County Convention Open Thread

UPDATE: Here are Cobb County proposed resolutions.  Meh – I don’t like all of them as worded, but you likely don’t either.  We’ll just each have to give a little.

Is everyone on their way to County Conventions today??  I’m here and ready to greet you.  The wifi is strong, young Skywalker – YES.  The code to the public wifi is “rsbcrsbc”.

Cobb’s convention might get exciting today.  We had a last minute person drop out of the Chairman race (Darryl Wilson) and a last minute addition to the race (Oleg Ivutin).  He sent this video to all of the delegates Thursday night.

Keep us posted on what’s going on at your conventions too.


  1. My morning’s been entertaining. As greeter, I was stationed just prior to the registration table, so I got to see just about everyone as they walked in the door. Some responses were “Oh, HI!” others were “Ohhh, hi.” Ehh, you can’t please everyone.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      The first Cobb Reso is right on until the end. Yes, we’re in a helluva mess. We need to stop runaway spending and find eligibility thresholds on entitlements that the Country can afford. But it closes by saying absolutely no revenue increases are allowed. None. To get out of the hole the resolution describes, you can’t do it with cuts alone. Something has to give.

  2. Josh McKoon says:

    Muscogee County GOP just passed a resolution calling on the Senate to reject HB 142 (the ethics bill) and replace it with real ethics reform.

        • Bob Loblaw says:

          Karl Rove spend tens of millions of other folks’ money during the fall campaign trying to motivate the grassroots that he & Ralph identified that we needed to beat Obama. He is “The Architect”. He managed one of the best grassroots campaign to re-elect Bush that drove out rural voters in droves. I know that he’s said that whackjob candidates that aren’t electable shouldn’t be nominated, but that is kinda important. When the leadership of legislative bodies want to win a district from the other side, they generally recruit a candidate. They find someone in the district that can win and do the job. That is all Rove is doing. “Slap in the face” is strong. He’s earned his stripes. If it was 2003 and you heard that Rove was speaking you’d be giddy.

  3. Well that’s new – the microphones are auto-programmed to shut off at the 1 minute mark. If you’ve got something to say, I suggest you’re concise and articulate.

  4. debbie0040 says:

    @Bridget, will Karl Rove be speaking at Dinner Friday night or at the convention Saturday?

    • I wrote them in order, so I think Allen West is speaking at dinner and Rove is speaking at convention. It is should be confirmed with the GAGOP office though if to be redistributed as fact.

        • Dave Bearse says:

          Better yet, dump Rove and bring in head honcho Rush Limbaugh and have him wow the crowd with his rendition of Barack the Magic Negro.

  5. John Konop says:

    Did not go, but heard real fireworks in Cherokee County between the Ron Paul group and the old guard. Strang allies in this deal from what I hear…….Rumor has it Aka Robert Trimm, in the middle of this as a reinvented Ron Paul guy……not sure just heard through the grapevine…..

    • Vicki says:

      Ron Paul isn’t running for anything, and isn’t even in Congress any more. It’s like hearing stuff about “Pat Robertson people”, when the movement he began simply doesn’t bear his name any more. Can we please move past the past, and embrace the future?

  6. Jackster says:

    I’ve never been to one of these – can you usually tell who might be a potential primary opponent ? or are potential candidates for offices not usually discussed?

    • GeorgeDienhart says:

      Wasn’t so much a coup as it was the majority throwing out long ineffectual leadership. Congrats to our new Chairman, Scott Fabrcious, and thanks to David Studdard for chairing the meeting. Mostly, thanks to the citizens of Fayette County for standing up and returning control of the GOP to those it should have been serving for all these years.

      • debbie0040 says:

        George you guys did great. You should be very proud. You removed people from power that had been in control for years. I talked to Bob, and Claudia and they are really happy.

        You guys even controled the delegates lists. Loved what happened there…

      • Vicki says:

        Congrats on having the smarts to team up with the Liberty crowd to form a majority against the RINO establishment. Let’s hope those smarts extend further out.

        • Bob Loblaw says:


          Look at these above comments of yours where you applaud members of organizations outside the Republican Party for, in Debbie’s words, looking forward to “contentious” meetings where you oust, as you put it, the “RINO establishment”. So as your calling me out for attacking Republicans, you’re mouth is full of attacks against Republicans. Not only that, but you are celebrating other organizations’ “coup” of the Republican Party in Fayette.

          When folks start looking forward to creating a “contentious” environment in local Republican organizations in order to form a “coup” against those they claim are only Republicans “in name only,” only to call me out for “attacking Republicans,” then that’s where my comments like those to Nathan originate. You can call them attacks, but in reality, the RINOs are these fringe groups that are into “coups,” look forward to causing “contentious” meetings and as Debbie points out, seek “control”.

          • debbie0040 says:

            “Not only that, but you are celebrating other organizations’ “coup” of the Republican Party in Fayette.”

            Bob, I have a habit of not responding to you because you are a coward that hides behind a monicker. You crawl out of your hole, attack tea party activists or conservatives and then crawl back in your hole all safe and sound. You don’t have guts enough to make your attacks using your real name.

