Actually, I am talking about it. 6 months earlier would be in the spring. I would be open to negotiating for sooner, but a year sooner or more might seem a bit drastic to some folks, especially the candidates. Our best candidates are not able to run for office as a full time, permanent job. Usually, it seems really early when a candidate begins campaigning any sooner than October or November of the prior year to the election. To hold the nominating process at that time, would mean they'd have to begin campaigning much sooner. This would be a drain on the voters too.
You bring up that our caucuses and conventions are so poorly attended. That is true of non-presidential years. There's a reason for that: because attending those caucuses and conventions has very little impact, because hardly any races go contested. We know that is very difficult to get conservatives to run for local office. (BTW, I have some ideas on how to change that, but that is the job of the county chair and I will certainly give my input to the next county chair), but in the years when we have congressional and statewide races, if we followed my grassroots plan, the party would be much more fair to all of the candidates running for those seats. Right now, they shut out good candidates or discourage them from running. That has to stop. If large numbers of otherwise inactive Republicans knew they had a choice on their nominees and we communicated to them that they could affect the outcome, we will have much better attendance.
Six months earlier than now is not the spring. I mean six months earlier than the current convention, which is already in the spring (was in May in 2006 and 2008). Six months earlier would be fall in the prior year.
Yes, it's early. But anything later is, well, late.
And I simply don't buy that the low attendance is the result of what you call "very little impact." Maybe you're right, but I tend to think that it's more of a shift in the expectations of the people.
And I also don't buy that the lack of "fairness" to all candidates has a significant impact on who is running for most offices. It might impact congressional races (in particular), but not legislative or county races, which is where we have the greatest need for candidates anyway.
I don't see how what you're talking about discourages people from running for these seats, and we certainly don't have many candidates for those, either.
The spring (albeit, early spring) is 6 months earlier than our current nominating process (the primary) which is in August. You're right that we held state conventions in May (also precinct caucuses in March and county conventions in April) in '06 and '08. The only nominating that took place at these conventions was of delegates at both, and the delegates in '08 went on to nominate our presidential candidate in September of '08.
All other candidates for public office have been nominated in September in the primary, until this year, when the primary was moved to August (still not early enough). But party leaders have endorsed candidates much sooner, directing the press their way as "the Republican candidate", giving them an unfair advantage against any would-be challenger and removing the decision making from grassroots Republicans.
I do understand there is a difference when it comes to more local races than congressional. There, you're saying, we're lucky if we can find one candidate to run. I am not claiming that the above keeps them from running. I haven't said yet, what I think keeps them from running. Some of it has to do with conservatives being reluctant to work in government. Some of it has to do with an unenergized party promoting our ideas of government. I have ideas to address that, but again, I'm not running for county chair. but would be happy to share them with the next county chair if he or she is willing to listen.
Posted by: Michelle on January 4, 2009 09:27 PMWhy did you refuse to endorse our nominees McCain/Palin, Rob McKenna and Dino Rossi this past year? How can you even begin to think you are qualified for a Republican Party position with that kind of track record? Will you make a regular practice of not endorsing (and trashing on your web site) fellow Republicans who don't align with your ideology 100% if you are elected to this position? Or, have you changed your style recently?
-Concerned PCO... Voting this Saturday for Real Republicans
Posted by: concerned SnoCoPCO on January 4, 2009 10:59 PMAs for this Bob Clark guy, he sounds like a complete idiot. It's people like you who make the GOP look bad, Bob.
Posted by: EverettPCO on January 5, 2009 12:56 AMIf you will look at the name and focus of Michelle's blog, (conveniently referenced by Mr. Clark @ #4), then you will notice that she is very much driven by the prolife cause. McKenna hardly has prolife credentials as he was endorsed by local prochoice groups. While Palin is the real deal within the prolife movement, McCain leaves something to be desired (ESCR, which carries some ethical baggage within the framework of some religious viewpoints), yet is still much better than Mr. Obama on these life issues. Mr. Rossi was reluctant to answer questions on the abortion issue, whilst Gregoire's campaign would often make the prolife point for him. Still, while trying to avoid the issue, doesn't that say something about his bona-fides?
