Monday, December 8, 2008

SCC Meeting Rekap


Lehman Censured

The Republican State Central Committee censured National Committeewoman Kim Lehman at this weekend meeting. To read the censure click here. The motion passed by an 8-7 vote. I think this was the correct action to take against Lehman since she was clearly in the wrong. However I think the censure motion is poorly written.

The issue at hand was not that Iowa Right to Life “attacked and distorted” Miller-Meeks the pro-life position, it was that our National Committeewoman sent out the email containing these comments and she did nothing to show her support of our Republican nominee for Congress in the 2nd District.

Somehow people are distorting that simple fact, and people like Steve Deace are trying to make this about Miller-Meeks not Kim Lehman. The truth is Kim was naïve in using her email address to send out the IRL voter guide, and even more naïve in her response to the mess she created.

A number of people from the 2nd District came to speak out about the matter and I heard that most of them did a great job in stating their opinion, and Chairman Iverson kept control of the meeting. Unfortunately, there is always someone who uses a situation like this to throw more gas on the fire. Linn County GOP Chair Jim Conklin continued to make an ass out of himself. His ranting and raving about the Scheffler, Lehman and the rest of the SCC adding nothing to the debate at hand. Some people just like to scream because it makes them feel more like a man I guess. Fortunately for every Jim Conklin we have a Trudy Caviness who is far more respected and able to get her point across with her approach.

Heck, while I’m at it I would like to pose a simple question. Who cost Miller-Meeks more votes, Kim Lehman or Jim Conklin? If we every want to win the 2nd CD Republicans need to offset the Dems vote margin in Johnson County and the only place that is possible is in Linn County. We need a much stronger effort in Linn County.
On one final note, I think the decision to use a secret ballot for the censure vote was good. I understand why people wanted to know who voted which way, but we need to put this issue behind us. A roll call vote would just have put targets on some people’s backs. We need to move forward.

Reed v. Mosley

Another heated exchange at the meeting was between Christopher Reed and Co-Chair Leon Mosley. While Kim Lehman has received most of the attention for her actions, not many people have discussed the fact that our Co-Chair was out campaigning for Steve Rathje even after George Eichhorn and Reed jumped into the race. Reed pointed this out, and Mosley defended his support of Rathje by saying that Reed was never going to raise the money or gain the support by jumping in late. Newsflash Leon, Rathje wasn’t going to do any better, and the fact that he finished 3rd should tell you to let it go.

Strawn is running for Chair

I was a little worried that my intelligence on him as a potential candidate for Chair was wrong. Strawn hosted a reception for SCC members at their hotel on Friday night. The chair election will be on January 10th.

Parting Shots

Kudos to RPI for feeding all the folks who attended the meeting. Classy move, at the end of the day we are all family.

Kudos to everyone for enduring a 6 or 7 hour meeting on a Saturday. I was on my couch watching football. Also props to the 1000 or so people who kept checking out my blog on Saturday, when are you going to learn, I don’t work weekends.

Kudos to Iverson for running a good meeting. This stuff gets overlooked too often.

Kudos to Grant Young for keeping us posted Saturday. See the young kids get to work weekends.

Kudos for not electing a chair and setting up a public forum for candidates later this month.

Kudos to Lehman for showing poise and strength through a difficult meeting. Now learn from this.

60 comments:

  1. Herschel,
    Happy Monday! - Have a slice of humble pie with your coffee. Even the annointed one, Matt Drudge, posts on the weekends! Take a trick from his operations manual and give us a short update and then tease us with, "Developing" instead of a bloggers rendition of "blue screen." Heck, even James Q. Lynch scooped ya'll with his 12:09 a.m. (while Herschel snores) post to feed the konservative flock.
    That said, you grew a pair by calling out the Linn Kounty equation...I thought last week was a busy week, you've just lobbed a hot grenade into the "sphere" and I'll be curious to see what appears in the next day. Thanks for the klass in your finishing words today and go find yourself a foxhole....."Incoming!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Krusty,

    Where are the Kudos to me for supplying the only action photo from the meeting? Granted it was a poor quality camera phone pic, but hey it was the best I could do without being a disruption.