            The statement you made above is so ridiculous it merits a response.

            There was no outside group that took over in Fayette. Most on the winning side were part of the GOP. They had volunteered with campaigns and yes even spent their time volunteering for Romney when it was clear he was the GOP nominee. They were sick of the GOP being stagnant in Fayette and not growing. They were sick of the elitist attitude of those in charge that had controlled the Fayette GOP for over 30 years. They worked and formed alliances with others that felt the same because they were tired of being shut out as you call it..

            I have been involved with GOP politics since 1976 so as far as I am concerned, YOU are the newcomer. The Georgia GOP has always had tea party elements . We are the ones that booed Sen. Chambliss off stage before the tea party even started.

            In your, mind it is clear that anyone not part of the RINO establishment is an outside group and you resent when they no longer control the local party. In your mind, you believe that GOP elected officials should not be questioned by other Republicans nor should they be criticized. If a Republican dares question elected officials, then they are not being good Republicans. You are an elitist that believes that party belongs to the powerful and not the grassroots.

            I have a news flash for you. The party belongs to the grassroots that volunteer time working to elect conservatives, man phone banks, go door-to-door, put out signs, etc. It is our party and we will speak up when elected officials tarnish the GOP brand. Get used to it..

            • Bob Loblaw says:

              I’m glad that you’re so proud of booing your U.S. Senator as if that’s some watershed accomplishment. From what I recall, immigration issues led to the booing. Funny, the way it is, that your boy Marco Rubio is about to team with McCain and Obama to pass the same bill that you booed Sen. Chambliss for. Just more doubletalk, I know…

              Will you be booing those that vote for this bill, too?

            • Bob Loblaw says:

              Alrighty then. Here’s maybe the first splinter between the Liberty Group & The TEA Party: Immigration.

              Too bad there can’t be a trade from Rove to Rubio. Rove’s a given for a boo.

              • Vicki says:

                I think you’ll see a splinter within the Tea Party movement, and within the Liberty movement, regarding immigration. It won’t be a direct splinter between the two movements.

                  • Bob Loblaw says:

                    This isn’t clear? *smh*

                    PLEASE get Rubio to Athens! I want to see Vicki boo him and watch Debbie get mad. Splinters abound!!

                  • Vicki says:

                    John, what’s really funny is that you probably DO think I said that.

                    Remind me to challenge your testimony if you’re ever a witness in a car accident case.

                    • Bob Loblaw says:


                      You said you’d boo whomever brought the pro-immigration reform message to the State Convention in an entry, above at 2:00pm on March 10. Then you touted the constitutional protections afforded to your booing, below, 4 minutes later.

  7. debbie0040 says:

    Speakers at Gwinnett one after another praising Sen Rand Paul
    And his filibuster. Jason Thompson gave a speech that received standing ovation
    And fired up the crowd

  8. PeachPundit contributor Nathan Smith was voted out as chair of the Walker County Republican Party. He was elected Second Vice Chair instead. Large turnout for this event, might actually make a few changes up here, for once.

    — LU

    • Charlie says:

      In all of my observations of Nathan and his public actions, and in all of my dealings with him personally, he has always stood as someone who first wanted to be fair to all, and wanted all of his actions to be for the good of the party ahead of himself and any other individual or faction. He’s represented Walker County’s GOP with honor, and the party would be better off if there were more like him in leadership positions.

        • Nathan says:

          Thank you, Charlie, Napoleon, and Buzz for the kind words. It was the will of the convention, and I’ve accepted that. I have no hard feelings against our newly-elected chairman Glenn Roberts. I’m disappointed, but I’m not finished with our Republican Party. I look forward to see what opportunities there will be in the future to allow me to be of service to our Party.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Nathan has been the role model of a chairman. There have been changes in walker couny. We now have republicans in every elected office but one. I wish Glenn the best in his new role ss chairman.

            Congratulations to all elected and thank you to everyone who offered themselves for service.

          • Bob Loblaw says:

            Nathan, you’re better off without that gig, brother.

            Y’all wonder why more folks don’t want to get involved in helping Republicans.

            • Vicki says:

              Do you do anything besides criticize Republicans, Bob? Is this, like, your day job or something?

    • This is from someone at today’s meeting. Their words, not mine:

      “We were able to unseat the current Chairman Nathan Smith of the Walker Gop today who was nothing more than a puppet for the Grammers and others. He along with the Grammers were some of the main players who begged Steve Wilson, Carolyn Walker and Bruce Coker [all die-hard local Democrats until last year] to switch over to the GOP. Getting Nathan Smith out of that position is a good start. The new Chairman, Glen Roberts will not cater to the current incumbents like Nathan Smith and the Grammers did. Things are looking up after today. ”

      I understand a total of 67 delegates attended, out of a possible 326. Not great participation but more than usual.

      — LU

      • Doug Grammer says:

        One anonymous source quoting another anonymous source. Reeks of credibility. I expect Chairman Roberts to deal with officeholders in a primary with the same impartility as Chairman Smith did. Personally, I catered to one incumbent so much I ran against her. 67 was a respectable turnout. If you had ever attended a walker gop convention, which I suspect you haven’t, you would know that.