One last point... I'm willing to bet that Ron Paul has positions that aren't 100% in alignment with Michelle's ideology. The problem you seem to be highlighting is that Michelle didn't compromise some of her core values to endorse certain candidates who espouse positions (or avoid the issue) with respect to her core values. Would you support a candidate who espoused positions contrary to your core values, even though he or she had an "R" next to their name?
Posted by: Big Tex on January 5, 2009 11:23 AMIt sounds like you, Michelle and Ron Paul want to have it both ways. Run for REPUBLICAN office without supporting REPUBLICAN candidates. Michelle didn't support McCain, Rossi or McKenna. SnoCo PCOs open your eyes!!! While we were working hard for our candidates, Michelle was busy pouting on the sidelines. We can't afford to put up with that type of childish behavior.
BTW, Last time I checked, Ron Paul was a states' rights guy on the prolife issue. Again, trying to have it both ways with liberal anti war types and the uber pro life crowd. Give me a break!
I hope SnoCo PCOs will only support candidates for party office that are actually Republican. This obviously puts Michelle at a disadvantage.
Posted by: concerned SnoCo PCO on January 5, 2009 12:34 PMAfter all, if you really stand behind them, you shouldn't need to hide behind a pen name, right?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 5, 2009 01:27 PMi will not be voting for michelle or any of her Libertarian allies. she is not a republican and will not serve the best interest of our party or our principles.
being pro-life doesn't change your ignorance or deception on the major issues of our time.
oh and by the way, Ron Paul (michelle's hero) just came out and attacked Israel for invading Gaza. sounds like a winner to me. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/05/video-ron-paul-laments-israels-preemptive-war/
vote for real republicans at the reorg meeting. say no to michelle.
pro-life/anti-michelle @ #21:
What are these tactics of which you speak?
--------------
It appears the Ron Paul (ooga booga!!!) bogeyman is being played again. Here's a novel idea: try evaluating Michelle and Dullain's ideas without muddying the water with bogeymen. Pudge said it best: Let's not confuse support of Ron Paul with agreement with Ron Paul over everything he and some of his other supporters believe. Just the same, Let's not confuse support of John McCain with agreement with John McCain over everything he and some of his other supporters believe. Make sense?
Ooga booga.
Posted by: Big Tex on January 5, 2009 02:10 PMIf candidates for Republican County Party office don't have to actually support Republican candidates, what are the basic requirements for this office?
I always thought the chief purpose of a county party was to get Republicans elected... Maybe things have changed, for the worse.
Posted by: concerned SnoCo PCO on January 5, 2009 05:58 PMAgain, who are you, 'concerned, SnoCo PCO'? Your constituents are curious.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 5, 2009 07:02 PMI'm sorry you doubt Michelle's bona fides as a Republican. Maybe you should get to know her. Talk to her about her viewpoints. But, alas, it is easier to play the bogeyman and distort her views (let alone the views of the candidate she supported in the primaries and caucuses). You could talk to her and see who she voted for and why, but that might just be too hard.
Do you honestly expect Michelle, who runs a prolife blog, to support or endorse a fellow like Rob McKenna, who is endorsed by abortion-rights groups? Do you honestly expect Michelle to support John McCain when he supports ESCR, which is contrary to many people's religious faith? Do you likewise expect racial minorities, Jews and Catholics to get behind a fella like David Duke given similar circumstances? Do you expect her to compromise on her core values? Do you expect her to compromise her religious faith? It sounds like you would rather have a sell-out, than a principled conservative. The purpose of a political party is to put forth ideas (and enact them into law) to better our nation, not to win office for the sake of power. I know this sounds pretty obvious, but it bears repeating.
The GOP is a party that covers a broad spectrum. Yet, there are moderates and arch-conservatives within the party. We want limited government. We want a strong national defense. We want lower taxes. We want a robust economy. We want an economy that is business-friendly. We want a lot of the same things, and it should be noted that there are differing views on how to achieve that... within the GOP.
To say that Michelle doesn't support Republicanism and Republicans is just plain horse pucky. She worked hard for Val Stevens. She encouraged other Republicans she knew to run for PCO. Some of us made it, and some didn't. As Andrew Brown @ #24 mentions, the purpose of the county party is to get GOOD Republican candidates. Good candidates deserve our support; bad ones don't.