    By the way, K-dog I beat your clown shoes off in fantasy football this week and thought maybe you could use that as a side dish to your humble pie. :)


    Now sing it with me Krusty, HERE WE GO STEEL-ERS, HERE WE GO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think there should be public votes on all votes.

    So, to avaoid having a target on their backs - they will be having a secret ballot for chairman now, I'm sure.

    I know these klowns. They want to be on the SCC but they don't want to do the heavy lifting.

    Krusty, should you really be enabling them to continue their secretive behavior? I thought this was something you were going to be taking a principled stance against?

    ReplyDelete
  4. As long as there are secret ballots there will be wossies casting them. Nothing like being on a board of no responsibility. Great read Krusty but you are way off on that part (although I understand your point, it continues bad precedent).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yoda finishs with a Jedi mind trick!

    "Now sing it with me Krusty, HERE WE GO STEEL-ERS, HERE WE GO!!!"

    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. You will find it a powerful ally.

    Sorry my green friend, but Jedi mind tricks don't work with all species so you should know that
    "Herschel the Hut" is immune to your favorite fantasy!

    (Insert Jabba laugh...hah! oh ho)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just hope this will reel in some of the militants from the purity death spiral and get people thinking with a bit more common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like how internet "Tough Guys" who don’t even have the guts to put their names next to their comments are criticizing the SCC for not doing a roll call vote. What good would that have done? The party was very divided on this issue and the vote reflects that. A roll call vote could have very easily caused a civil war as the 2 sides would have ripped into each other. Only idiots like you wanted a roll call vote. Those of us with a brain are glad it went down the way it did.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey 10:41. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

    Republicans need to learn from the great philosopher Dan Rather:
    Courage!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Krusty was in Des Moines at the meeting on Saturday, so couldn't post. He was seen with Paul Pate who also excoriated Kim Lehman. Guess he isn't a unifier after all it turns out. Just another flame thrower. With an 8-7 vote, Pate took sides. So, no unity there, Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Columbo Wants to KnowDecember 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM

    Catching up on my blogs today and just finished yesterdays post and comments. Yoda, since you were in the room, did the Linn Chair publically state Ms. Lehmans head should be cut off? Is this reflected in the minutes? Was he wearing a ghutra? (arabic head dress) Do you check for weapons at the door? Seriously, if this comment was made and he wasn't asked to leave, please help me understand why not? Isn't Ted on the SCC and isn't he a lawyer? Sounds like Jihad Jim may need a good one?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Henderson has been defending Gopal. He's no better than the ICA.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The funniest post so far.

    Matt - talking about others being militants and using common sense.

    hahahahahaha...what a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Krusty is not Yoda. Krusty was not at the meeting. If Yoda was Krusty this blog would be a 24/7 Paul Pate site. Use some kommon sense folks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Where was the Des Moines Register?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 11:22, don't you read the paper?
    Apparently, nobody else does either...they got laid off!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Krusty's candidates have seldom been the same as Yoda's. Krusty was for Nussle, Dopf, Dix and Huckabee. Yoda was for Vander Plaats, Allison, Kennedy and Romney. They were both for Miller-Meeks but thats about it. Yoda would have outlawed anons like me permanantly. My guess is that its Nick Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 11:08 (#2). I know, I'm the bad guy because I won't let you run me over. We're just supposed to let our elected RPI officials badmouth good GOP candidates and take it lying down.

    Sorry, I guess I never learn.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Linn may be the poster child for broken kounties, but it's larger than just Linn.
    CC's are accumulating "dead wood" all over the state with no new members and a komplete lack of planning, koordination and enthusiasm. Pray that a stray Dem doesn't drop a match on us kause the resulting wildfire will burn across most kounties and we'll need to put out the flames, clean up the mess and start over! Heh,
    that actually sounds like a plan?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was there and agree for the most part with Krusty.

