Battleground Iowa broke a story that RPI Chairman Iverson proposed that RPI pay for the recount of the Eichhorn/Reed US Senate race. Battleground subsequently withdrew the story.
TRS learned today directly from Treasurer Krishna that Chairman Iverson did propose to have RPI pay for such a recount. Krishna advised us that he contacted the relevant party staff and contractors and instructed them to refrain from issuing such a check as it would not be signed. Only after learning of Krishna’s refusal to execute any check paying for an Eichhorn/ Reed or M3/Teahan recount was RPI's offer to pay for the recount withdrawn.
In our conversation, Treasurer Krishna said that he believed that the Party, including its officers, staff and money, cannot be involved in primaries. Krisha specifically indicated that payment for the recount would simply look like the “establishment forcing its candidate on the party”. TRS totally concurs.
Our state party has been far too often wrongly accused of involving itself in primaries based on nothing more than the tangential appearance of such involvement. For example, while several legislators, including then Majority Leader Iverson, supported Greg Ganske over Bill Salier back in ’02, as was their right, such support was attributed to RPI notwithstanding RPI’s neutrality in fact and deed in the ’02 primary.
It doesn’t take much to get a rumor started. It would be impossible to persuade the rank and file Republicans of RPI’s neutrality in primaries if the party actually paid for one candidate’s recount, however appropriate and deserving of such a recount any candidate might be.
Having urged the old SCC members into maintaining public neutrality during the Presidential primary, we here at TRS know the impulse to help one’s friends and the cost of not doing so when those friends are involved in a primary. Krisha’s brave action contributes to the longer term preservation of the party’s integrity and prevents the formation of conspiracy theories, which may or may not be supported by fact but that nonetheless create years of division and hardship.
What a difference a Treasurer makes.
TRS learned today directly from Treasurer Krishna that Chairman Iverson did propose to have RPI pay for such a recount. Krishna advised us that he contacted the relevant party staff and contractors and instructed them to refrain from issuing such a check as it would not be signed. Only after learning of Krishna’s refusal to execute any check paying for an Eichhorn/ Reed or M3/Teahan recount was RPI's offer to pay for the recount withdrawn.
In our conversation, Treasurer Krishna said that he believed that the Party, including its officers, staff and money, cannot be involved in primaries. Krisha specifically indicated that payment for the recount would simply look like the “establishment forcing its candidate on the party”. TRS totally concurs.
Our state party has been far too often wrongly accused of involving itself in primaries based on nothing more than the tangential appearance of such involvement. For example, while several legislators, including then Majority Leader Iverson, supported Greg Ganske over Bill Salier back in ’02, as was their right, such support was attributed to RPI notwithstanding RPI’s neutrality in fact and deed in the ’02 primary.
It doesn’t take much to get a rumor started. It would be impossible to persuade the rank and file Republicans of RPI’s neutrality in primaries if the party actually paid for one candidate’s recount, however appropriate and deserving of such a recount any candidate might be.
Having urged the old SCC members into maintaining public neutrality during the Presidential primary, we here at TRS know the impulse to help one’s friends and the cost of not doing so when those friends are involved in a primary. Krisha’s brave action contributes to the longer term preservation of the party’s integrity and prevents the formation of conspiracy theories, which may or may not be supported by fact but that nonetheless create years of division and hardship.
What a difference a Treasurer makes.
38 comments:
Krishna's comments:
I will always enforce the wishes of the rank and file as expressed by the following paragraph in the state platform:
"14.11 We reaffirm that the Republican Party of Iowa and its officers should remain neutral in all contested primaries."
I want to take this occasion to thank all the Party activists for supporting me and helping me to serve as the treasurer of the Party.
Hey Sporer - maybe you should look up Code before posting this lying snake Gopal's comments.
This is just like 1999 when Gopal tried to trash and tear down the party before being run out of town. Now he's trying to do it again.
Gee, what a huge surprise.
Here is the Code:
43.65: A bond is not necessary for a primary election recount under these circumstances if the difference between the number of votes needed to be nominated and the number of votes received by the candidate requesting the recount is less than fifty votes or one percent of the total number of votes cast for the nomination in question, whichever is greater.
Ted - I don't get it. If there is nothing to pay for, how can Gopal "block" anything? Please enlighten.
One more reason the RPI will never see another dime from me.
