About That Delegate List
I want to thank everyone for your feedback concerning the Nevada Republican Party convention and the delegate selection process. Although some of us might disagree on certain points, I do appreciate the fact that many of you took the time to write and express your opinions on this matter.
A number of folks and campaigns have called or written asking about getting access to the official list of 1,347 delegates to Nevada Republican Party convention in Reno. At the request of a sizable number of convention delegates, that list is not being made available to anyone or any campaign. Many delegates do not wish to be solicited or contacted for any reason other than official notifications from the party regarding official convention business, and that seems like a reasonable request to us.
So after consultations with members of the Executive Board of the Nevada Republican Central Committee, the party has opted to keep the official delegate list confidential and will not release it to anyone for any purpose before the convention reconvenes.
The party continues to make preparations to re-start the convention in order to finish up the business of electing delegates to the national convention. No final decisions have been made. However, on the table are two proposals: One, reconvene again in Reno in a few weeks. Two, finish up the elections via a secure, mail-in ballot.
While I have heard from a number of people concerned with a mail-in ballot, there is a danger that if we reconvene in Reno we won’t have a quorum to conduct business. If that should be the case, hundreds of delegates would incur the time and expense of traveling to Reno only to find out that no official business could be transacted. It is for this reason that other options are still being considered. But as I stated, no final decisions have been made.
Additional comments/suggestions here on my blog are always welcome.
Powered by FireStats
[...] About That Delegate List [...]
Washoe County Republican Party » State Convention Update From Sue Lowden’s Blog — May 14, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Thank you for keeping the Delegate names and contact information confidential. I personally would NOT wish to be contacted by some who have posted here on this issue - especially those who would trash Our Elected Officials including Bob Beers who volunteered to be our Nevada State Convention Chairman and our State Chairman Sue Lowden, Exec Director and staff and the countless volunteers who worked with tireless dedication for weeks, or was it months, in preparation for the Convention.
It is a shame that we had to recess. Yet I fully agree that the recess was necessary - printing of ballots with so many self-nominated candidates for Delegate to the RNC Nat’l Convention would consume a great deal of time and some of us had a plane to catch - the last plane of the evening from Reno to Las Vegas left the Reno airport at 8 PM.
I greatly appreciated the courtesy of the recess. And again I hope that we will be electing delegates via registered or certified mail. (I just had to say that again!)
The Nevada Republican Party is AWSOME!
As for those of you who are so new to the Republican Party or new to Politics in America - yes, you know who you are - I hope that you will soon recover from your “mob frinzie” mentality. I know that your energy, when properly trained, will be of great benefit to the Republican Party Candidates.
Sage — May 15, 2008 @ 12:29 am
I think you should reword “mob frinzie” to awakened voter. Shoving approved “party” favorites down the throats of those who were “properly trained” that the process is fair and open, was disingenious at best.
If you want binding, then advocate for it. As for me, I like the non-binding, anything goes, process. If you want your candidate elected, then you must be involved and participate.
If you can’t take the time every other year to spend a few days being involved in participating in the process, then you get what those who are willing, deserve.
Concerned — May 15, 2008 @ 12:42 am
1) Before you consider mailing in ballots, please site a reference from the by-laws or Roberts Rules of Order indicating it would be acceptable. There’s no sense going to the trouble to do so if we are to find out later that it is unacceptable. Let’s first make sure it isn’t necessary to reconvene.
2) If mail-in ballots are not currently an acceptable procedure, would any new rule making them acceptable have to be proposed and voted on by the Body of the Convention? Or, could there be a rule change by other means? I am not familiar enough with such matters. References would be appreciated.
Dan — May 15, 2008 @ 2:49 am
Sage,
I’m delighted to converse with you on this board. It was great seeing you at the convention. I think the work you do with the Pachyderm club is excellent. However, there are a couple of things that I disagree with as it concerns your most recent comment on this blog. I feel obligated to correct the record.
Bob Beers was one of the few politicians in Nevada that the newcomers adored. Sue Lowden has always been a superb Chairwoman. Neither one of them deserve to be trashed. However, the fact remains that what they did was wrong. Recessing the convention in the manner that it was recessed was both an infraction of the rules that we had agreed to as a body, and a political mistake.
The argument about not releasing the private information of the delegates is a disingenuous one. The State GOP already sold or gave the pre-convention list of State Convention Delegates to the McCain campaign prior to the convention.