    Jim was too harsh, especially pointing as he was asking for resignations.

    It's time to move on, David and Jason did an excellent job with firm but measured presentations.

    I also agree with Krusty, but have to say I also agreed with the motion at the time... Jason made an excellent point in his statement that we are all passionate, and the real problem was Kim's response to the explosion her groups newsletter created. Kim did nothing.

    This was not Miller-Meeks' issue to resolve. It didn't hurt MMM it hurt those of us that were working to get her elected. Kim said she called MMM. OK. But it should not be a requirement to fill out a survey for Kim to support a nominated Republican and that was basically Kim's only public response.

    All this name calling crap has to stop. "RINO"s and whatever the moderates call conservatives - we are all Republicans.

    Jason suggested if Kim had gone public with her support of MMM, and campaigned with her a bit in the last weeks - none of this would have happened.

    I agree with that too, had those two spent some time with each other - It would have been fascinating... MMM loves to talk policy and what's best for IOWA and I'm positive she would have accepted the offer. (She got into the race because of the health care issue but she's deep in Economic knowledge now... truly a life long learner)

    MMM is NOT the enemy, she is simply the best candidate MANY of us have seen for a LONG time.

    I also agree with the decision made for the secret ballot. Again, time to move on.

    There was a statement that Kim made that gave me pause, though, when in her commiteewoman report, she noted she had found some what I think she called "conservatives to bond with" (don't remember exact words) ... and I'm thinking ok that's GREAT - but is she searching to create a divide there now?

    We want to move on, but Kim needs to prove that she understands her new role as Committeewoman - including policies beyond Pro Life issues.

    When can we all just be Republicans?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nixon took the final, honorable action that was called for. Will Lehman?

    ReplyDelete
  21. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$December 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM

    I will bet someone a $1000 (chump change, by the way) that they have a secret ballot for chairman.

    Even David Chung will cave on his promise to have more open meetings because he caves on most things.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chung will report, you will lose and I'd actually absolve myself of any remaining shame and post my identity to kollect, except the $1000 will bounce, just like our treasury will in the koming months.
    If $1000 is "chump" change, then may I assume you're also my kongressman?

    ReplyDelete
  23. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,

    Actually my promise was to report the vote for chair. I never promised to ask for a roll call vote for anything.

    In the past, the elections for chair have been held in such a way that not even the SCC members knew who had received how many votes. Last time they asked our auditor, David Vaudt to count the votes. Vaudt only reported who won -- not how many votes they received. Then the SCC voted to make it unanimous.

    My promise is that I will fight to make the vote COUNT public and I will report the results at HawkeyeGOP.com. I have NEVER promised to try and force a roll call.

    Members will still vote in secret but if the vote is 17-0 or 9-8 I will let you know. That is what I have promised — I will keep this promise.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Question for Dave,

    is the chair vote a public roll call - will we be able to know who each and every member votes for or will we only know what the total was at the end?

    I wonder what the chances are of getting every SCC member to have to publically announce their vote during the meeting?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hawkeye GOP-
    Since you were there, did the words "cut off her head" land on your ears?
    Enquiring minds want to know!

    By the way, nice job and thanks.

    Stopped by your blog today and can't stop laughing from the poster this weekend who used the words "church bells" in the identity/title! I'm not one to be known for a weak bladder but I almost peed my pants, I was laughing so hard!

    ReplyDelete
  26. To 1:12:

    We can ask them and take them at their word on their answers. We have the right to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Krusty, I was the Victory staffer for Linn Co and I can tell that the effort put forth in Linn co was a very strong one and one of the strongest in the state.

    I don't agree with Conklin 100% of the time but he worked very hard to get mmm elected. When Lehman published that letter it had a very serious effect on volunteers who began to ask if they could leave her off the script because when they would make calls to voters they were no longer getting bombarded about who she was but instead with questions about her pro life bone fides and wanted to know why the party supported someone who was pro choice, and how they thought she was pro life but now weren't sure. That letter was absolutely devastating.

