Last Friday’s Lincoln Dinner was not without controversy as it turns out. Strangely the controversy arose from the manner in which the John McDonald Volunteer Award was provided to Phyllis Kelly.
Normally, the McDonald “Award” is given to a person that the State Central Committee determines to be worthy of historic recognition for their volunteer service to the Republican cause in Iowa. Typically, a nomination came out of the Organization Committee that TRS chaired from 2003-2008, and the entire Committee either formally or informally then endorsed the nomination.
Occasionally various people on and off the Committee suggested names or lobbied for individuals, but in the end the recipient was always the product of a majority vote or openly stated consensus of the entire committee. TRS has confirmed in the last two days that no such vote was taken by even the Organization Committee, much less the SCC acting in its plenary capacity, to provide the McDonald Volunteer Award to Phyllis Kelly. We have been unable to learn how the decision to give Phyllis the award was made.
If true, it means that RPI’s most prestigious award was given to someone without approval of the very people whose approval makes the award meaningful.
Most surprisingly, as a sitting Central Committee member, the 2008 recipient accepted the award with knowledge of the manner by which the honor was obtained.
Normally, the McDonald “Award” is given to a person that the State Central Committee determines to be worthy of historic recognition for their volunteer service to the Republican cause in Iowa. Typically, a nomination came out of the Organization Committee that TRS chaired from 2003-2008, and the entire Committee either formally or informally then endorsed the nomination.
Occasionally various people on and off the Committee suggested names or lobbied for individuals, but in the end the recipient was always the product of a majority vote or openly stated consensus of the entire committee. TRS has confirmed in the last two days that no such vote was taken by even the Organization Committee, much less the SCC acting in its plenary capacity, to provide the McDonald Volunteer Award to Phyllis Kelly. We have been unable to learn how the decision to give Phyllis the award was made.
If true, it means that RPI’s most prestigious award was given to someone without approval of the very people whose approval makes the award meaningful.
Most surprisingly, as a sitting Central Committee member, the 2008 recipient accepted the award with knowledge of the manner by which the honor was obtained.
13 comments:
Right on Ted. Even though you have missed the February '08 retreat and last weeekend's meeting, you, as usual, are right on.
No discussion!!
No vote!!
No award!!
Did Stew and Steve R decide on it? I do not care - right is right and wrong is wrong. This is wrong.
Phyllis needs to give it back until it has been done right. And Ted, maybe I will be too tired to hang around for the vote.
Deja Vu all over again. Phyllis was too tired to discuss the 2006 election shortcomings. I will do the same for this issue.
Big Killer
And you claim the Dems are corrupt???? We need to get this house in order.
And you wonder why people are leaving the Republican party in droves.
It had to be an inside deal because the committee would not have voted to give any award to Phyllis Kelly.
Who cares? Big f'in deal.
Sporer "Ted" Agnew:
Who was your choice to receive this award?
It matters because we have a party that's rotten to the core.
The wise ass above that says Killer should raise money-what do we pay Kearny (almost $100,000) Peterson, ($30+) and Iverson ($40+, and another $40-50 in expenses) for if it isn't to raise money? They raise enough to pay their salaries and give some payoff to their cronies, and that's it. It sure isn't to create a Republican message, create strategic or even annual election plans, competently run conventions or elect Republicans.
Its the broken window theory. RPI isn't going to fix its big problems until it fixes its little problems first. The Kelly thing is just an example of the incest that goes on in Des Moines and I for one am glad Sporer finally had the courage to start calling out some of it.
I heard Sporer speak at one of our county meetings late last year and he sounded great-had a plan and fired people up. Iverson was here a couple of weeks ago and he looks like a hick (which did fit in) and sounds like a clown with that phony laugh and the lines out of a 1992 campaign.
thank you, i do have quite a wise ass.
so you think there's enough money in the pot then huh? that the SCC doesn't need to get off their asses and start being proactive? i mean, cause going to county meetings across the districts, racking up huge ass mileage expenses is sure to win back seats in the Legislature, Governor, Pres, etc etc etc.
i agree that there are some fundamental problems w/ the party, but i think they don't get fixed until the SCC is made into something worthwhile.
So the person who thinks the SCC should find candidates is clearly saying Rants has to go. He sucks. He can't find candidates, he can't fund the ones that come forward and he can't create a message. He's the leader that led us into this vast republican wasteland where we go further and further into the minority.
How does he sleep at night.
You fault the SCC?
The SCC won't be anything and the party won't be fixed until we get rid of those that are in it only for their own personal power - Iverson and Kearny come to mind - and NOT for actually winning elections.
I recall the little keggar explaining how the best fundraiser was one where no one came - just checks in the mail.
We now have reaped what that theory sowed.
RPI had 500 people at their main dinner. IDP had 9000! They charged less and fired up their voters.
RPI takes their voters for granted and now they don't have any.
I used to give thousands to RPI and now I don't give anything. I used to go to every event and now I just throw the invitations away. Why? I got tired of a few folks controlling everything and everyone. Ideas weren't debated: it was either you are with us or against us. (Us being the ICA/ITR crowd). Republicans are boring, old, stale and it makes me tired. We need candidates we can believe in again: the fake piety and litmus tests are not working.
I don't even need to weigh in on this thread. The above posters did it for me.
5:26 i wasn't talking about legislative candidates, seems to me that they have a TON of people running and good candidates.
i was talking more about congressional/us senate. total crap candidates.
Post a Comment