Chad Livengood: Lies Packed In with More Lies

If you've been reading over the last few days, it's not secret that Chad Livengood of the news journal is nothing more than a Democrat smear machine.  His latest blog piece, posted as though fact, is more evidence that journalism is dead.  Unfortunately, Livengood relies on the political stylings of the well travelled  Maria Evans, who, desperate to remain relevant, is writing a book about Christine O'Donnell.  It should be pointed out that Maria Evans doesn't know Christine O'Donnell and certainly doesn't know enough to write a book but if the rest of the Delaware political establishment are any means test, I imagine there will be fewer words than pictures.  The Delaware political establishment culture talking or writing about something they know nothing about is really just par for the course.

Chad Livengood, a once decent reporter whose story on timecards shed light on the dirty Democrats in Dover, now has a history of leaving facts out of stories, smearing candidates and now, flat out lying.  The crux of Livengood's latest piece is an audio tape provided by the same people who were found yesterday to have flat out LIED to the FEC about Christine O'Donnell.  I'm sure Chad didn't know that though, he takes their word for the gospel.  His argument for believing them?  Maria Evans provides audio...oh well, gee, audio has never ben doctored before, and because Maria Evans (who helped develop the failed strategy of attacking O'Donnell with lies during the 2010 election) provided it, well why not take it for the gospel right?  Well Chad might get a pass on this, he clearly doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.  In his blog, he cites a blog as "conservative" but for those of us who know "Hube", we know he is anything BUT conservative.  He's one of the Maria Evans, Mike Castle, Tom Ross RINO's.  In fact, here's video of one of their buddies, Mike Stafford, who was discredited during the 2010 campaign for being a liar and one of the most corrupt people in the party, siding with the liberal progressives.  For someone who calls themselves "conservative" I think this is pretty radically leftist.  I guess we should be wary of allowing people to define themselves huh?

The reality is that I would trust Christine O'Donnell's version of events over the establishment Republicans version 7 days a week and twice on Sunday but I don't have to do that.  Why?  Well because Haley Barbour's own words in print, back up O'Donnell's claims. 

The truth is that when O'Donnell says that it took Haley Barbour to introduce her, it's factual.  When she says she wasn't invited, DESPITE being the U.S. Senate candidate, it's TRUE.  When she says that Haley Barbour gave her accolades, well this letter proves that he's certainly done that.  Meanwhile, Maria Evans and the Delaware GOP leadership claimed that O'Donnell violated campaign finance laws and THAT was a lie, as the FEC reveals in their finding of NO WRONG DOING...I'd like to point out that I have not seen this reported by Mr. Chad Livengood at the News Journal.  Wonder why that is, maybe I should ask Maria Evans to send it to him.

More Shoddy Reporting at the News Journal (yea, again)

Fresh off his enlightening piece about links on Amazon.com’s website that lead to porn when Christine O’Donnell is searched, the News Journal’s intrepid reporter Chad Livengood enlightens us with his review of the first few pages of Christine O’Donnell’s book.  Chad has apparently gotten the Gannett memo “Kill the girl, kill the girl, yes master, yes master, tee hee, tee hee, tee hee hee hee hee.” (Thanks to Bill Cosby for that quote by the way).  One could ask (and I have) why Chad chose to focus his last blog posting on research surrounding her Amazon.com store instead of say, the partisanship of CREW who has literally a more than 3-1 bias of attacking conservatives and Republicans vs. Democrats OR the fact that CREW violated their 501(c)3 mandate to remain apolitical when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign season.  Agree or disagree with their (lies) position, the fact is that they broke the law.  He’s not yet provided an answer.  I assume he was busy with his latest concoction.  This Sunday he released his review of O’Donnell’s book (or at least the first few pages) and WOW are there factual errors.  I’m going to go through his piece (you can read the full piece here) and tackle some of the more egregious errors.

“Just like in her campaign, the impact of the witch ad is a central theme of her 358-page book, which combines O'Donnell's life story with reflections on her three failed Senate campaigns in Delaware and a tea-party-inspired manifesto for changing the country's direction.”

The ad is discussed in the book on a few pages but it’s not what one would consider a “central theme”.  The “Witch Ad” as it is known, is so well known, to leave out the story surrounding it would have been disingenuous. 

“O'Donnell claims someone from Hollywood-based television producer Fred Davis' staff "leaked" the "I'm not a witch" ad to the press and Internet without her permission.

"Within one day, it became the most-watched video on the Internet ... all before I'd seen any footage, let alone approved the final cut," O'Donnell wrote…

…O'Donnell's version of events that transpired last fall are already being disputed by Republican consultants who dealt with the campaign and contradicted by emails her own campaign manager sent to Davis and his staff.”