    We need a much stronger effort in Linn co. but all the blame does not rest on Conklin. as the chair he gets a fair share however...

    My Victory counterparts shared horror stories of do nothing central committee members, lazy chairs or worse micro managers who were of no use.

    I would imagine that I get some too for not getting more doors knocked and more volunteers in the door. but it was very difficult to get people motivated for the candidates we had.

    The truth is, when it comes to winning Linn Co I don’t think that mmm spent enough time in Linn her events were few and far between. And I know it frustrated a lot of people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes that's right....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Skyhawker - In your own words, please describe the GOTV operation konducted in Linn ON ELECTION DAY!

    You seem to present your information with a sense of balance although I don't necessarily agree with every komment you made.

    Dems had 3 poll watchers at each precinct, per shift, with a volunteer attorney acting as an observer at most precincts. They updated voting information every 20 minutes on the hour all day long.

    Please share your election day observations with our krowd!

    PS - Yoda, don't get excited, this is Luke Skyhawker, not Skywalker!

    ReplyDelete
  30. A few things first... We had a targeted list of precincts that DSM felt we needed to have covered.

    Originally it was my job to get pollwatchers then it was DSM's then the Central committees job then it was dsm's and then finally back to LCRCC. It was infuriating.

    In the shuffle we lost some poll watchers. I got several calls on election day of people that wanted to poll watch but were not followed up with. A shame.

    The training was inadequate and with all the new rule changes about same day voter reg we were provided with one lawyer for 2 hours a few days before the election to train people.

    On election day we came close to having one person per precinct per shift. but the dems were up to some good tricks with a note from someone's mom to vote and one who tried to use a fishing license as id.

    Tibby did you have something specifically that you wanted me to touch on?

    ReplyDelete
  31. like i said it was very hard to get people to come out for McCain and even Palin at the end...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Skyhawker - I know you were frustrated. You basically informed the rest of Krusty's readers that we didn't have a GOTV operation that day. We simply had one poll watcher, per precinct, (with numerous holes) and not a single registration sheet was used on our part to track voters and call folks to get them to the polls that day. Don't get into the blame game here, every kounty is charged with providing the volunteers to do what Republicans first invented, and then perfected, which was the GOTV operation. Now with same day and absentee ballots, the D's are kleaning our klocks here. We lost some races we kould have won and nearly lost another, winning by only 13(?) votes. For those of you reading this from Rio Linda...we sucked!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is this the same Luke Martz that worked for Mitt Romney?

    ReplyDelete
  34. i dont have time to reply tonight tibby but to anon yes the same

    ReplyDelete
  35. Referring to this whole Kim Lehman Miller-Meeks matter as a fiasco is entirely appropriate. I am not sure that term is even adequate. We went through the spectacle of a person who is the Republican National Committeewoman who is also in charge of a state-wide right-to- life organization, a person who by the way disregarded appropriate historic practice and protocols of the right-to-life organization, going out of her way in a newsletter to oppose a duly nominated Republican congressional candidate with a right to life position arguably superior to our top of the ticket Republican presidential candidate.

    The fiasco was compounded by the fact that the superior Republican congressional candidate was up against a Democrat incumbent who is also a cosponsor of FOCA, legislation which would work to undo every bit of abortion regulation right to lifers have been able to accomplish. And this committeewoman has been chief lobbyist for the right to life organization. Sometimes even a pro-abort Republican can serve to move the Republican pro-family agenda forward, and that was not even close to the situation. Incredibly neither the organizations web site nor its newsletter contained any mention or reference to the pro-abortion Democrat incumbent.

    The action was never ameliorated in any substantive way prior to the election even as the justifiable outrage erupted. Indeed as I write this post the offending web comments, posted entirely under the purview of the Republican Committeeperson who is still in charge of the right to life organization unless there has been a formal resignation both as President and as Executive Director, positions she has held in unison, are still posted, and without either disclaimer or objective clarification. It would be / would have been an easy enough matter to direct the web master to archive the newsletter and post a reasonable comparison of the two candidates. Instead the right to life organization’s credibility and that of the dependability of the office of committeeperson has been allowed to fester.