I know many people who would feel slightly insulted at the assertion that the newcomers were not properly trained. We participated in the mock caucuses; we participated in the precinct caucus; we participated in the County Convention; we read the Nevada Revised Statutes on Election Law; we studied Robert’s Rules of Order; we studied the proposed rules as espoused by the rules committee; and we studied the State GOP Bylaws.
Which training session did the newcomers miss?
I understand that there is this odd cultural history as it concerns Nevada State GOP Conventions where the delegates are not expected to decide on any particular matter of importance as it concerns their own party, but this is contrary to what has transpired at major political conventions for the past 150 years.
Why can’t we simply have a real convention where rank and file Republicans, for 2 out of 730 days, get to hash things out on the convention floor?
Jason Holloway — May 15, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Simple answers to simple problems. Just contact everyone and get an RSVP for whatever date you are wanting to reconvene. Ask people to contact the Party is their plans changes. That is an easy enough way to judge if quorum will be obtained. If the Party needs and Online RSVP system. I can help create one! carlbunce@gmail.com
Carl Bunce — May 15, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
I agree with Bunce.
Dan — May 15, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
As a female delegate from Clark County I was terrified to be caught in the midst of a scuffle by a Ron Paul person trying to jump on Bob Beers as he exited upon announcing the recess. Disagreements must never be allowed to cause such disruption that a person would feel endangered in any way, therefore, I am not willing to go back to Reno until the saboteurs are under control. It is evident that none of Paul’s supporters give a hoot about the Republican Party or the Presidential election, they’re just out there, defiant in their knowledge that their candidate doesn’t have the slightest chance of winning and determined to do all they can to destroy our party and our chances to place a Republican in the White House.
Ron Paul is shamelessly using the Republican Party to further his own personal goals and views, no logic or true interest whatsoever in the Presidential Election before us. You have all caused us enough grief, fear, disruption and heartache. Just be grown-up about it and concede the defeat of your candidate. Get real!!!
EW — May 17, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
RON PAUL IS OUR HILLARY
Gabe — May 17, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
RON PAUL IS OUR HILLARY and he just needs to pull out of the race.
I had always thought he was an intelligent man with many interesting points of view, unfortunately, the facts are making me view this candidate in a more negative way and it is unfortunate.
Ron Paul’s chances of winning the nomination of the Republican Party are nil and these efforts by him and his supporters to disrupt and create chaos within a party that really does not reflect his views at all are, at most, showing a childish stubborness not becoming a Presidential candidate.
There is a time to fight for your beliefs and to fight to win an election, having said that, there is also a time to concede your loss and make an elegant exit, leaving all doors behind you open for the next round. This round is over for Ron Paul. All that he and his stubborn followers are achieving is to turn-off those, who like myself, looked upon him as a viable candidate of change. Now, he looks like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum because adults took away his toys and told him playing time is over.
We are beginning to look a lot like the Democratic Party, who’s having a difficult time getting Hillary to concede to Obama, except that in our case, the situation is worse still, Ron Paul is not even close to McCain in the number of delegates needed, (1191), he has only 26, this fact is being completely ignored by the cult-like behavior of his supporters who are out to achieve the division of our party for the sake of…what???
Gabe — May 17, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Yeah, you’re right, I’d say Ron Paul’s chances of winning are close to nil… the way the election is being ran.
Do you remember when you were a kid and your parents told you, “It’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game”?
How about everybody playing by the rules? Is that asking too much? Is there a rule that states if a candidate is behind they must drop out? If not, then Paul is abiding by the rules, which btw is the reason I support him. I like rules.
IMO, rules are very important. Rules like immigration control, the power to declare war being vested in our Congress, having sound money backed by gold and silver, taxes being uniform (no subsidies to campaign contributors) and restoring States their rightful constitutional powers like the abortion issue.
Those of you who wish to squash the Paul campaign and are willing to break any rule to do it are responsible for our govt being so lax when it comes to following our ultimate rule book, the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.
If you are so righteous, when you condemn Paul supporters, cite the rules we’re breaking. IMO, it is pure nonsense on your part to suggest Paul should get, at maximum 14% of the delegates because of the straw poll outcome. If that’s what the official NV State GOP intended, why did they bother to implement the entire caucus process and *make the rules* that stated the amount of delegates sent to the Natl Convention would be determined by the amount of delegates elected at the State Convention, by delegates who were elected at the County Conventions of NV, which came from a pool of delegates elected at the caucus level?
Why did we go through that entire process if the ultimate decision was to be determined by other means??? Why make rules if they are not to be followed? Why didn’t the rule makers simply say we would be using the straw poll as the official count? Why did the rule makers say the straw poll was a straw poll???