If I may, I was a campaign worker after the Primary election (clarified for legal reasons) for Christine O’Donnell and I performed many duties.  On the day of the commercial shoot, one of the things I was asked to do was to help track down supporters who would like to be in ads for O’Donnell.  I knew that the campaign had been directed by the NRSC to utilize Fred Davis, a famous and highly touted Hollywood producer as their campaign ad man.  Given Davis’ endorsements, I thought it was odd to be getting a call the day of the shoot and not sooner to allow us time to find people.  Fortunately, Christine had a lot of VERY good supporters and we were able to find a number of people.  Another staffer and I rode with the participants to a Philadelphia studio that was apparently once a warehouse of some sort.  After some snacks and some time spent in the Green Room while Christine shot her portions of the ad we were called in.  Only later did I find out why we were called so late.  Oh I had heard the rumblings that they were concerned with the potential content of the ad Davis had planned to create but I had so many other duties to attend to that I didn’t delve further into that.  I figured that this guy was a professional (and he is) and that it would all work out in the end.  Like Christine, I was a little concerned that going with a high end Hollywood producer was a little over the top but I was just a regular guy and what did I know.  I should have spoken up, I should have said something.  I feel like part of this is my fault for not confirming Christine’s own thoughts.  Of course, I couldn’t know what she was thinking but still, I could have said something.  When we finally entered the studio, Mr. Davis had each participant sit and answer some basic questions like why they supported Christine and what they thought of her and Mr. Coons.  Mr. Davis and his staff were nice but there was something weird, they were almost TOO nice.  After now having been around politicians and media types, I know the feeling for what it is a divine warning that the person talking to you is a slime ball.  The supporters that had come to be in the commercial were impressive and their words were powerful.  I felt uplifted hearing Bob, Melissa, Councilman Brown and Mike (a lifelong Democrat) speak and I remember saying to myself that given Fred’s talent and the supporters words, this was going to be an incredible set of ads.  It was raining out and so after chatting with Christine, the supporters and some of the crew from the shoot I pulled the campaign truck (talk about grassroots, the “campaign truck” was my 1997 GMC Sierra 1500 which I had decked out with yard signs taped on the back and sides…we were truly “grassroots” and yet, we’d just hobnobbed with people from Hollywood) around to the door and loaded up the gear.   I noticed a person I hadn’t seen earlier and I asked who they were.  I was told that the person was a New York Times reporter and that they’d wanted to do a story about Fred working with Christine but that the content of the commercials was still unknown to them.

What’s weird is on the way back, the tension in the truck was such that you could literally feel the air being sucked out.  We lightened it with some discussions about faith (yea, it was THAT tight) and some small talk.  Later, as I was in and out of what I called “The War Room” where the review of the ads was taking place, I found out that the NYT reporter had apparently been leaked a copy of the “Witch Ad” which to that point had not been approved or even SEEN by the candidate.

“Kyle Roberts, a media buyer from Alexandria, Va., who purchased O'Donnell's TV time, said "proper procedure was followed for all advertisements aired on behalf of the campaign."

"This includes creative approval by campaign officials," Roberts said in a statement.”

Unfortunately, Chad’s reporting here is shoddy and to be honest, he knows it.  I’ve seen the emails sent by Campaign Manager Matt Moran to Chad about this exact issue and the fact is that Kyle, the media buyer did follow procedure.  However, Kyle had NOTHING to do with the creative side.  He had nothing to do with which ad ran.  THAT is the crux of the issue.  Of all the ads that were shot that night, Fred Davis and his team only prepared the ad that Christine had specifically told him that she did NOT want to run.  The problem was that there was no time to wait for the other ads, the ones she’d specifically said she wanted to run with, to be delivered.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in media buys had already been spent and there was a deadline.  The campaign was up against the wall and with Christine on the campaign trail; Matt was forced to pull the trigger on an ad he knew was trouble.  The alternative was to literally piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Chad Livengood was made acutely aware of these facts but somehow they didn’t make it in.  Then again, there’s a lot that Chad knows that isn’t in the piece.

“Emails obtained by The News Journal show O’Donnell’s campaign manager, Matt Moran, approved the witch ad, telling Davis “solid message Fred … well scripted and delivered despite the horrible hair (assume that was intentional to help reverse her negatives with women?).””

Having been in the room when some of these discussions took place, I can attest that NOONE was happy about the ad and that of all the people involved, *I* was the most positive about it.  I thought if nothing else, it addressed the issue and that if there were other, stronger ads backing it up, like those cut by her supporters that fateful night, that it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal.  Of course then I realized it had gone viral on the internet.  I can attest to the sarcasm in Matt’s voice and emails.  He was FAR from even content with the situation but he had no choice.  Even the AP’s Randall Chase reported Matt’s sarcasm while Chad decided to leave that part out.

"No media company is going to leak the ad on behalf of a campaign," said one Republican consultant, who declined to be named because of what he said was O'Donnell's history of retaliating against critics. "If that actually happened, Fred's firm would no longer be working with O'Donnell…

... Moran and O'Donnell would not explain why Davis' firm continued to work for the campaign if they felt sabotaged by the airing of the witch ad as O'Donnell claims in the book."

