2/07:
"I endorse [Cheryl] Williams for GOP Chair"2/22 (emphasis mine):
"[Gary] Jones is challenging Vice Chairwoman Cheryl Williams, who represents the more libertarian wing of the party.2/25 (emphasis mine):
Williams would seem to have her work cut out for her. Under Jones, who has served two non-consecutive terms, the state party has prospered. In 2008, when most of the country turned Democratic, Oklahoma gave two-thirds of its presidential vote to the Republican nominee, John McCain, and strengthened the GOP's hold on the Legislature and the state's congressional delegation."
"Here's hoping Williams wins. The wackier the better at the Grand Old Party."
"I am glad this organiztion [sic; referring to OCPAC] is growing and I believe pretty soon they will take out my friend Gary Jones as ORP Chair. Gary is a very competent and able person doing the job as the Repubs chair."I always find it interesting to see what the other party thinks of our internal affairs. It can give a good perspective on the issues. For example, if they hate the party chair, we're probably doing pretty good. If they want the chair to stay the same, it's probably a sign that change is needed.
They should hope that Gary wins - he's been terrible at fundraising and only got lucky in 2008 because Obama helped turn Republicans out to the polls like nothing before. Not only that, but lots of Democrats voted McCain too for the same reason.
ReplyDeleteGary has split the Party and continues to anger and alienate many.
Also from the same Democrat forum:
ReplyDelete"Wacky is right. One of my Republican friends told me Williams is a "bible thumper to the max" and close to Sally Kern. My friend tells me that it is Jones who is actually the more "libertarian" of the two."
I don't know where anyone got the idea that Cheryl is from the libertarian wing of the party.
Yeah she is a "Bible thumper to the max". She thumps it aside and forgets and ignores what is says like "thou shalt not bear false witness against that neighbour", "judge not that ye be not judged", and I could go on and on.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have no clue why they would get the idea that she's with the Libertarian wing of the party...I mean it's not like she goes to any of their meetings, or is friends with any of them, or speaks at any of their events, or does them favors, or that she's for the caucus system or anything like that.
I'm being totally sarcastic...because she has done all of those things.
Can you elaborate about bearing false witness?
ReplyDeleteAnd what on Earth does being for the caucus system have to do with the libertarian wing of the Party? Gary Jones has been quoted in the past as being for the caucus too. But I don't see the connection in any case.
Well I don't want to bring other people's names into the picture...but for example...telling people that the OK County's annual Lincoln Day Dinner Fundraiser didn't have a good turnout this year and thar she doesn't know what's wrong but that things need to change, when in reality it was the best turnout they have had in three years.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's just one.
True, but all of the libertarian wing is supportive of a caucus...
Well, I can't really speak to the Lincoln Day Dinner issue, except perhaps to say that maybe in her opinion the turnout has been bad for 3 years? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI can say, however, that I have personally caught Gary in half-truths and devious manipulations. For example the way he manipulated the rules committee last year.
That was not a manipulation. The Chairman of the Rules Committee was breaking rules to fit his agenda. That is why Gary had to step in and remove him. He has the complete authority as Chairman to do so. And believe me it was not something he wanted to do.
ReplyDeleteYou're telling me Rep. Jason Murphey was breaking rules? That is news to me. I don't know what rules he could have broken considering the committee had not even met yet!
ReplyDeleteWhen I confronted Gary about it, he told me plainly that the reason he played with the composition of the committee was because it had "too many Ron Paulers" on it. Well, it so happens that the number of "Paulers" (about 1/3rd) that were scheduled to be on the committee was actually slightly less than the number that had been recommended by and served at their respective counties. So the composition was fair and proportionate.
But hey, let's even give the guy this one. There's still the matter of how he then proceeded to railroad the committee so that the final rules made it impossible for any slate other than the Executive Committee slate to be nominated within the 3pm convention deadline - rendering the delegate election process moot. Which was the reason why the Liberty Values slate had to contest a portion of the proposed rules just to get a fair hearing. It made everyone mad, but they had no other choice if the convention was to adjourn on-time while allowing their slate to be heard. And that's exactly the way Gary wanted it. The crowd had been seeded with this mythical notion that the Paulers were going to try to drag the convention out so that business could not be concluded, which they claimed was what happened in Nevada. It was not what happened in Nevada, and it was not what they intended to do at our own convention. But that set the stage for wrath against the side that tried to get any other slate considered than the Executive Committe slate.
Very cunning of Gary, I'll admit. Wrong, but cunning.
Ok, so I'm just going to say this one little spill and then I'm done as I don't believe in getting into details and bringing up a bunch of people's names and stuff out in the open on a public blog.
ReplyDeleteAs for last year I don't know what all went on (the whole cunning plan that you speak of) as I was a newbie, but I think it's an overstretch to say that it made everyone mad. The fact of the matter is is that the Chairman has the authority according to the state party rules to put who he wants on the committees...and Gary isn't the only one whose done that, the Vice Chair has done it as well (kicked off and put on).
As for the "Paulies" not trying to drag out the convention well that's news to me. I mean how am I supposed to think differently when I heard them saying things like "there is no way ya'll are going to be out of here by 3:00" with a grin on their face? Apparently some "Paulies" weren't in the know.
That makes no sense at all. They didn't want it to go past 3pm, because that would meant he convention had to adjourn, which meant that the Executive Committee selects the delegates - which would be the same as not getting their slate heard.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you assumed they were "Paulies" when they were not? I, for one, was angry at all the time wasting that took place that day. Since our chairman had the poor sense to only book the room 'til 3pm, I was worried things were going to get dragged out, which is exactly what I thin Gary tried to do. Remember those 15-minute pauses between business where they were just standing around talking on-stage?
What possible benefit could the Paulers have had in such an outcome? They could only lose, and the powers-that-be could only benefit.
As for Nevada - which is what everyone claimed was trying to be replicated last year - what actually happened was that the Paul-supporters were winning their elections fair and square according to the rules, and when this was realized, the convention chair suddenly and without warning gaveled the convention to a close and immediately fled the building so nothing more could be done. If you watch the YouTube videos, you'll see the Paul-supporters were very angry about this (since you can't adjourn or recess without a vote) and wanted to continue business. The McCain folks, however, tried to force them out by turning off the lights and claiming that the hotel required them to vacate the room by a certain time. This was all false information. They went to hotel management and were told that they had the room the entire day.
And yet the Paul-supporters were blamed for the whole fiasco, and not only that, but their Oklahoma counterparts were accused of wanting to do it too!