    The vote was disappointingly close given the clear responsibilities regarding the offense and the indefensibility of it from any perspective; internal to right to life, as regards the integrity conservatives should show regarding screw-ups by one of their own, or as regards the responsibilities of a Republican committeeperson. If various blogs reflect opinion regarding the matter there were however some rather strained attempts to defend, dodge or soft-pedal the offense. These included among others the “two hats and personally support fallacies,” the “dog wrote my homework excuse,” the “it wouldn’t have made a difference” downplay and the weak “indispensable” silliness.

    As regards the “two hats” and “I personally support” fallacies, in this situation the (committeeperson in question) has relevant responsibilities to two different organizations. One “hat” at a minimum requires the wearer not to be responsible for denigrating a duly nominated Republican candidate in the general election. The other “hat” involves control over the content, or proposed content, of material which was not objective, was unbalanced, was detrimental to Republican interests, and overseeing its distribution. The weirdness of course was that the Republican was dramatically better for the interests allegedly being protected under that hat than the person effectively helped by the action. The issue is not whether a person can wear two hats by belonging to more than one organization, but when “hat wearing” conflicts you do not get to properly avoid responsibility to either organization by hiding behind one of the hats when you are responsible for the hats. One’s obligation to both organizations is everywhere and while wearing either’s hat. IF they are in conflict you give one up.

    The gee wiz “I personally support” (so and so) argument is a rather ironic defense given the justified repudiation of the other side of that coin which is the political dodge “I am personally opposed . . . to this or that . . . so don’t hold me responsible as to how I vote or act.” Right- to- lifers properly wail against that nonsense all the time.

    “The dog wrote my homework” excuse was set forth as “somebody else wrote the offending article.” As to this it seems clear given common meaning to positions in organizational structure that it would have been somebody under the purview of (the committeeperson in question). The article or at least its submission and its promulgation were ultimately the responsibility of (the committeeperson in question). Given those circumstances, offering such an excuse is the same as saying “my dog wrote my homework, don’t blame me.” However if the (committeeperson in question) was an underling in either organization and therefore had no control, it would be a different matter.

    The downplaying of the matter to the effect (doing the right thing) would not have made a difference is at best an unprincipled argument. Allowing it as an excuse in effect allows it to become self fulfilling and it is hardly a confidence builder for underdog candidates that, besides facing an uphill battle against a Democrat incumbent in a Democrat district, they also must face the irresponsible tactics of an RNC committeeperson who was dissatisfied with the primary results.

    The silly “indispensable” argument in this situation also takes form perhaps in the shielding “why should I resign under scrutiny of the State Central Committee . . . they did not elect me” dodge. But of course if sufficient censurability was found, and it has now been voted on to that effect, resigning is the honorable and collegiate thing to do. Relying on such a distinction is hiding behind the practicality of gathering a large body together, not principle. Presidents are impeached and tried by representative bodies composing a much smaller percentage then the ratio that exists in this situation. And given the clear indication that the state central committee is a largely conservative body it would hardly result in a situation where a non-pro-life replacement would be appointed. Indeed the committee person in question ran against a very capable one for the position.

    Beyond the personal responsibility lessons from this, the call for “moving on” should include the need to establish carefully thought out bylaw provisions for the RPI allowing removal for cause and for boards of organizations such as Iowa Right to Life to pay attention and not allow conflicts of interest in their own right.

    Roger Mall

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thank You, Roger for your thoughtful comments.

    For me, it is much simpler than that: Kim stood up in front of our State Convention and promised to support ALL Republican candidates. She didn't do it.

    She did not tell the truth.

    She has no credibility.

    And leaving her post(s) at IRL cannot change these facts.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Roger has some cajones. God bless you sir. Two many pansies on that SCC, obviously.