Anyone else a little tired of reading about anonymous sources that more times than not, don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about?  Chad seems to take issue with the fact that Christine paid Davis despite this problem and that she continued to work with him.  Moran explained in his email to Chad that the situation around “The Witch Ad” was not good and they there were backed into a corner.  Remember also that Christine O’Donnell had been all but TOLD to use Fred Davis by the NRSC and she was between a rock and a hard place.  To put it simply, she was the Republican nominee and she needed the support of the party.  She was rebuilding her name within the party and doing all she could to repair bridges that had been burned during the contentious primary with RINO Mike Castle.  So Christine took some advice that he gut told her was flat out wrong.  She took a few thing on “hope” and given the money on the line, she really didn’t have a ton of choices.  Moran went on to explain to Chad that after that initial disagreement on strategy, Davis’ firm worked quite well with the campaign and created some really great ads like “Principles”, “Tax Man”, “Shame on You Chris” and “What I’m Made Of”.  Emails obtained by this blogger show that Chad Livengood was made ACUTELY aware of these facts and these ads before he published his piece.  Why didn’t they make it into the story Chad?

“Throughout the book, O'Donnell continues to show her distrust of the media and what she calls "unscrupulous reporters," though she doesn't take any to task by name.”

Christine didn’t take them to task by name but I will.  One is Randall Chase at the AP who has a history of leaving facts out of stories, another is Ginger Gibson whose reporting during the campaign was shoddy at best and flat out hit pieces and Democrat propaganda at worst and another is Mr. Livengood himself.  Between his report on porn while ignoring CREW’s political bias and their violation of the law and his seriously flawed “book review”, Chad is more than making the case for his inclusion as an “unscrupulous reporter”.  That’s really a shame too because his tenacity on the timecards of Tony DeLuca and other double dippers was much appreciated.  I’m disappointed in such tabloid journalism.

“With some of her campaign apparatus still intact, O'Donnell also has continued to deal with allegations from her past two campaigns that she used donations for personal expenses. At the same time, O'Donnell's campaign has gone after her accusers, filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney's Office and District of Columbia Bar Association against attorneys and a political watchdog who have called into question her campaign ethics.”

Actually Chad, as you are WELL aware, the U.S. Attorney in Delaware has cleared O’Donnell of any wrong doing and the FEC has found no anomalies with her campaign finances.   O’Donnell has launched investigations into the outright lies by her accusers and asked the IRS to look at CREW’s blatant violation of their 501(C)3 charter.  She’s also filed complaints to have CREW Executive Director and bar member Melanie Sloan investigated for her role in filing knowingly false affidavits on behalf of admitted liar David Keegan.  The so called “watchdog group” has a more than 8-1 record of accusing Republicans over Democrats while historically, more Democrats have been investigated for ethics violations than have Republicans.

“O'Donnell uses the book to settle a few scores with her political adversaries in the Delaware political establishment, claiming "the state party didn't lift a finger to help our campaign" in 2008 and sabotaged her bid for the seat long held by Joe Biden in 2010…

"…It shows how ill-informed Christine O'Donnell is about the history of our party, its leadership and the pro-life candidates in Delaware," said Rakestraw, who added that she doesn't plan to buy O'Donnell's book.”

The reality is that O’Donnell is right.  In 2008, O’Donnell was “endorsed” by the state party but the party did not feel confident that anyone could beat Joe Biden.  That has been the MO of the Delaware GOP for 10 years now since the Democrats took control of Dover.  The Delaware GOP has been running defeatist campaigns ever since and to be quite honest, I have questioned the dedication of the Delaware GOP leadership.  The fact is that the following video more than sums up what the Delaware elites think.  In the video, National Committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw is very candid about Christine O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart:

Christine raised a reported $7 million during her campaign however, she beat Mike Castle by raising far less than $2 million.  Perhaps this video shows you a little bit more about who Priscilla Rakestraw is:

The bottom line here is that the leadership in the Delaware GOP is not committed to winning.  It’s my SINCERE desire to see John Sigler change things but let’s call a spade what it is.  The Delaware GOP leadership simply has not been committed to winning.  The folly of the 2010 election really needs no recount but to remind you, former Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross, who was in fact the active chair at the time, said that Christine O’Donnell could not be elected dogcatcher and as you can see above, Priscilla sure had some strong words about Christine O’Donnell as well.  In fact, it’s well known inside party circles that Priscilla Rakestraw orchestrated the smear campaign against O’Donnell.  Rakestraw has also been implicated in a smear campaign against State Party chair candidate and Delta Airlines Pilot Mike Protack that resulted in trouble with Protack’s private market employer.  Protack is considering taking legal action against those who used their influence to attack him with unfounded allegations. 

“O'Donnell also alleges that Biden and Castle personally warned a supporter of the "consequences" of raising money for her in the 2008 Senate race against Biden. Like many of O'Donnell's allegations of campaign dirty tricks detailed in the book, the individual involved is not named.

Castle said O'Donnell's claim is "wholly inaccurate" and "the figment of somebody's imagination."

"I don't remember doing anything of that nature," Castle said Saturday.”