Those who want Paul delegates limited to 14% want the rules broken. And imo, those who support McCain knowing his record on immigration, are ignoring the rules of the Constitution. Those who want the executive branch empowered with the decision to go to war, like McCain, like the way the world was ran prior to our Revolution, want to ignore the Constitution. The Founders made that particular rule because too many times they had seen the centralization of power via a King or Dictator use that power to the nation’s detriment. I say, follow the rules. Or at least, stop elected officials from swearing an oath to abide by those rules. Let’s at least try to ease back on our hypocrisy.
Those want Paul to drop out because they believe he is embarrassing or disrupting the Rep. Party are wrong-headed imo. I will agree that he is disrupting the status quo establishment and that is in fact why I am once again an active member of the R Party. I want change. I want rules obeyed.
If someone wants Paul to drop out, please cite some rule which is violating. I can name dozens McCain is, like NCLB, Dept of Education, FRB, etc. And you want us to back down and rally behind a rule breaker?
Dan May — May 17, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
EW, Gabe, and any other GOP member, you better get used to following the rules to the letter! There is a new brand of Republican in this state, and these Republicans want to follow the rules that are in place and make others follow them as well.
The corruption, that I personally saw at the State Convention makes me sick. That is corruption at the highest levels and it is going to be gone sooner then most think. I am also sick of all you people that act like you are so “active”. Active people now the rules and are happy to follow them or find another place to play! If everyone is so active why is the REP Voter Registration 80,000+ behind DEM’s in Clark County? You all must be doing something right?
Every Ron Paul supporter followed the rules, as they were set forth by the State GOP for the caucus process. Everyone wants to say “We welcome the Paul people!”. That is until we want to have a voice in the ways things are done. I keep hearing from older GOP members, that you have to be involved for 10 years. You don’t have to sit around for 10 years until you can have your voice heard! That is just funny, looks like the wool got pulled over these peoples’ eyes long ago. The true conservatives are back in charge of NV GOP and we are here to stay for a long time to come. The message of true Republicans will make our party grow so we can fight off the growth of the DEM’s and their socialist agendas that will destroy this country and this state.
A warning to all current GOP members in NV. If you are involved in any fraud and/or corruption at any level. Quit now! Principles and Truth are going to be the new brand of the NV GOP! A note for Sue Lowden, hiding information from party members is corruption!
Carl Bunce — May 17, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Thank you, Sue Lowden, for everything you have done for the party. Unfortunately, my wife and I will not be going back to Reno if you decide to continue the convention in person. We just cannot afford to travel up there again from Clark County. It isn’t just about the dollars. I might have considered it, but I am deeply concerned about the potential for violence. I think you should know that there are SEVERAL folks whom I am friends with, those of us whom you might call the “older generation” who will not be participating in a convention where there is so much potential for violence.
A current anonymous GOPer — May 17, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
By the way, I just left a note, but failed to note one other important point. I am grateful that the party has decided not to publish the names of those of us who went to the convention. I do not want anyone (and by anyone, I mean these mean-spirited ‘Ron Paul’ supporters who have no manners, like this Carla Bunce character who is issuing warnings to people,) calling and harassing my family.
A current anonymous GOPer — May 17, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
I think your fears of violence from Paul supporters are uncalled for. All I hear from the Paul supporters are demands for justice. If we do not stand up for what is just, at our Conventions and from our candidates, I think we have far more to fear.
For instance, we did not demand President Bush abide by the Constitution and enforce the laws on immigration and the result has been an unprecedented amount of violence perpetrated on American citizens by illegal immigrants. Besides suffering the violence, we also have to bear a great tax burden due to our jails being filled with illegals for that violence. (Not to mention the tax burden for education and health care.)
Should we be supporting Paul who wants to end all welfare to illegals and enforce the laws regarding immigration or support McCain who supported President Bush’s awful amnesty legislation? It is not too late to at least send a Paul delegation to the Natl Convention and have the wishes of the people of NV heard. We have much more to fear from McCain’s amnesty for illegals policy than what you imagine from unhappy Paul supporters.
People should stand up for what they believe in. We shouldn’t demand so much from our kids serving in Iraq and so little from ourselves. Our Founders put the policy making power in the people by giving us a voting process. Don’t forsake it out of fear. If we do that, nothing is left.