      • Ridgerunner says:

        Another anonymous source spewing excrement from another anonymous source–how informative and enlightening. It’s easy to hide under cover and make false accusations intended to cause doubt and anger among the uninformed. The person who made this statement to the La Fayette Underground , if it was indeed said at all (see how easy it is to infer and cause doubt?) either does not know what is going on, or is simply a bald faced liar. If this is not the case, let them come forth and prove their accusations. An innocent and decent man has had his character dragged through the mud in order to further the cause a few in their attempt to control Walker County politics. Many of us in the South are former democrats, and I for one am insulted by the statement. In addition, how can the party grow, if new members are rejected. No doubt some of this may stem from a disgruntled Primary loser (or a group of them, perhaps?). A very good party chairman lost his seat today, and just before the vote, a statement was made, aimed to cause doubt in the voters. Nathan was blindsided. This is below the belt politics and Walker County’s Republican party will suffer for it.

          • John Konop says:

            I have been very critical about Doug on this blog about politics…….yet disagreeing with someone does not mean you cannot be friends…….our country was based on a repersentives model to promote the respect of minority views…….the greatness of America is the fact we can function as a county when one side wins……..

            Your comment about Nathan is the type of zealot thinking that promotes the worse in people, and pushes us toward how places like Africa, Middle East……function after election.

            In my county your group booed and even voting against elected officials they did not like speaking. At times I may not agree with Doug Grammer, but unlike you and some of your supporters I would fight for his right to be heard.

            Your comments about Nathan demonstrate your lack on knowlege of what country is all about!

            • Vicki says:

              “Your group”? What the heck are you even talking about, John? “My group” is the Republican Party. “My group” is supporters of conservative principles. “My group” is believers in Constitutional fealty. “My group” is lovers of America. I don’t have some leader to worship, nor some attitude of “my party, right or wrong”. And I sure as heck don’t have any “supporters”, so the person having a “lack of knowledge” is quite apparent…

              • John Konop says:

                I have made very pointed comments on policy that I did not agree with on all sides…..if you are a believer of the constitution, than you would support promoting people to express their views, agree or not….majority or minority view…….you would speak out against people who boo office holders, vote against office holders speaking at the convention…….if you disagree with them, you should express your opinion…….but silencing them flies in the face of what our country is all about historically…….

                Just because you think you are right, does not mean you love America, and people you disagree with do not. ………your tone of your comments… what we hear from your group…..not saying other groups did not act the same way at times….but 2 wrongs…….

                • Vicki says:

                  Booing is Constitutionally protected. 😀

                  And again, WHO IS “MY” GROUP that you keep referring to, John? Republicans? Constitutionalists? Conservatives? I don’t have a group of my own. But apparently, you think I have supporters… LOL

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Vicki, it is said that you aren’t making someone mad in politics, you aren’t doing something right. I’m glad to see that I am still effective in your opinion. I consider Nathan a friend and I am happy to have served with him. I think his future is still bright. Who knows, we might be able to talk to him about that one remaining school board seat.

            • Vicki says:

              Well, it’s wonderful that you’re so glad about making so many people mad in politics, Doug. Except the Party establishment, of course. They love you.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                There are lots of democrats who don’t like me. There are some absolutists who complain when they dont get 100% of what they want who don’t like me. What camp do you fall in?

                There are some in establishment who don’t love me, but I think I’m on good terms with most who have worked for a long time to build our party.

                • Vicki says:

                  Oh, I don’t dislike you. I’m sure you’re a nice guy. But I don’t support wannabe politicians who follow the “just support anyone with an R after his name, no matter what he believes or how he votes” philosophy. And that’s what I’ve gathered from your posts here over the last few years of just reading.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    I believe in the primary system and the best candidate should get the nomination. Once we, as a party, select our nominee, 9 times out of 10, that person has my vote. I think our nominee is going to match my values more than another parties nominee. I am fine with being defined in that context. I don’t take my ball and go home when I don’t get my way.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      No I don’t go home. I’ve never missed a vote in my life. I just don’t vote for people who are unacceptable to me. I just don’t keep complaining about it, unlike others…..ahem.

                    • Vicki says:

                      I don’t vote for people who are unacceptable to me. And I’m damn sure gonna complain about how they vote if they get elected and vote the wrong way — just like any good Republican should do. Ahem.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      We agree that we don’t vote for people who are unacceptable to us. One of us goes through life complaining about it, and the other one of us waits until time for an election to do something that matters about it.

                    • Vicki says:

                      If those are the only two options that each of us did, then I guess you should stop going through life complaining about it.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I see you’ve claimed to be a republican. Congratulations. How long have you been active and what have you done to improve the party?

                If you dont like me, you must have a good reason.