First of all, the “I don’t remember” line is not exactly smacking of surety of his statements.  The fact is that evidence suggests that Mike Castle did actively work to sabotage her campaign, that Karl Rove (a key advisor to Castle) actively worked to sabotage her campaign and that there is a long held understanding that Castle, Biden and Carper are thick as thieves. 

“She accuses Ross of abusing party funds by paying for robo phone calls against her in the primary.

Ross said there was nothing illegal about spending state party funds to help elect Castle, who won the party's backing at the state convention last May before losing the primary to O'Donnell.”

Sure is odd that the RNC’s position has been to stay out of primary races while Tom Ross and the rest of his leadership decided to inject themselves into this one in an UNPRECEDENTED manner.  It may not be illegal to spend the money on those robo-calls but it sure is an abuse of party funds especially now that we know if they’d saved that money, they would have had more to spend on electing Republicans.

“After GOP delegates endorsed Castle, the party decided to launch a negative campaign against O'Donnell because it seemed the best option for helping Castle breeze to victory for the U.S. Senate seat and make gains in the state Legislature, Ross said.

"While my dogcatcher statement may have been a little harsh, the truth of the matter remains, Christine O'Donnell is not a viable statewide candidate in the state of Delaware," Ross said in an interview. "We had the biggest Republican year in a hundred years, and she lost by a very, very wide margin, while bringing down the rest of the ticket."”

Well Mr. Ross is continuing to double down on his stupidity from the 2010 campaign.  This is a guy who named ME as Christine O’Donnell’s Press Secretary when I wasn’t even part of the campaign until AFTER the primary campaign was over.  Also, this is apparently a guy who ignores the facts.  You see, Ross claims that O’Donnell brought down the rest of the party but the facts actually bear out the OPPOSITE as the case.  You see exit polling from the Delaware Senate race shows that O’Donnell actually HELPED down ticket Republicans.  You see O’Donnell drew more Republicans and Independents to the polls and fewer Democrats by percentage than the registration gap bore out.  It's interesting that 18% of Delaware Republicans cost Christine the election and likewise, 18% of Delaware Republicans consider themselves more liberal than moderate.  I wonder if THAT is the reason those Republicans down ticket lost…because of Tom Ross’ failure to put together a Republican Party that represents Republican values.

Sussex County ED Chair Responds to Delaware Republican Official

Jeanette Talylor responds to Mar Spicer.  Spicer's letter is below.  I've also attached some video.

Mary,

WOW!  You must have been at a different meeting.  I was at the one at Del Tech in the Carter Partnership Center auditorium.  As a new ED and a long time member of the GOP, I was terribly impressed that there was actually business conducted at this meeting.  That is something I haven’t seen done anytime lately.  The meeting was quiet and well ordered,  (thanks to the incredible job done by Vance) .  Oh yes, there was a lady yelling just prior to adjournment – but I’ll get to that.

There was no “double standard” or “dichotomy” that I saw.  Vance Phillips was elected Chairman Pro Tempore by a majority vote.  I did notice, however, that you failed to mention the first vote with 104 ballots cast by a voting membership of 78 (apparently two voters abstained) that required a second vote done by roll call ballot because somebody was a-cheatin’, which is kind of sad don’t you think for those who have tried everything in their power to keep any business from actually being attended to for months now at Sussex GOP meetings?  I wasn’t even going to mention how juvenile that was, as that kind of goes without saying , but, oh what the heck, it’s time to put on our big boy and girl panties.  Since we (the conservative group) knew going in that we already had the votes needed to get some actual business done and as I know most of them personally and can attest to the honesty and integrity of THAT particular group, it pretty well stands to reason that we know who was behind the cheating shenanigans. 

Now, to get back to the dichotomy and double standard.  Vance, according to the existing rules, was entitled to appoint a Parliamentarian Pro Tempore and he asked for any objections – THERE WERE NONE from the voting body present.   (Unless of course, those 26 ghost voters were simply not heard by us mere mortals)    Brent Wangen is a registered Republican and is very well versed in  Robert’s Rules of Order and standard Parliamentary procedure.   The existing rules state that the Chairman may appoint a Parliamentarian “unless the committee has provided otherwise”.    We were not provided the opportunity to provide otherwise as the  current chairman unilaterally chose Bruce Fitzgerald as his appointed Parliamentarian.   Oh yes, I know he said he got the majority vote of the Advisory Board for his appointment.  There are only a few small issues to be taken up with that.  Hmmmmmm, where should I start?   Well, the Advisory Board has no capacity or in legalese – jurisdiction – in this matter.  If you read the existing rules, the Advisory Board’s sole function is to maintain relationship with Republican voter elected officials at all levels.  Also, based on the behaviors exhibited by Mr. Fitzgerald at the previous meeting, he is NOT well versed in Robert’s Rules of Order nor standard Parliamentary Procedure.  Also, Mr. Fitzgerald resigned of his own accord publicly – I believe the next day on WGMD and also called for Mr. Sams to step down.  I could be wrong, I didn’t hear it – only heard about it.  Oh, but enough of that, let’s move on.