I promise you, you have nothing to fear from Paul supporters. If you saw us as “protesters” at Reno, it was only because we wanted the Right to have an open election of delegates and not have a secretly conceived list of nominees as our only choice. Did you even see the list they asked us to adopt? I didn’t. How could I vote to adopt a list of candidates that I didn’t even see? That may be the way they do things in DC right with legislation like the PATRIOT ACT which no one read before they voted on it. But that’s not the way we should be doing things.
Dan May — May 17, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
To A current anonymous GOPer — May 17, 2008 @ 8:04 pm:
If a warning about ending corruption in our party offends you I am sorry. I think you are just out of step with what is actually going on. I understand that can be very easy to do considering the lack of openness that we have seen in the past 3 weeks after the convention. You have to understand that your voice is being silenced, if you know it our not. It is the Ron Paul supporters that are being silenced right now, but what happens when you have a concern in the future? What happens when you don’t agree with the candidates that are being pushed on you by the National Party? We as “Good Republicans” must not let our party be controlled by those who wish to promote an agenda that is not our own here in Nevada. I once again say I am sorry to those of you that are offended by my previous warning about corruption in the party. You may not have seen it first hand like I have. If you had, you may feel the same way I do.
Carl Bunce — May 18, 2008 @ 2:18 am
I think it is very telling that the Ron Paul supporters are the first to tell me that I am exaggerating about what I saw with my own eyes, and that I am out of step with reality. I don’t exaggerate, and if this is the first you Ron Paul supporters have heard of it, then you haven’t been watching and listening, or you purposely have turned a blind eye to what transpired. Perhaps you were part of it? Nevertheless, this is precisely why I am not going to attend if you have another in-person convention. I remember what it was like to support Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan (in 72, 76, AND 80, many people forget that Reagan had really planted the seeds in the early 70’s, not just in 1980 when he won!) and this kind of militant rabble-rousing didn’t take place then. What I am experiencing now is akin to 1998 when Aron Russo ran for governor. Thank goodness he was revealed as the lunatic he really was. I’m sure these Ron Paul supporters will further criticize me again as they have just done because of my previous comments, but so be it. I will not lend one bit of help or support to them in their efforts to demean those of us who have been active and loyal Republicans for many, many years. Sue, good luck to you in your future endeavors.
A current anonymous GOPer — May 18, 2008 @ 3:07 am
anonymous says
I think it is very telling that the Ron Paul supporters are the first to tell me that I am exaggerating about what I saw with my own eyes, and that I am out of step with reality.
Dan
Tell us, exactly what did you see with your own eyes? Be specific.
Anonymous
I don’t exaggerate, and if this is the first you Ron Paul supporters have heard of it, then you haven’t been watching and listening, or you purposely have turned a blind eye to what transpired. Perhaps you were part of it?
Dan
Part of what? There was no violence. I saw anger. I heard anger. But I saw nor heard any violence nor do I believe there was about to be any violence. Had you stuck around for another several minutes you would have seen Mike Webber take the stage, ask if we wanted to continue the Convention and volunteer to act as Chair with the first order of business being to see if we had enough people still there to have a quorum. I think we needed 675 but fell about 80 or so short.
I will grant you that the anger was real. But I saw nothing to indicate violence was near. IMO, the anger was justified. Us Paul supporters had just been told by those counting the votes that we had won the majority of the 9 delegate positions that we had just voted on and we were anxiously awaiting to hear the announcement of our victory. Then out of the blue with no warning, the gavel came down and the announcement of the voting results were hushed up and still I have heard no official recognition as to what the results were.
If the recess was not related to the election results, why haven’t we heard the results yet? Perhaps I’m wrong. If so, I am sorry. But yes, I was angry at the time of the recess. I am still upset about calling the recess before they announced the known results of Congressional Districts One and Three.
Can someone tell me if there has been an official announcement but I have missed it? Or, have the officials stated why they have not yet announced the winners?
anonymous
Nevertheless, this is precisely why I am not going to attend if you have another in-person convention. I remember what it was like to support Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan (in 72, 76, AND 80, many people forget that Reagan had really planted the seeds in the early 70’s, not just in 1980 when he won!) and this kind of militant rabble-rousing didn’t take place then.
Dan
BTW, Ron Paul was one of only 4 Congressmen that supported Ronald Reagan in 1976. And, Ronald Reagan campaigned FOR Paul. There is a REAL connection between Paul and Reagan.
anonymous
What I am experiencing now is akin to 1998 when Aron Russo ran for governor. Thank goodness he was revealed as the lunatic he really was.