                • Vicki says:

                  Only been one a few decades, since I was old enough to vote. Donated, baked cakes and cookies, put out signs, made the coffee, went to every meeting, knocked on doors, made phone calls, drove people to polls. Nothing special, Doug. Not like you, I’m sure. I’m just a little pee-on, the kind who doesn’t get the recognition, and doesn’t want it.

                  And like I said above, I don’t dislike you. I’m sure you’re a nice guy. I vote on politics, not personalities.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    So we have both worked hard for the party for a long time, but I have put more miles on my car, spent more money, and stick my neck out to take a few on the chin f the cause. If you have been watching me for years, you know I support grassroots efforts and don’t consider any volunteer a peon.

                    I’m not active for name recognition. I’m trying to make my county and my party better. If I were out just to see my name printed, I would have stayed in the race for first vice chairman two years ago, instead of dropping out to support the person with the most grassroots experience, or I might be running for chairman.

                    So other than my belief in the primary system and I’ve taken on leadership roles, what are the politics you disagree with?

                    • Vicki says:

                      I’m pretty sure you haven’t put more miles on your car, spent more money, or stuck your neck out more than me. But unlike you, if an anti-Constitutional liberal squish wins the Republican primary, I ain’t gonna support him. He’s a RINO in the truest sense of the word, and I don’t support RINOs. You apparently DO. Therein lies our disagreement, Doug.

                    • maryg2g says:

                      @ Vicki
                      ” I’m pretty sure you haven’t put more miles on your car, spent more money, or stuck your neck out more than me. But unlike you, if an anti-Constitutional liberal squish wins the Republican primary, I ain’t gonna support him. He’s a RINO in the truest sense of the word, and I don’t support RINOs. You apparently DO. Therein lies our disagreement, Doug.”


                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Considering you aren’t posting with your full name, it seems I’m icking my neck out more than you right now. I’d love to compare resumes
                      . Have you ever been elected to a statewide gop office? I have, four times.. Have you ever held a congressional district office? How many county gop meetings have you gone to that wasn’t your home county?
                      Living in a corner of the state means lots of miles going anywhere but home.

                      It is kind of hard to accept that you are as devoted to the gop as myself or others when we don’t know who you are.

                      It is obvious that you don’t accept the will of the voters in a primary and you know better than everyone else. It must be nice to be as all knowing as you.

                    • Vicki says:

                      Doug, your reply exemplifies the elitist attitude in today’s GA GOP that we need to wash our Party clean of. Thanks for posting it.

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      Between the two of us, you know better than everyone else. I would say that makes you the elitist.

                      Your lack of willingness to state who you are shows just how far out you are willing to stick out your neck.

                    • Napoleon says:

                      To both Doug and Vicki –

                      It is the job of the people to decide who they want as their nominees. As a Party officer, your job is to support who the people choose in the primary. As a party activist, it is your job to convince people to nominate the best candidate. They are two different callings and two different jobs. If, despite all efforts by the activists, the squishy RINO moderate wins, well, that’t the will of the people.

                      The Republican Party exists for one real…to help the Republican candidate beat the Democrat (and other parties’) candidate.

                      As an volunteer, unpaid party leader, to sit there after the people, rightly or wrongly, made their choice, and say, “I am going to use my office to make sure that the choice of the people is not supported by his/her party.” Well, that’s elitist.

                      If you don’t want to be a party officer because you don’t think you can suck it up and grin and bear it when you have to stage behind a squishy moderate, then don’t be one. But realize if you are one, that is what you will have to do.

                      I have plastered my car with bumper stickers and filled my yard with signs for candidates I went into the polls and did not vote for, and in some cases, voted against.

                      But, if you are involved in Party leadership to game the system, then you’re the one in the wrong.

                      The idea that a party chair or vice-chair should be using their position to tell hundreds, if not thousands, of GOP primary voters that they were wrong is so far against the stated principles of the GOP that the only real RINO you see out there may be your reflection in the mirror. If that’s how you truly feel, well, rather than a position in the GOP, I know of a Banana Republic you might be more suited to run.

                    • Napoleon says:

                      Let me add when the squishy moderates do the same thing, it’s just as elitist, but that’s what we expect from the squishy moderates.

                    • Vicki says:

                      Nice way to avoid what we’re actually discussing, Doug.

                      I’m really glad you post on Peach Pundit. It will help whoever’s running against you… a LOT.

                    • Vicki says:

                      @Napoleon wrote: “The Republican Party exists for one real…to help the Republican candidate beat the Democrat (and other parties’) candidate.”

                      (I assume “real” is meant to be “reason”.)

                      THAT, in a nutshell, is what the current debate about the future of the GOP is all about.

                      There are many, many of us grassroots activists who insist that that is NOT the “one reason” that the Republican Party exists. If it were, we could just as easily transfer all of our funding away from GOTV efforts, and towards efforts to get every sitting politician to switch the letter after his name from (D) to (R). “Rest assured,” we can say, “you don’t have to change how you vote, or what you say, or your ideology — we just want you to switch parties. We’ll make sure that all of our money comes your way if you do so!”

                      The GOP is in serious trouble because way too many Republicans (and Doug has shown himself to be one many times on PP) are willing to support liberals getting elected, just because they have that coveted (R) after their names. It makes the term “Republican” mean *nothing* — which in the long run causes us to lose elections.