The “substitute” agenda contained ALL (that means every single item) from the original agenda but was in a different order to prevent yet another filibuster to prevent any business from being attended to by the voting members present.  This has been an ongoing tactic at past meetings and our purpose was simply to be able to conduct new/old business of the Sussex County GOP.   There was nothing hidden – the agenda was passed out to all voting members for review and comparison to the old agenda. 

“Character Assassinations” are not exactly what I would call a resolution to ask for a resignation of a Chairperson who is lacking in true leadership skills and has received a majority vote of no-confidence.  I have heard very few people say they dislike Ron Sams, on a personal level; most everyone likes him.  But the facts are there for all who are interested to see.  There has been NO REAL BUSINESS accomplished in the Sussex GOP for months! 

I can’t address the media being asked to leave and the doors being closed at past meetings – I have always seen members of the media present at our meetings so I’m not sure where that is coming from.  I do know that the media didn’t lead the exodus when Tom Ross rose to speak as those recording the event captured every word that he uttered.  A rather large contingent from the gallery (that means spectators) rose and exited when Tom Ross rose to speak.  A few of the voting members joined them.  Others (myself included) tried to stick it out just as a matter of respect.  I did notice, however, that although he made some rather nasty comments about our request for Ron Sams’ resignation (an ongoing issue for months now) that he said absolutely nothing about the 104 ballots cast by 78 present voting members.  You would think that cheating would be an issue, wouldn’t you?

More spectators and members left when Ross started mudslinging at Christine O’Donnell – who by the way,( if you were listening to the Treasurer’s report) has made significant contributions to our operations.  That’s when I had enough and left.  This party has shown little or no regard for the VOTERS’ choice in this state and has gone about choosing the candidate they wish to support prior to the primary.  In case you have forgotten, the conservatives in this state won our first and main initiative last year in eliminating Castle.  O’Donnell was the PEOPLE’S choice in the primary (by a 65-35% margin!) and the GOP is charged with carrying forth the VOICE AND VOTE of the people of the Republican party – NOT THEIR OWN AGENDA.   I guess not everyone has quite gotten the message that we are tired of the good ole boys (and girls) politics at every level. 

Most of you aren’t aware of the many previous attempts to get Ron Sams to resign over the last several months but it has been well documented.  He was contacted by a great many people in an effort to get him to resign so that we can pull this party together and move it forward as a voice of the Republican voter in the State of Delaware .   Ron was presented with a significantly large number of signatures from voting members of the SCEC and offered the opportunity to resign with grace and dignity.  Hell, we even offered to throw him a party, tell everyone what a great job he had done in the past and how hard he had worked.   He was also told that failure to resign would result in the resolution and public attempts to strip him of his title due to the lack of confidence by a majority of the voting membership.  Please note the word  M A J O R I T Y, it’s important.

As to embarrassing Ross – well, I can say we really didn’t have to – he just opens his mouth and embarrasses us.

So far as publicity goes, WBOC and WGMD are actually kind of small potatoes; I understand much of what Ross had to say is posted on YouTube for anyone with a computer to view, anywhere . 

As for “thug tactics”, well, I haven’t seen or heard any of that either so I’m not sure from what quarter that is coming but it isn’t coming from the conservative voting members of the SCEC.  To my knowledge, none of us have threatened anyone with bodily harm.  We strive to set a higher standard for our activities and the conduct of business.  So far, we have succeeded in doing just that as the meeting was quiet, orderly and well conducted – we actually got through Old and New business without a filibuster from one or more elected representative who only wishes to hear himself talk.   That was the ONLY purpose in moving Ross to the end of the meeting on the revised agenda.   Both Vance and Brent did an outstanding job of maintaining the rules of order and abiding by the existing rules of the SCEC. 

No one started yelling until after Ross began his rather insipid and petulant tirade against the Sussex County Republican voter.   This occurred just prior to adjournment of the meeting at 9 pm

So, gee, I don’t know what meeting you were at but it wasn’t the Sussex County GOP meeting on February 16, 2011 at the Carter Partnership Center auditorium on the Del Tech Community College Campus in Georgetown, DE. 

And, by the way, I thought that I might pay a visit to the Sussex County Republican Women’s Club monthly meeting so I started looking for a calendar and meeting times.  Unfortunately, I, like most of Sussex County Republican Voters – WORK FOR A LIVING and, therefore, can’t attend a Wednesday luncheon. 

Perhaps if you were more accessible to the voting public, you may be more in tune with their voting habits and political attitudes.  We are pretty much fed up with the elitist and self-serving attitudes of the old guard and we’re going to take our party back to the people, where it belongs.   I’m glad you are happy to see a good turn out and a passion for change.  Baby, you ain’t seen nothing’ yet!

For the readers, if you live in my district and wish to be heard, call me.  As a representative of the district, I intend to be accessible.

Jeannette Taylor

2nd ED 41st District

Millsboro, DE  19966

302-245-4192

LETTER TO EDITOR: GOP

     Screaming women and character assassinating men dominated the GOP meeting at Del Tech’s Carter Hall Wednesday evening, February 16, 2011.