To reiterate, get to know the person. See what they are about. This impersonal barrage of distortions and falsehoods is politics at its worst. I expect better from the people I will be working with in the SnoCo GOP.
Posted by: Big Tex on January 5, 2009 07:48 PMLay off the Bud Light (or do you prefer the purple stuff) and come back to reason for a second. And did you seriously make an attempt to compare Rob McKenna to David Duke??? To answer your question: Yes, I absolutely expect any and every candidate for Republican Party office to stand behind WA GOP's rising star, AG Rob McKenna.
I absolutely doubt and call into question Michelle's Republican bona fides. She did not support Dino Rossi! She did not support John McCain and Sarah Palin! She did not and still doesn't support Washington's best chance for a future Republican Governor, Rob McKenna.
I have a very difficult time calling any of our 2008 Republican candidates a sell out. The only sell outs are the RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) like Michelle and yourself who only support candidates when it suits their purist, narrow-minded ideology. We have enough one-issue talking heads in this party to last us a lifetime... we certainly don't need to be propelling one to a place of leadership in the Republican Party.
Someone who couldn't support the phenomenal cast of Republican nominees in 2008 should not be promoted to represent the Party at any level. How can you seriously defend her or any other Republican's decision to virtually sit out the 2008 Election Cycle?
Andrew Brown, Big Tex... if I have this straight, Dino Rossi, John McCain, Sarah Palin and Rob McKenna are "bad" Republicans who would damage the party... sounds like a great campaign theme! Maybe you should print some t-shirts. Call it the "Bad Republican" Revolution or something important sounding.
I'm sure Snohomish County's finest who worked tirelessly to elect the full slate of Republican candidates in 2008 will be very enthused to respond to your empty rhetoric on Saturday.
Posted by: concerned SnoCoPCO on January 5, 2009 08:43 PMMcCain did damage the party.
Palin damaged the party as well in the court of public perception, although I have nothing against her really.
Anyway, I'm not going to grace you with any further responses since you're too much of a coward to share your name with us.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 5, 2009 08:58 PMHey Concerned... "I always thought the chief purpose of a county party was to get Republicans elected..." Are you serious?!
Michelle is a Republican who has led the effort to keep our county party platform true to conservative values, who leads the charge against the pro-abortion movement and works tirelessly to solicit the involvement of like minded 'grass roots' Republicans... and she does all of this while remaining very active in her church community, maintaining a family and home and homeschooling her daughter.
If we want a principled State Committee Woman who is committed to the grass roots... Michelle McIntyre is one "Rising Star" who won't sell our party out to leftist/top-down ideology!
Posted by: C.B.Ross on January 6, 2009 12:08 AMMcCain v. the pro-murder Obama? Come on! Even Michelle can tell the difference.
Maybe good for the theory but bad for the practice.
Posted by: swatter on January 6, 2009 09:37 AM...By not voting for Republicans and ceding defeat to the Democrats!?! Someone needs a delusion test... or a refreshing phlebotomy.
Can someone please define these "conservative values" for me? ... that you generically possess while Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna and John McCain don't. I'm seriously very curious to find out what those might be. Treat us all to the revolutionary truth.
Posted by: concerned SnoCoPCO on January 6, 2009 08:52 PMAll other candidates for public office have been nominated in September in the primary, until this year ..., when the primary was moved to August (still not early enough).
We have nominated candidates at the county convention, and at county council district caucuses. (I was working credentials at the last county convention, and so I am not actually sure if we nominated candidates, but I *think* we did nominate some.) But those happen in the spring and it's still not early enough.
My concerns are a. we need to move the process much earlier than that if you want to avoid the party "endorsing" someone in order to get money, and b. not many people will attend the caucus/convention process anyway, except in a Presidential year.
Big Tex:
Can you demonstrate how McKenna & McCain are conservative?
I can. Can you accept any such demonstration, or will you reject it no matter what?
"Ladenburg also claimed McKenna is not in sync with Washington voters when it comes to abortion rights. "I believe in choice, and Rob is a believer in right to life," he said.
McKenna said Ladenburg is incorrect. "I am pro-choice, and I'm on the record as being pro-choice," he said."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004168939_ladenburg07m.html
A candidate who is openly pro-choice/abortion doesn't get my support period! Rising star or not!