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      Has it occured to you that I’m posting on here for a reason? I belive in the primary system. If you want a GOP leader to get in the smoke filled backroom to pick your elected officials, I am not your guy. I think I’ve beaten this dead horse with you enough. Anyone who knows me will recognize that I don’t give in to absolutists who have to have it 100% thier way. I can build a compromise with reasonable people, but I’m sure you hate the word compromise.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      One more thing. I have never voted for a liberal. Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney weren’t perfect, but they were the best alternatives to President Obama in November.

                    • Vicki says:

                      A big part of the problem is that politicians of all stripes have gotten entirely too comfortable expecting their party to run political cover for them when they betray the principles of the people who put them in office in the first place. If the only purpose of a political party is to elect its own members to office, regardless of what they do when they get there, then why bother having a platform at all? Why not just have a document that says, “We, the People of the Georgia Republican Party, believe in electing Republicans to office at all levels. The End.” Perhaps some of you “elitists” would LOVE that.

                      And Doug, if you voted for liberals, even if they were “better than the alternative,” then you voted for liberals. Period.

                  • Doug Grammer says:


                    Your liberal might be my moderate, and yes, I have voted for a moderate over a liberal. I am assuming that you consider Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney liberals.

                    When people we elect don’t stay true to the platform, we have that discussion in the following primary. I don’t beat them up so bad that they can’t get elected in November if no one is running against them in the primary. If they still believe in 80% of the platform, I’d rather have that than someone who will only vote 20% of the way I like. I’m a pragmatist and you are a purist. I’m more likely to be OK with life and elections than you are.

  9. JeffHaffley says:

    Coweta held a straw poll for Senate and Paul Broun won overwhelming (67%) with Gingrey (20%), Handel (6%), and Kingston (2%) far behind. State Senator Mike Crane also received support in the straw poll

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      Let Broun visit the Coweta GOP and give a speech with the local paper there. Do the poll four or five days later.

  10. debbie0040 says:

    Tea party / Campaign For Liberty coalition swept all
    seats in Fayette. Congrats to them for a job well done
    A new day in Fayette.

  11. JeffHaffley says:

    Coweta passed a resolution calling for the State GOP to switch from a primary system to a caucus/convention system (like Iowa/Virgina/Utah). Sounds like a great way to build more interest in grassroots politics. If we are going to get people involved at the grassroots level we must make our party more grassroots friendly. The caucus system will do wonders for the grassroots (just look at Iowa).

    • Tiberius says:

      Brilliant! In a time when the public is demanding greater access, accountability and involvement in the political process, they push for a process that will diminish voter turnout. Genius!!

      • JeffHaffley says:

        Remember that a primary is merely an expression of the wishes of the voters (3%-10% of the population) who show up and vote. A caucus is also an expression of the wishes of those informed voters who show up and participate. So I fail to see how a caucus system (which in Iowa is considered a model of citizen activism) limits access or accountability.

        • Tiberius says:

          The IA Caucus system “limits access or accountability” by the simple fact that 120k voted in the 2012 Prez Caucus but 227k voted in the GOP gubernatorial primary later that year so @100,000 voters clearly saw it as a limit. And you want to extend this to a state that has no modern tradition of a caucus?

          Why stop at a caucus? We have conventions and county party leadership at our disposal. Hell, if you really want to keep this to those truly informed why don’t we go back to the days of a 7 man Privy Council to truly elect those to represent the people.

          As much as you want to limit the # of people who get to decide our leadership, we have abandoned poll tests, literacy tests, property requirements and other restrictions in this country.

          This is not about some pure ideal of allowing only those “informed” decide nominations. This is about a wing of the party upset that the public at large is not agreeing with them and their desire to use the law to make them more important than the average voter. This is about the Tea Party substituting the “political elites” who they deride with their own group of “activist elites” who are just as narrow minded and separated from the public at large as those they condemn.

          Lastly, instituting a caucus while the other party maintains their primary is absolutely insane. Since you will never restrict voter access in the general election, you will have one
          party inviting voters while the other party limits their involvement or access depending on what ideas they have when they walk through the door. Forget ideology, forget personal political history, voters would turn to the Democratic party in droves while the GOP would be branded the exclusive, secluded party demanding one mind.

          Welcome back to power, GA Dems.

          • JeffHaffley says:

            There is a simple answer to your concerns that a convention would result in factional control by a few activists.

            Utah has a convention system and I would not call Jon Huntsman, Orrin Hatch, and Bob Bennett radical right-wingers.

            The Virginia GOP also uses the convention system and has elected John Warner, George Allen, Jim Gilmore, and Bob McDonnell with it. These men represent a diversity of ideas that reflects the GOP itself.

            Conclusion: Utah and Virginia have maintained a strong, balanced, and representative party with the convention system.

            • Vicki says:

              Jeff is right on the money. Hysterical rantings are poor substitutes for historical revelations.