     The double standard and dichotomy began when the Acting Chairman, Vance Phillips, stated that he needed a Parliamentarian and immediately appointed Brent Wagaman, an individual many people thought was a Registered Libertarian, not a Republican.  There was no review of Brent's credentials, no motion to permit him to serve.  Yet when Chairman Ron Sams did the very same thing prior to the January, 2011 meeting, Mr. Sams was verbally castigated and the Parliamentarian, Bruce Fitzgerald was pressured to resign for “the good of the Party”.

     Motions were made, a substitute agenda approved and the character assassination of Chairman Sams began.  It was all I could do not to laugh out loud!  The very same actions, or “lack thereof”  had been practiced by the 3 previous Sussex County Regional Chairs!!!

     So, what was different now?  A hidden agenda had to be fulfilled!  The media were invited whereas in previous situations, the media were asked to leave and the doors were closed.  The hidden agenda became very obvious.  Media were present to record the character assassination and the walk out when Tom Ross began to speak in an effort to publicly disgrace them and to force elected officials to resign from their non-paying jobs.  Does anyone remember when the Primary election results became available in September 2010?

     Vance Phillips telephoned WGMD to say that Ron Sams, Tom Ross, State Party Chair, Priscilla Rakestraw, National Committee Woman and Laird Stabler, National Committeeman, “had to go” and that the “Delaware Republican Party will never be the same”.  Aren’t those the same words that came out of the mouth of Christine O'Donnell when she lost the Senate seat in the election?

     Having witnessed the effort to embarrass Sams and Ross, I wanted to hear the additional chapter in the effort to dismantle the Party.  WBOC carried the planned character attack on the 11:PM news Wednesday evening.

  

     The following afternoon, I even turned on WGMD after the 3pm news to hear what Bill Colley would say.  Colley stated that he led a “walk-out” when Tom Ross began to speak, and indeed he did, a half dozen or so folks followed him out the door, and as Colley stated, they left the door open to hear what was being said.  Colley’s rude behavior and continued character assassination seems to be the new norm for those few who choose to follow him.  Several dozen of us turn the dial or literally turn off WGMD after the 3PM news.

     On the positive side, it is very exciting to see the passion and increased numbers of people interested in Republican politics.  I do, however, wish the thug tactics (with actual threats of bodily harm or in the case of Sams and Ross, character assassinations) would stop.  Does “praying” behavior apply to politics or are they only words to be spoken?    I wish that civility and respect for others would return to Sussex.

Mary Spicer, President,

Delaware Federation of Republican Women

PO Box 611

Lewes, DE.  19958

302-645-7767

The Delaware GOP needs new leadership

You be the judge of the current leadership situation in the Delaware GOP

RNC Chairman debate

So, I confess, I KIND OF watched the RNC chairman's debate yesterday (I'm replaying it as we speak which is what inspired me to write this).  I will say that when I was poking around the net today, I found an AWESOME critique by Bryan Preston over at Pajamas Media which I'm urging all of you to read.  The inclusion of SBA as a sponsor seems to have focused the debate more on social issues and as Preston points out, that has little bearing on the RNC Chairman's ability to do his job.  With that said, the idea is to find the MOST conservative candidate who can win and among Republicans, (as we saw here in Delaware) you're able to find strong conservatives and elect them. 

Candidates
Ann Wagner
Wagner has conservative credentials.  She's done great things in Missouri and she has plenty of political experience.  Most of the candidates talk about raising money, Saul and Ann really come forward with some specifics which is good.  Ann's plans don't quite sound as well thought out but she makes a good case.  Ann Wagner points out that the PEOPLE are the ones who decide who wins the primaries and that the RNC needs to focus on recruiting candidates, fund party, victory and GOTV efforts across the country.  Supports legislative efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  Cited a lack of focus on the real issue of debt as a failure and also said that the people would decide if we are on the right track or wrong track.  Danced around the question a bit.  Cites many of the TEA Party values as absolutely critical for people to be considered a Republican.  Three Pillars: Fiscal Conservatism, National Defense, Social Values - a Chairman should espouse all of these values.  Brings grassroots groups to the table to build coalitions in Missourah (sorry Ann! it's there) especially pro-life groups.

Saul Anuzis
Saul REALLY gets it.  He understands that funding is priority, followed closely by management skills and he certainly has the message.  He's backed by TEA Party groups across the country and is a breath of fresh air among a sea of also rans.  Understands that the state parties need to drive the message and the GOTV efforts but that the RNC should support it with funds.  Anuzis feels that the primary should be the determination and not the state party electors.  Believes that marriage between a man and a woman is a cultural and religious belief that is worth fighting for.  Saul breaks down the failures of the party.  He explains that the Republican Party lost its way and shifted ever to the left becoming more like Democrats and he points out that when the Republicans act like Republicans they win, when they act like Democrats they lose.  Understands that this is a "2nd chance" not a mandate and that if the Republican Party doesn't move back to its conservative base and principles, the voters will throw them out again.  If they are with us 80% of the time, they are a Republican.  The chairman should support the platform at least 80% of the time.  Worked WITH the grassroots groups in every way that they could and is ready to run toward issues and not away with them.  Understands the balance of ALL issues (including social issues) in the party platform.  Ready to build coalitions across the party platform.