You guys miss the point. I think Sporer's point was that the offer was made, whether necessary or not.
It took you guys 24 hours to come up with that cover story?
The answer to the question is Iverson just didn't no the rules.
That answer begs the larger question, why would Iverson think the state party should be involved in a primary recount?
bingo 5:43
The mere fact that Iverson wants to be involved in any way should trigger the alarms.
I thought Ray was worthless, but Stew is just Stewpid and doesn't have the best interest of the the party at hand, he only care about himself.
The ironic part of all this is the ICA is to be thanked for electing Stewpid. They bought into his stupid fu@king laugh and said "save us, save us." No there is an all out war between ICA and Iverson and Co which will be on display at the state conventions.
While it makes good blog fodder, its terrible for the Republican Party and our candidates.
Hang hang on kids..
1. Any major expenditure like that would had have been approved by the SCC... Stu can't just order by fiat that RPI pay for the recount.
Stu "proposing" and "ordering" are two VERY different things here. For all we know, Stu was planning on taking a proposal such as this before the SCC.
If the SCC approved the proposal, Gopal would have had no authority to stop any check from being issued.
Gopal also has no authority to reject a proposal before its been voted upon by the SCC.
2. Let's consider something else here.. Gopal and Scheffler are already on the hot seat right now because they got caught trying to change how the State Convention was going to be organized and run.
A letter was submitted to the SCC last weekend from members of the State Permanent Organization committee calling Gopal out for making wholesale changes in the convention agenda and planning that were not approved by the State Permanent Organization committee. Word has it that Scheffler/Gopal were pretty steamed after they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past Gopal/Scheffler to put out reports like this in order to
deflect attention away from these charges.
As has been stated earlier..ICA in effect now controls the RPI. Stu and Caleb basically are in between a rock and a hard place. When ICA says to jump..they better jump...
Plus..as stated before..any major expenditure of this nature would had to have been FIRST approved by the SCC.
Besides that..if Gopal/Scheffler were really serious about "maintaning neutrality" (Platform Section 14.11) in primary races, perhaps someone should have told Scheffler that he should have kept his mouth shut about the primary races that he commented on Deace in the Afternoon a couple of weeks back.
Instead, he chose to attempt to tell people which candidates were "ICA approved"--ie, Scheffler approved candidates.
Its time that our grassroots leaders--our GOP county chairs and co-chairs send a very clear message to RPI and the State Central Committee that if they don't start getting their act together..that changes will be demanded.
We elect these people to serve on the SCC to represent ALL GOP voters in their districts. We don't elect these people to use the GOP to advance their special interest causes.
8:36
Don't make Stew out to be a victim. He knew what he was getting into.
GET IN MY BELLY!
GET IN MY BELLY CHRIS REED
I didnt say Stew was a victim..what I am saying is that if Stew wants to take a proposal for approval to the SCC..that's his perogative as State Chair.
Gopal has no authority to make decisions on the behalf of the SCC.
Gopal had no authority to contact anyone and instruct them to do squart. As Treasurer, Gopal acts at the behest of the SCC.
What again this boils down to is who really controls RPI... Is it the ICA..or the SCC representing the grassroots leaders at the local level they're elected to represent.
Scheffler/Gopal are in my mind, using RPI to advance the special interests of ICA...and they put those above the GOP activists at the grassroots level.
Why do we even consider nanny state "conservatives" like the ICA (and Bush, Huckatard etc.) to be conservative at all? They may be pro life but everything else they advocate is nanny-state socialism.
November is going to be a bloodbath. No true conservatives are excited about McCain and there isn't anyone else to get excited about. How soon until ICA starts trying to stir up the gay marriage pot in a desperate attempt to motivate the vote?
So Scheffler goes on Deace's show and mentions the ICA approved candidates? WTF is up with that?
These folks are nothing but nanny state moral busybodies. If you really listen to Scheffler's rhetoric, it is not that ICA is opposed to the government seizing money at gunpoint, so long as the expenditure fits within their moral framework.
The only difference between ICA and the RATS is that the RATS seize money at gunpoint for the "common good" and the ICA would seize money at gunpoint to fund some program to soothe their conscience. Either way, money is being seized from your wallet at the point of a gun.
Why are they even considered conservative and....
DOES STEVE SCHEFFLER HAVE A REAL JOB?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”
—C.S. Lewis
Like he told the SCC about firing Laudner and Robinson?