Dan
I do not believe Russo was a lunatic. I supported Russo. We were able to include a plank in our County Platform to do away with the electronic paperless balloting machines and I trusted Russo more so than Guinn to keep taxes low. But it was Guinn who won the nomination and he went on to give NV the largest tax increase in it’s history. To this day, I believe Russo would have been better for NV.
anonymous
I’m sure these Ron Paul supporters will further criticize me again as they have just done because of my previous comments, but so be it.
Dan
We differ in our opinions. I appreciate your frankness. I hope you consider me respectful. I repeat my earlier statement that I believe your fears of violence are unwarranted. If we reconvene in Reno, I hope you will introduce yourself and we can shake hands. I think if you fairly consider our perspective you will conclude that our being upset with the abruptness of the recess knocked us back on our heels for a bit but what you saw was not a prelude to any violence. But simply a reaction to what we thought was unfair.
Remember, Paul’s motto is Peace, Prosperity and Liberty.
Respectfully yours, Dan May
Dan May — May 18, 2008 @ 11:40 am
[...] on About That Delegate List by Dan May unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIf the recess was not related to the [...]
test » Blog Archive » Comment on About That Delegate List by Dan May — May 18, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Can anyone answer the question I posed in the first place, namely whether the fact that we adjourned because of lack of quorum means that anyone who was elected at the County Convention could come if and when the State Convention is called again? I think that we did not, in fact, recess; my reading of Robert’s Rules would be that this means we can not, by definition “reconvene”, but would have to redo the entire Convention, thus opening it to anyone who was properly elected as a Delegate to begin with. Can anyone look into that?
Scott
Scott — May 19, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Article XI of Robert’s Rules would seem to govern this, insofar as the right of memebrs of the Assembly/Convention to participate. The right to vote may not be limited for those, I think who did not attend the first Convention.
“63. A Session of an assembly is a meeting which, though it may last for days, is virtually one meeting, as a session of a convention; or even months, as a session of Congress; it terminates by an “adjournment sine die (without day).” The intermediate adjournments from day to day, or the recesses taken during the day, do not destroy the continuity of the meetings, which in reality constitute one session. Any meeting which is not an adjournment of another meeting commences a new session. In the case of a permanent society, whose by-laws provide for regular meetings every week, month, or year, for example, each meeting constitutes a separate session of the society, which session, however, can be prolonged by adjourning to another day.” Just my thoughts.
Scott
Scott — May 19, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Check out the news we’re generating!
http://bob-beers-and-sue-lowden.blogspot.com/
KC — May 19, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Robert Holloway said: “In effect, they would be like a dictator, dissolving a legislature that they find obnoxious.”
You mean like ‘ole Dis-honest Abe? This seems to be a chronic tactic of American oligarchs: When they don’t like the way the vote is going, they dissolve the assembly. I feel like a true Sean Hannity “Great ‘Murrican” now having been a part of my very own dissolved assembly.
Delegate-in-limbo — May 19, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Robert,
YOur statement is what I was pointing to to begin with. If there ceased to be quorum, technically speaking the group dissolved permanently — or at least until the next Convention. I believe under Robert’s Rules — and like Jason, I have consulted several certified Parliamentarians, and all of them seem to agree with me — once the Convention adjourns, its business is done. Either this is the case, in which case you could not “reconvene” without opening the floor up to all people origianlly elligible to participate — or in the counter you would have had to actually recess, which would have required a motion with a specific time and place for the reconvention. Do you see what I am saying? Technically speaking, you can not reconvene, unless you open the floor to all persons originally elligible to participate. I can certified statements from Parliamentarians if you like, but there we have it.
Scott
Scott Austin — May 19, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Scott,
I don’t know anything about Robert’s Rules of Order, but I do know that the rules that the delegates to the State Convention adopted contained a provision that explicitly stated there could be no final adjournment of the convention until all business has been concluded.
Jason Holloawy — May 20, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Robert,
I hate to point this out, but your section of Robert’s Rules dealing with day to day adjournments are relating to bodies who normally meet for more than 1 day. To use my own group, the NEA RA meets for a week, so of course the group has to adjourn at the end of the day and meet again the following day. Jason, were this the case, what if you had met and adopted rules, but later discovered that the rules you adopted for the convention were in violation of the Bylaws? Say, for the sake of the argument, that you had adopted rules — and this was not the case, but say that it was — which permitted voice vote for the Delegate seats even though there were more people running than seats available? The Bylaws of the Party state quite clearly that secret ballots must be used, so clearly the procedure would be invalid, whatever your adopted rules might have been. I state again, and have numerous Parliamentarians who will support me — and I have a feeling that the only way to really resolve this would be to certify the statements, which I am happy to do — that once you adjourned, rather than recessed, the Convention is over and you would have to call another, separate Convention in order to alter what took place.