    You are a good man.

    In the 2004 cycle and 2006 cycle, I donated to the Iowa Right to Life and even attended one of the dinners.

    In 2004 and 2006, I donated to the Republican Party of Iowa.

    In 2008 - I donated to "none of thee above". Much of it was because of the aforementioned Kim Lehmen.

    I donated to my county Republican Party and will continue to do so.

    However, as long as Kim Lehmen is affiliated in any official capacity with one or both - I will not give money. She is a disaster. An understatement, perhaps.

    God Bless You Mr. Roger Mall.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Brilliant analysis by Roger Mall. We have some very great people in the Republican party. Roger is one.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 12:48 am. I beg you to reconsider your attitude. This is the problem with Republicans. We refuse to play ball unless everything is 100% to our liking.

    I completely agree that Lehman did wrong and she should do the right thing by resigning but that alone cannot be enough to withhold support from the Republican party.

    We need a strong Republican party to take on Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  40. God Bless Roger Wall. I will support my county party, but WILL NOT send any money to RPI or Iowa Right To Life until Kim resigns.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What if someone in your county party displeases you?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Roger hit the nail on the head. What's up with Iowa Right to Life for allowing their ED to take such a partisan position? She should have been canned from IRLC for that. Aren't there pro-life Dems running in Iowa whom IRLC needs to support as well? How can IRLC have any credibility with pro-life Dems when their ED/Prez is also Committeewoman for the RNC? Makes absolutely no sense and it's too bad the potential conflict of Lehman serving two masters wasn't more fully exposed when she ran for the RNC post against an equally good pro-life woman who would not have had a similar conflict. Lehman should decide which post she wants more and lose the other.

    ReplyDelete
  43. People writing crap like that probably never donated money to any organization to begin with. Notice that they dont put their names with the comments, nor do they list their home counties so anyone can look them up? These people need to grow up, get over it and stop putting this poisen on the blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I received the following message by e-mail from Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman apparently last night. It is set forth here in its entirety:

    Roger,

    I find you gutless. You have attacked me every time I turn around since I became president of IRTL. BTW, I noticed you didn't show up at the last board meeting to take your points with the full board. You have been a divider since the very beginning of this organization and, in fact, you were behind the division of Iowans for Life. Not to mention the division in NRLC.

    I suppose you have some unknown problem that causes you to cast stones at me every chance you get. And please spare me your lengthy book, I won't read it anyway. I have sat back while you've attacked me over and over again. You probably haven't the wisdom to notice that I haven't repaid you.

    You are your own undoing.

    Kim

    To Krusty Readers:

    The truth is I suppose I can be an SOB on occasion and Kim can be a responsible activist, even leader. However Kim's actions regarding MMM is not an example of the latter. Others can judge whether I am a divider or a junk yard dog (a lazy one at that given my barks have only come when somebody tears down the fence). But Kim knows well I have hardly been silent on the matter as I warned the board prior to her fiasco.

    For the record, I communicated to the Board of IRLC when I resigned as a member of its Executive Committee in late September over what I argued was a gross failure to insist on common protocols and guard against a conflict of interest from the right-to life perspective as regards Kim's assumption of the RNC position. We do support Democrats on occasion.

    Regrettably it did not take Kim more than a matter of days to pretty much validate my concerns.
    However I did not anticipate it would be as a result of denigrating a Republican candidate with as good a position as our favored presidential candidate.

    I decide to forgo the one board meeting since then on a recommendation to let the matter simmer. Boards do not like being chastised and they would have the comfort of discussing the matter without a lightning rod present. I had nothing else to say other than maybe a chortle and an I told you so, but that would be the SOB coming out.

    As Kim suggests this was not our first rodeo. Not even a year ago Kim announced her endorsement of one presidential candidate out of a field of several strong pro-life candidates. It made the news because and only because Kim was ED of our organization. I objected strenuously. She did it entirely without consultation as was the case with MMM I am told. She used the "two hats" ploy then. The board found it necessary to announce our neutrality as regards the pro-life candidates.