I think we need to take the election of the State central committee out of district hands and change it to the state convention.
This is complete BS! We have almost no chance of winning and we are fighting amongst ourselves!
Im staying home and getting nomination papers for Sporer on November 3rd!
I dont care for what! The guy makes more sense than any Candidate out there now!
We deserve to get it handed to us in the fall! And that is exactly what is going to happen
I would love to see Sporer run. It would give you a true representation of what the average Iowan thinks of the Republican Party (think upper 20-30% vote total).
How is that voting for the most "electable" Republican thing working out for you?
If you want to see the Party resurrect, dump McCain and get an actual Republican at the top of the ticket.
DOES STEVE SCHEFFLER HAVE A REAL JOB?
Vlad, I'm sure you'll enjoy the Obama administration.
The only explaination for Vlad is that he is a liberal. He Has a pure hatred for McCain that can only be explained by not being a republican and w philosphy of a democrat.
I have never seen Gopal and Sporer at the same place at the same time. I think if you took off Gopal's rag top, you would find Sporer.
9:48 and 10:26:
Are all these people liberals as well?
http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400
The only explaination for Vlad is that he is a liberal. He Has a pure hatred for McCain that can only be explained by not being a republican and w philosphy of a democrat.
Who has the philosophy of a DemocRAT?
“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]
“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]
“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [John McCain NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]
So, now that those "Bush tax cuts" are in place "repealing them" or allowing them to expire is, as Johnny Mac says, a tax increae.
McCain's logic is dedcutively perfect.
So libs, who are the "rich" and how much do you want to tax them?
The only thing that Vlad takes even greater pleasure in the downfall of the republicans than in democrats.
VLADamir Putin Supports Obama!! Down with the usa
No. I support Barr.
barr = Obama
If you say so.
Im looking at Barr too.
Barr is not planning on winning the only reason you would vote for Barr is as a protest, Yes Barr is further Right than McCain. (Notice I did not say conservative) However Barr is not a viable candidate for president since there is no chance he could win . He is only running as a spoiler. So if you would like to stop a McCain win you are then handing the presidentcy to Obama! If you choose to hand the country over to a Democrat Congress and Senate with a president Obama, then you are truely blind and misguded.
Name the issue Obama is as far away from McCain and Barr as there is possible.
Most people are upset with McCain because he hates farm subsidies (all Subsidies for that matter) Skipped Iowa in 2000 and was bitter with Bush after the 2000 Primary contest tactics.
People lets get over it! if you look (I mean LOOK) you will see a Reagan conservative ----If you dis agree, prove it!
The only reason Barr is not a "viable" candidate to you is because the two parties arrogantly assume that every vote belongs to one of them.
Most people are upset with McCain because he hates farm subsidies (all Subsidies for that matter) Skipped Iowa in 2000 and was bitter with Bush after the 2000 Primary contest tactics.
Nope. I am PISSED over shamnesy, McCain/Feingold, the Gang of 14, no drilling in ANWR, using Marxist class warfare rhetoric in opposing tax cuts, his global warming cultism and his obsessive need to close Gitmo.
Both Obambi and McCain would be unmitigated disasters for this country.
Barr is not viable if he was or stood any chance why did he leave the party and decide to run as a libertarian before trying to run as a republican.
Many people in the republican party like the ideal odf the libertarian party, but they are not feasible. When you understand the differences between Right wing and conservative and liberty and freedom, You become republican and not libertarian. I find Barr un realistic and uneducated in his ideals. He has grasped on to a party that fights some of the very things that he has fought to stop.
Just the opposite, once people see what the two parties have done to this country, they start looking at the libertarians. The fact is that the Republicans spent 40 years in the wilderness yelling that they would be better than the DemocRATS and when they finally got into power, they pissed it right down their leg.
The last straw for me was John McCain. If a major party can nominate that guy, it's over. The only thing that could get me to vote for McCain is if he chooses Mark Sanford as his running mate. Then I would vote for McCain and hope for a debilitating stroke the day after inauguration.
Vlad this arguement has been made for the last 150 years in this country and if you still believe it to be true, you are truly dumb enough to vote for Barr.
My definition of dumb is to keep mindlessly pulling the "R" lever year after year. Especially in a year where the two candidates are virtually indistinguishable and both would be complete disasters for the country.
Post a Comment