Scott — May 20, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Well, it’s nice to see that we’re in favor of the rules when it’s convenient, and not so much when it isn’t. You’ll forgive me for thinking that’s, well, not genuine. For the record, I favor following the rules even when in the short term it does not tilt in my favor. I think you are dead wrong, Robert, and I think you are potentially setting a rather dangerous precedent. You may be right. Even were I permitted to attend the second meeting, it is doubtful I would be able to attend. That, I think, is not the point. Rather, the point is that we ought to be following the rules, not when we think it might be convenient, but rather because they need to be followed. Again, just my two cents, for whatever they may or may not be worth. And for the record, I couldn’t give two figs what the majority thinks. The majority can think that only people with blue pressed slacks ought to be able to vote, that doesn’t mean I’ll follow them.
Scott
Scott Austin — May 20, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
I am a McCain supporter who stayed on the floor after our party leaders left. i have to say that the way the convention ended was not okay and was very petty. The actions that followed by other McCain supporters was also very petty. We should have stayed until it was done and make sure that every voice is heard not just one supporter or another. Things could have and should have been handled better then they were.
Shawnda Purdy — May 25, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
We must realize that this is 2008, we are now more people and we are now more involved than we have ever been before. As troubling as it would be for so many of our loyal republicans, perhaps it is time to extend the time we alot for our conventions. I beleive we would all be served well by some education in organisation, and consensus taking. Yes, within our party, we have veiws that defer as to the appearance of our banner, but if we are truely “Republicans”, we must keep in mind that we have the largest diferance with the Socialist Democrats. They are the ones who would take all from us, our hard earned money, our property rights, and the right to raise our families. We are the good people, trying to do the right thing for our country. Because we do this thing, this taking of a stand, out of loyalty to our country, love of our families, and for clearity of our own conscience, sometimes we do have to bend with the wind of change or even stand aside. On the other hand we must all agree that change for the sake of change is non-sense and a waste of valuable time. I look out at the world around us and see our dangers stacking up against us daily. Our brave men and women fight daily around the world to protect us, we should think first of them. Our schools continue to teach our children useless drible, and hand them meaningless diplomas, we should think secondly of them. Our liberal government demands more and more of our hard earned wealth, yet it wastes more and more and seeks to restrict our freedoms.
I suppose what I am attempting to put to us all, is that we have enimees enough out there. We have to listen and speak with respect among those who have chosen this party and it’s banner. It will get us much and loose us less if we stand together and agree on the princeples we all agree on, and agree to disagree on the fine points we have dificulty with. If it is truely our intent to elect a Republican President, let’s join together and do it.
Some of the people we have joined in this party have been holding the rope alone for quite a while, and they have been doing it for the same reasons we are here today. If there is change to be made, speak with the same respect you wish to be spoken to.
Let’s save our load voices for the socialists. Let’s bang our pots in unison and get the mule our of the garden. Right now, it appears we are only trying to see who has the loadest pot, while we should be closing the gate on the mule.
Verifiable e-mail? Of course. Registered mail? of course. Gather again? If we must, but gather together as republicans. If our cantidate is not the lead horse, we should still join the team, allowing that we will still have a voice in the direction the wagon is pulled.
Everyday we see a poor enough example when we watch the Dem-Soc’s tear themselves apart.
We are the conservitive voice of Nevada. For what it’s worth, and for what we are worth, We are Republicans!
And because we can vote, we must be grown-ups!
Doug Hansen
Pep talks will cost cost ya a buck, and you can pay the clown at the door.
Doug Hansen — May 28, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Mrs. Lowden it has been over a month since the convention was recessed. I believe I speak for most of the delegation when I say that the GOP leadership needs to announce a date for when we will reconvene. I see that Mr. Terhune is once again offering a turn-key convention to the party. I’m not sure why this hasn’t been at least considered. We need to reconvene, we need to send delegates for Nevada. We must not be disenfranchised.
Kevin H — June 3, 2008 @ 5:54 am
June 28th?
July 26th?
Why not vote on what date you prefer!
http://bob-beers-and-sue-lowden.blogspot.com/
Obviously, the state GOP doesn’t know how to take votes, so I took the liberty.
KC — June 6, 2008 @ 11:09 am