Maria Cino (no website)
She's a lobbyist, which turns me off already.  She sounds like she feel entitled and her talk about retiring debt is interesting but I'd ask, if she's so good, how come the RNC is $20 million in debt?  She talks about beating Obama but she supports Obamacare.  Given a question about races like Delaware, where Christine beat Castle, she dodged the question.  She talked about how the RNC should support the candidates that the state parties and the voters choose...thanks captain obvious.  My question and the one asked is, did you see the victory by Christine as a triumph of principle or a disaster?  Believes in the party platform.  Cites McCain-Feingold as a mistake and then losing our way on spending.  Cutting spending and cutting deficits wins elections.  Agrees with Ann Wagner on the party platform.  Wants to continue building coalitions and calls for a state victory plan due in April (while Delaware is bracing for a new state chairman!)

Michael Steele
I think he's got balls even running in the first place.  He's got his talking points going, he has a few one liner zingers but he's got a record and like he says, it speaks for itself.  He takes credit for the RNC sweep this year but it's disingenuous.  Make no mistake Steele, you won because the TEA Party allowed you to win.  Many forget that Steele was no TEA Party friend early on and here in Delaware he only barely made it a priority to meet with the candidate who had the most attention this year (O'Donnell).  He clearly DOESN'T understand what's going on.  To take credit for the grassroots movement is...well it's simply disrespectful and ignorant of reality.  Steele makes a good point about the RNC not getting involved in state party business but I think he misses the fact that some state (like Delaware) have structures that are not conducive to building unity.  The RNC would do well to counsel states like Delaware on how to improve their process to promote unity.  Steele understands that marriage is between a man and a woman as a matter of tradition.  In his view, the definition of "family" may change but the party will support the ideal of marriage as traditionally defined.  Believes that the GOP walked away from the Contract with America and that Democrat lite does not sell well in the public.  Also says that the party stopped reaching out to people.  Cites outreach as necessary to growing the party, reaching out to minority categories.  Supports moderation as a leader and does not want to create a litmus test to determine eligibility to be a Republican.  In favor of building more coalitions but worked AGAINST the TEA Party groups early on.

Reince Priebus
He makes a case for himself and his working with conservatives in Wisconsin.  Reince could be effective in teaching state party leaderships how to work with the TEA Party.  Stresses unity and cooperation which he does in a way that keeps himself above the fray and he shows the RNC as a broker of power between state parties, TEA Party groups and conservative single issue groups.  Reince thinks everything has to mean something and he thinks the chairman should be a conservative Republican.  Reince supports the way Delaware currently operates but what he misses is that in his home state of Wisconsin, he worked WITH the TEA Party  and grassroots groups to come up with palpable candidates before the primary.  In Delaware the state party ignored the movement and subsequently came up lame in their nomination.  Also believes marriage is between a man and woman and that no one should lose their dignity.  Does not believe the courts can rewrite the Constitution and define marriage.  He believes the biggest failure of the party in the last decade has been not sticking to principles and he cited having to hold "our noses and voting for Republicans that didn't uphold the basic principles of our platform."  Believes that the RNC chair out to take a chance and go out and support the conservative platform every chance they get.  Thinks we need a chairman that will go out there and be PROUD to be a Republican.  Cites pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-bailout people as people who "might not be a Republican".  Has a track record of working WITH grassroots groups and building solid coalitions.

My take:
Look, the chairman has a job to do.  That job is tough!  Bryan over at Pajamas Media points out the nuts and bolts of the gig but it's more than that.  RNC chairman has to tie the whole party together and expand the message.  Every single one of these candidates makes a case and a point on some issues.  I've laid out responses by the candidates throughout the first 40%-50% of the debate and you can watch the rest on your own.  I'm going to tell you, while Bryan sees things differently than I, I think we end up with the same two front runners.

Reince Priebus comes across VERY smart and VERY congennial.  The only problem is he sometimes doesn't sound very honest.  That doesn't mean he isn't and I'm not questioning his integrity but he comes across a bit slick.  He almost sounds like a used car salesman but maybe that's just his Wisconsin accent.  Neither here nor there, I LIKE what he had to say.  The problem for him is that he doesn't seem to live what he says.  The law firm he works for is a huge supporter of Obamacare.  For those of us who believe in TEA Party principles it is almost expected that someone who wants to be a leader of this movement stand for the principles in his or her personal life as well as publicly.  Many would expect Reince to leave that firm and move to another.  Fair or unfair I think it is a valid question for Reince to answer.  Why not leave the firm?  Are there no other firms?  Is the partnership at that firm more important than standing on principles?  and for those of us looking at this, if his answer is that his family well being and money was more important, does that disqualify him?  For me, I think it's a difficult road.  I worked for JP Morgan Chase during the time when they received bailouts and I made the decision that a job outside of the bailout process, with no input into that tactic was important and the alternative (unemployment) was not acceptable.  Until I see where Reince was involved directly in this effort, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Priebus was also a little flustered, did not look confident behind the mic at all times and simply doesn't inspire confidence in his look and speech.  His words make sense but the way he presents them sometimes betrays him.