  12. atticuspatton says:

    Happy to report that Forsyth County did not go until 6pm this year, around 120 present. One challenge due to a certain Liberty Party member being left off of both district 7 and State convention delegate lists…

        • Vicki says:

          That still doesn’t answer my question. What is the “Liberty Party”? Apparently, there’s some new Party I haven’t heard of.

          • Bob Loblaw says:

            You may not have heard of the liberty party but you’re congratulating them for “teaming up” with the TEA Party, above. That’s classic.

          • debbie0040 says:

            There has always been a power struggle between different party factions . This is nothing new. What is new is that the establishment is losing their grip and power . Being establishment is not defined by length of involvement in the GOP. There has always been power struggles between the so-called Rockefeller Republicans (establishment Moderate- liberal) and conservatives. Establishment are moderates that believe power belongs to the powerful and GOP elected officials and their decisions should not be questioned.

            • Nonchalant says:

              I don’t have much of a comment on a lot of things in this thread, other than I am once again reinforced in my inclination to not get involved in local partisan parties, but, oh yes, I am a firm believer in the idea that the Establishment does not like anything they are not sure they can control. A *firm* believer.

              In business (and other fields), this often plays out as the following truism–“first-rate people pick people as good or better than themselves, second-rate people pick third-rate people, third-rate people pick fifth-rate people.”

  13. Danielle F says:

    I am an active member of the Tea Party, Campaign for Liberty and GA for Liberty. While I understand that what I say means nothing, it is very disappointing to see the thread for the most part. I have been a Republican as long as I have voted. I have also never had a desire to be involved in the political process until a man named Ron Paul, a 26 year Texas Republican Congressman, inspired me with a message of hope for my generation. While many disagree with him, you have to give him credit for lighting a fire under a fairly apathetic generation, not to mention all of the contributions he made during that time. Instead of the divide that is so prevalent here, I personally would love for the Republican party to actually talk to each other. All of us must learn to communicate and work together if we are ever to win another election for the White House. We have to learn to disagree on the 10-20% and agree on the 80%.

    I will also note that while many of you have already written me off as a Ron-Pauler, I have stayed involved with the party. I served on the campaign management team for Baldwin County’s newest County Commissioner which was a huge victory for Republicans here. I also helped with Paul Broun’s campaign here in Baldwin Co. and made phone calls for Lee Anderson’s campaign. I will also be assisting if not managing two guys running for City Council here this year. This is all in my first year of really participating with the party in rural GA. Please don’t write me off when I want to help grow the party. The Campaign for Liberty/GA for Liberty groups consist of a large amount of eager young people who want to help and learn. We cannot learn if you are unwilling to talk to us, debate with us, and get to know us past a name, Ron Paul. I am a mom to three, a small business owner, a board member of Milledgeville Mainstreet and a fun person to know. Get to know some of the new faces in your area…you might be surprised at what you find out about them. You might actually LIKE them.

    • Nathan says:

      I wouldn’t be so hasty to say that we’re writing you off. I agree with you, and I’m glad to hear you’re working with folks. Sure, we may disagree on about 10 or even 20 percent of issues, but that doesn’t mean we’re each other’s enemies. I believe that just means we’re individuals who have different experiences and backgrounds that shape our opinions.

      It’s unfortunate though that there are a lot of folks who freak out if you don’t agree with them 100% and consider you part of “the problem” rather than discuss an issue. Sometimes issues need to be fleshed out a lot more.

      I hope to see you at the state convention in Athens.

    • John Konop says:

      The tone I find disturbing is the us verse them mentality…….We are all Americans……this tone is why the GOP on a national level has issues…….like it or not we are a melting pot of cultures, views……this purity test mandate prompted using the constitution, ironically flies in the face of what our country is all about historically……

      As I said, I will fight for your right to be heard, but you and your supporters should do a mirror check in my opinion…..if not you will just be seen as an hostile echo chamber……..I have defended issues brought up by Ron Paul, Debbie, Obama, Reagan…….on this blog. But in my opinion zealots on any side are very dangerous…..and the difference between us is I see the world as gray not black and white……..

      • Vicki says:

        I must admit to being confused by your statement, John, that using the Constitution “flies in the face of what our country is all about historically”. It would seem to me that the opposite is true.

        I’ve sat in hostile echo chambers. They were called “Republican Party Meetings”. Until the last few years, when I’ve finally seen challenges to those echo chambers — and the horrified response has usually been, “Egads! We need to be UNIFIED!” Translation: “Sit down and shut up, and if we want your opinion, we’ll give it to you!”

        The world isn’t black and white. Which is why this new diversity I’m seeing in my party is such a wonderful thing — especially when it’s driving my party back to its conservative Constitutional roots. Good on ’em.

        • John Konop says:

          It is the way some of you use the constitution to make your arguements ie your way or the highway……the checks and balances in the constitution was put in it to make sure we respect minority views…… I do not disagree with you that some elements of the party did not welcome your views……but if you repeat the same behavior are you not just promoting behavior you were against? As I said, I find myself in agreement on some issues…….but that does not mean we should silent any side of the debate…..