    The other references are particularly ignorant, but I will let them pass given the emotion of the moment.

    Now if Kim would see to the removal of the offending material from the organization's web site, still there as I write this, material inappropriate from an objective right to life perspective, and maybe highlight for readers just a little something about Loebsack.

    Roger Mall

    ReplyDelete
  45. I wouldn't worry about it Roger. Not once did she actually put forth an argument attempting to justify her actions. She only attacked.

    I've never even met Kim, but everything I've ever seen that's come from her looks like it was written by a Clinton or Obama lackey. The only thing she seems to know is attack, spin, dodge, deny, and frame.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Roger..."SOB on occasion?"

    From what I have read on posts here... you understate your opinion of yourself.

    You don't throw stones- yours are boulders!

    Not everyone buys into your "thoughtful comments". Some of us have the ability to see the big picture.

    Roger- you seem more than happy to add to this ugly time. Have you thought about what you could do to help our party instead of continuing to keep things stirred up?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Roger is the best.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Some little known facts about Kim Lehman:

    She has run IRLC into the ground fund-raisers bring in approximately 80-100 people. (when she started they were as big as 1000 people)

    She is a political novice. She knows nothing about how to win an election or a campaign.

    When asked by John McCain about her views and her opinions and if she would meet .. She stood him up!
    (Direct Violation of RNC rules)

    She has tore down good hard working people in the pro-life movement and Iowans for Life and IRLC could re-unite if she left.

    She has put only close family members into power at IRLC...How do you say conflict of interest???

    Should I go further???

    This is the kind of person that we should have on our SSC huh....HMMMM..

    I guess we will have to wait just a few more years till we learn our lesson of electing "leaders" with this kind of credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eastern Iowa ConservativeDecember 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM

    ANon 12:29.

    Sounds like to me that Mr. Mall has provided a voice of clarity during this turbulent time.

    I also find Ms. Lehman's email that she sent to Mr. Mall repugnant.

    Mr. Mall brought forth some legitimate concerns about the ability of Ms. Lehman to "wear both hats"..when IRTL has on occasion, endorsed pro-life Democrats.

    It appears increasingly clear that Ms. Lehman has continously put her own interests ahead of the interests of not only RPI..but of IRTL.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Roger- you seem more than happy to add to this ugly time."

    it seems to me from his post, he made his point of view known to his internal "sphere of influence" by resigning his board membership in September.

    Like some of us, we feel that we were forced to go public because of the lack of response or activities of Kim and the SCC.

    Yes, it is ugly, but who's trying to clean it up?

    We feel like we are.

    I'm prepared to move on, but my sense is from Kim's email that she is not.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Chicago Politics - Khange we Kan belive inDecember 9, 2008 at 3:02 PM

    Roger -

    You da man!!

    If it takes throwing boulders to get this party "kleaned" up, so be it!

    Contrary to Kim and her one anon supporter, I found your komments very detailed and constructive.

    Kim's reply was a classic non-denial, denial.

    If the fundraising information is true (1000 people) now 80-100 her record speaks for itself. At some point, numbers don't lie. Your either effective or your not.

    It's clear that the 8-7 censure vote has not brought klosure - and I'm afraid until Kim does the honorable thing and resign, she will continue to be a MAJOR distraction, thus preventing our party from coming together and moving forward.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Russ from WintersetDecember 9, 2008 at 5:48 PM

    So I'm listening to WHO this afternoon, and what do I hear but STEVE DEACE castigating Kim Lehman's detractors for violating Reagan's 11th Commandment (thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican)?

    What. The. Heck? Steve Deace calling for Republican Party loyalty is a little like Congressman "Duke" Cunningham calling Illinois Governor Rod Blawhassisname a corrupt grifter. It's like Coach Rick Neuheisel calling Coach Lou Holtz a cheating SOB. It's like Ted Bundy telling Jeffrey Dahmer "Dude, kill all the people you want, but don't eat them. That's just sick."