Saul Anuzis simply gets it.  He, like Reince, has built a red wall in his otherwise blue state.  Anuzis understands that we have to get back to being Republicans at heart and that there is room for disagreement but that the chairman should be a strong conservative.  He understands the correct order of things.  He knows that fundraising will drive the message and GOTV and that the states should be responsible for moving those things forward with RNC monetary support.  He also knows that it is important that the PEOPLE, through the primary system make the decisions and not party leaders.  He sees a real need for the party to present a united front and to reform their own state primaries to ensure that the people and the party don't butt heads (like we did here in Delaware).  He's a strong conservative and he understands that the RNC should be a strong support mechanism for the state parties.  He does not have any of the Obamacare baggage that Reince does and he knows how to use social networking and technology to make fundraising easier and more effective and to drive the message.  Saul looked comfortable and sounded confident which made his ideas all the more palpable.  Hes also honestly believes in his principles and with an absence of anything in the past to the contrary, I think he's the real deal.  Apparently Tom Ross agrees with me about him.

About The Rest - we can't afford to let these people walk away if they don't win.  Every single one of them needs a seat at the party table.  None of them can really be "counted out", as backroom deals often make their way into politics (shocking right?) but I find them to be the long shots.

Ann Wagner - She's a great conservative thinker with political experience.  She'd be a great boon to the party as someone who can support, groom and engage candidates for national offices.  I hope she takes a role with the RNC that allows her to put forth this talent, perhaps as a "scout" or trainer for candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, President, etc.  She's not likely to be our next RNC chairwoman but of the rest, she is the best.

Michael Steele - Steele is fighting an uphill battle that is only partially his own fault.  The GOP had already been in decline when he took over and he is right, when he took office it was hard to find anyone who wanted to be a Republican (and some "Republicans" like Castle yearned to be Dems) much less give money to a GOP with no identity.  Steele fought the TEA Party/conservative movement early on and you can sense some of that in his answers.  Steele would just as soon make the GOP Democrat Lite (despite his suggestion to the contrary) if it meant a bunch of R's elected.  Well that's what got us where we were in 2008.  Finally, Steele takes credit for the GOP wave election in 2010.  Well, he deserves credit for getting the hell out of the way and keeping his mouth shut but make no mistake, Steele did NOTHING to help the wave.  This was the TEA Party election Mr. Steele.  It was the grassroots movement flexing its muscle and carrying you across the finish line.  I wonder how you even went into $20 million of debt by doing nothing.  Perhaps if you spent less time filing FEC complaints against good conservative candidates, you wouldn't be in debt.  Steele isn't likely to win.  I'd put his chances at 30% but don't count him out completely.  With all of this said, I think Steele is KEY to GOP outreach efforts especially to minority groups and his help MUST be retained to work on the message that is presented to minority groups.

Maria Cino - Ok, so I didn't like her from the word go because the first thing I saw was "lobbyist" and the second was "Pfizer" and the third was "supported Obamacare".  She is not my choice for RNC chair but she made some compelling points and a look over her she cited McCain-Feingold as a mistake, along with losing our way with spending.  Not exactly rocket science but good points.  Look, Maria has done a great job in the past with the GOTV efforts and I think she would make a great GOTV/Coalitions Director.  That said, she really hasn't got a shot at being Chairwoman despite the support of Delaware's Priscilla Rakestraw (the longest serving National Committeewoman and one of the more disliked Delaware Republicans).

Let me know what you think.

Maybe Tom Ross ISN'T the Anti-Christ afterall

I can't believe I'm typing this....but there is a selection coming up in 2011.  The RNC is picking a new chairman.  The race is mostly a bunch of party insiders, including a Pfizer lobbyist named Maria Cino who is currently pushing Obamacare (she's being backed by Delaware's own Priscilla Rakestraw), current Chairman Michael Steele and steele's right hand man Reince Priebus.  There are a host of others as well including a couple of conservative candidates and a newcomer who resigned from his RNC post and blasted Steele in a letter leaked to David Frum (he's the progressive from No Labels, info on him is here).

The conservatives are Ann Wagner, former Ambassador to Luxemborg and a relative unknown named Saul Anuzis.  Anuzis has the backing of TEA Party Nation, one of the many TEA Party groups out there.  Anuzis has real Conservative credentials and is considered to be the TEA Party's best chance at the RNC chairmanship.  That's why I was absolutely SHOCKED to see that Tom Ross, Delaware's own GOP Chairman, who attacked and berated and flat out disrespected the conservative candidates in the Delaware races this year, had openly put his support behind Saul.  I know, I had to look twice myself and lest ye think this is a joke, here is the visual evidence for you.

There he is, Tom Ross, Delaware Republican Party chair....wow...