          • Vicki says:

            Again, John, it may be my addled old eyes, but I’m not understanding you. The party DID welcome “my views” when I started voting. Over the years, it welcomed more and more people with liberal and anti-constitutional views instead, and now when people come into the party with those old traditional conservative Constitutional Republican views, THOSE people aren’t welcomed any more.

            John, the fact of the matter is, this is America. The Constitution is THE basic law of the land. It really IS the Constitution’s way or the highway.

            • John Konop says:

              Our country has three branches of government with many checks and balances to protect against zealots like you on all sides….. Zealots in the Middle East use the Koran in the same manner…….zealots in our own country have used even the bible, constitution……in the same manner to promote to justify killing people they do not agree with…….

              As far as liberal and conservative it is very gray at times… decrimalizing drugs liberal or conservative? Is allowing gay people to marry liberal or conservative? Is immigration reform liberal or conservative? Is supporting infastructure liberal or conservative? Is aggressive action against Iran liberal or conservative? Is aggressive action against North Korea liberal or conservative? Is right to life bills with no extra money to pay for unwedded mothers healthcare, food……liberal or conservative?

              As I said life is gray, and our country was based on that fact……..people I fear the most are zealots from any side blinded to the color gray…….

              • Vicki says:

                John, when you decide to start calling people who are just conservative Republicans “zealots” and compare them to murderous terrorists, YOU LOSE any argument, and any respect, in what should be just a discussion or debate. You don’t even get the courtesy of an answer to your policy questions, because you just accused me of justifying killing people I don’t agree with.

                Apologize and retract, and you’ll be worthy of an answer.

                • John Konop says:

                  Let’s be honest you could not even define the few issues I brought up as conservative or liberal……you even admitted on an above thread that Tea Party members are splintered on immigration…. Nice dodge…….put trust me your hand got caught in the cookie jar…….which is why being a zealot does not work on any side…….

                  • Vicki says:

                    John, your statement qualifies you as a terrorist. You believe in killing people that disagree with you. I don’t have to support that statement, I just have to throw it out there, just like you did about me.

                    Apologize and retract, and you’ll be worthy of an answer.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      If you can get past a name and are trying to make our party better, speaking for myself, I say welcome.

      • Bob Loblaw says:


        Without a candidate (which I imagine is what you’re referring to as “a name”), I got a feeling that these folks will make the party better. Having a dose of libertarianism within the GOP is a good check against our darker policy decisions including some parts of the Patriot Act, Immigration, Budget and others.

        I believe that having Paul on the ticket gave these folks a campaign to run instead of an ideological battle to fight. Now that the “name” isn’t on a ticket, we’ll see how their influence plays out in the way of policy decisions of the GOP.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Bob, Danielle asked if people could get past a name. I came out against Ron Paul in the primary because I was convinced his attitude toward Iran wasn’t just bad for our country, it was horrific. It didn’t matter on how many issued I agreed with him on, he was wronthe I am an American first and a republican second. People who think that he could do nothing wrong, were still wrong. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. Rand sems to be a great senator. I don’t know if he’s presidential material yet or not. We will worry about that later…maybe.

          I welcome those trying to make our party better and it doesn’t matter to me who they voted for in a primary.

          I don’t agree with 100% of every piece of legislation that is passed, even if it is passed by people I support. The sausage that is made when some bills are passed is that they usually have good and bad parts. We hope that there is more good than bad because there is no such thing as perfect legislation.

          • Bob Loblaw says:

            Couldn’t agree more. I couldn’t take him seriously as a Primary candidate. Sometimes, though, movements and even parties are born from a failed campaign. Time will tell if his supporters begin a new front in their battles to change the focus of the GOP.

      • Vicki says:

        It sure would be nice if people would “get past a name”. What’s funny to watch is all of the people who called Ron Paul supporters “Paulbots” and “Paultards” are now extolling Rand Paul to the sky. Every speaker at our convention who lauded Rand’s filibuster, I yelled out “Paulbot” or “Paultard” and laughed. So did everyone else — they got the joke.

        • Bob Loblaw says:

          Rand and Ron are not one and the same. Rand has more political skill and knows how to play ball, hence his level of effectiveness in the U.S. Senate. GOP Primary voters may have agreed with Ron on a lot of issues, me included, but they didn’t take him seriously as a candidate for President. Rand effectively communicates with voters and remains calm while doing so. He is really the glue that melds the TEA Party with the Libertarians across the country. If he keeps this coalition together, he’ll have one helluva platform. Of course, I’d like another standard-bearer for conservatives, but I take Rand seriously due to being so politically astute. If he and Rubio are splitting this coalition, it would be a tough choice.

          • Vicki says:

            No, Rand and Ron aren’t the same person. But what’s funny is that he hold to almost exactly the same policy positions as his father, and the people around me that demonized the father for those positions are now ready to kiss the son’s butt. I get a nice old cackle out of it. 😀

            • Bob Loblaw says:

              The apple didn’t fall far from the tree, but far enough to make a substantive difference. I’m indifferent on the whole Rand Paul/filibuster thing. But you gotta hand it to the guy that if he was willing to insert a catheter to finish the job, he’s committed. Or he ought to be. Ouch.