    Steve has been MORE than willing to see the entire party burn to the ground if his candidate of choice is not the selected nominee. Deviate as little as 10% from his perfect platform ideals, and you're "just as bad as Obama or Hillary." Now that the Republican being hammered is an idealogical soulmate of his, he wants everyone to form a circle and sing Kumbayah? Not bloody likely.

    Yeah, I've had personal run-ins with Steve. I've also worked for him writing free content for his former Iowa State sports website, and he once even offered me a job working for him on salary. I turned it down, then he banned me from the site & threw a hissy fit in public because I insisted on telling him publicly that his confrontational style was killing his business. Funny how that works: If you keep telling people "Eff you. I'm the boss here, and if you don't like it, there's the door." eventually, unless your product is world class, you're going to be a FORMER businessman.

    The worst part about calling him out for being wrong in this case is that I AGREE with the vast majority of what he stands for. The one place where we part company is the way he treats people who disagree with him even slightly.

    Kim Lehman agreed to promote Republican candidates when she took a position with the Republican Party of Iowa. When she failed at this duty, she should have bowed out with grace instead of casting all her opponents as "RINOs". I would respect the hell out of her if she had resigned her party post to concentrate on her IRL activities, but by attempting to have it both ways she's hurting both the pro-life cause AND the Republican Party of Iowa.

    Jan Mickelson at WHO is a huge pro-lifer who's not the least bit shy about calling out abortion fans on his show; however, when Dr. Miller-Meeks appeared on his show before the election, he was absolutely complimentary towards her. If she WERE a pro-choice advocate, wouldn't you expect a non-partisan conservative pro-lifer who makes his living calling it like he sees it to at least bring that up in the conversation? Maybe he treated her well because he didn't have a vested interest in seeing one of her primary opponents win the nomination?

    I'm sorry, but if Steve Deace is given the role of Kingmaker in the Republican Party of Iowa, by 2012 we'll be lucky to have two mayors & a county supervisor with an (R) behind their name left in the 5th District, much less the more Democratic remainder of the State. He can be a useful weapon for the Conservative Agenda, but PLEASE don't let him drive the bus.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 12:29
    Thanks for your comments. You refer to “the big picture.” Well I agree that is what is important. I believe in moving the conservative agenda forward. I believe what I have posted is consistent with that. I will presume that you agree unless you believe opposing a far superior Republican candidate compared to a Democrat socialist is appropriate for a Republican National Committeewoman and helps move conservatism forward. If you think that and did not vote for John McCain, then you are consistent.

    Besides being way out of bounds as regards to both organizations involved the Republican National Committeewoman failed to even attempt to make up for the problem she created or add balance to the matter. Given that the offending material has never been taken down and no comparative or balancing or exculpatory information was ever posted in the period prior to the election, just mentioning Loebsack would have helped, well the word obstinate comes to mind. Such behavior should not be rewarded with something ineffectual. And by the way the material is still posted unchanged.

    As regards 2:20 I must disagree and demur on points. I do not maintain here that Kim Lehman is incompetent, only incontinent in this and similar matters.

    Roger Mall

    ReplyDelete
  54. This "Anonymous" woman (and we know it is a woman) who keeps fawning over the Roger Mall comments is either:
    1) his wife
    2) someone who wants Kim Lehman's job -- as head of IRLC

    ReplyDelete
  55. She is a political novice. She knows nothing about how to win an election or a campaign.

    If the person who wrote this about Kim Lehman thinks this is true, I would ask her, why Kim Lehman won the election by a landslide as National Committeewoman and you are still just a volunteer?

    ReplyDelete
  56. The people in the know who have won elections think that Kim Lehman is inept.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "People in the Know" haven't been doing so well in Iowa. That's why we have Governor Culver. Next time they have the Iowa Straw Poll, get your fat ass out of the refreshments tent and meet the people of Iowa.

    ReplyDelete
  58. people in the know have won election in IA this year!

    ReplyDelete