    • Joseph says:

      What I most appreciate about Danielle is her willingness to work on the 80/20 principle. I struggle with how we reconcile differences inside the Party respectfully and in a manner that helps move Conservative ideals forward (including electing those ideals into office).

      Congratulations to all those elected to Party office and to the District and State Conventions.

    • Danielle, I’m sure you’ll do an excellent job as Baldwin County’s new GOP Chairman. I couldn’t agree with you anymore about the need for us all to communicate openly and work together with one another. With the way lines have been draws, 1, 4, & 5 would be hard to win without ample collaboration.

  14. noparty says:

    As my handle implies, I have no dog in this hunt. But is this GOP upheaval at this particular time good, especially when it is coming from libertarians? Like it or not, economic moderates and religious conservatives have been a huge part of the GOP’s successes the past 30 years. Both were major parts of the Reagan coalition, and Reagan’s cabinet reflected that. So, the Tea Party wants to push those guys out in favor of a libertarian message that has never built a lasting, winning coalition anywhere anytime in this country?

    Another thing: there are two reasons why the GOP is in its current malaise. The first is demography. Whites are a much smaller portion of the electorate than in the Reagan era, the Gingrich era, and even than in 2000 when Bush won despite losing the popular vote. A grassroots effort to take over the GOP with a libertarian philosophy that the GOP has never had in the past is not the way to fix the demographic issues. It certainly won’t help the GOP win a supermajority of white voters, who want Social Security, Medicare, public schools, pell grants, agriculture subsidies, and yes government jobs every bit as much as the people that Mitt Romney claim vote Democrat for “gifts”. And the second is the economic crisis, which more voters blame Republicans than Democrats and Obama for. The behavior of the private sector should have caused some serious introspection and caused the GOP to respond with a different message, different policies, and especially a standard bearer other than someone whose main background was private equity. But the GOP decided to go along with the talk radio and Fox News explanation of the financial crisis – it was caused entirely by the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to give mortgages to black people (impossible when blacks own less than 5% of mortgages in the first place) – so no such examination ever happened and still hasn’t happened. And this “the private sector can do no wrong” attitude is also not Reagan conservatism, because the Reagan administration broke up the monopolies (no “too big to fail” under his watch) and proactively, aggressively prosecuted insider trading and other Wall Street crimes. This near-worship of the private sector and big business reflects more of the crony capitalism attitudes of George H. W. and George W. Bush (yes, Virginia, Halliburton was a problem long before Solyndra) than Reagan conservatism.

    Of course, the Tea Party and libertarian types should be part of the conversation. But I don’t know if these GOP purges are going to result in the types of broad based coalitions and mainstream candidates that the GOP needs to win back the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. And since the electorate will be even less white then than it is now, the GOP will need candidates and a message with mainstream appeal more than ever.

    Another thing: imagine if the slow but steady economic recovery under Obama continues. (Yes, the fact that the economy was improving did play a major role in defeating Romney, especially when Romney refused to adapt and change his message.) The GOP made big wins in 2010 in large part because the economy was so bad. But imagine if unemployment is at 7% by 2014 and 6.5% by 2016. Add that to Obama’s getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and if there is no major scandal or international crisis, like it or not his tenure will be generally considered to have been a success, especially in the context of the absolute mess that he inherited. So the response to what may well be a successful two term administration by a very liberal president will be Tea Party libertarianism? Hillary Clinton – almost certain to be the nominee – certainly hopes so. Just as Obama made it clear that Mitt Romney was the candidate that he wanted to face the most, and did an excellent job of showing why.

    Now, more than ever the GOP needs someone who can articulate and defend conservative positions – which Romney and McCain couldn’t – while unifying the various conservative factions and reaching a large number of moderates and independents. While Tea Party libertarianism certainly has its merits, it is not going to produce a candidate like that.

    • “But the GOP decided to go along with the talk radio and Fox News explanation of the financial crisis – it was caused entirely by the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to give mortgages to black people (impossible when blacks own less than 5% of mortgages in the first place) – so no such examination ever happened and still hasn’t happened.”

      I’ve never heard anyone say this. What I *have* heard is that the CRA forced banks to give mortgages to people (get this… this is the important part) – who couldn’t afford them. There was never a mention of race in any of the discussions I’ve heard on this topic.

  15. debbie0040 says:

    @noparty, I am a social conservatives but the major issues with our nation now involves out of control spending and debt. Millions did not take to the streets in 2009 in tea party protests because of social issues-it was because of out of control spending and the increasing size of government. When have millions taken to the streets or over one million went to a rally in D.C. for social conservative issues? We have resisted being co-opted by social conservatives (the majority of tea party activists are social conservatives) and other groups that are not social conservatives. The tea party welcomes activists on both sides of the social issue spectrum. We have members that are on both sides. We are not trying to push anyone out, that is why we stick to our core values. If we began advocating for social conservative issues, we would be pushing out those that are not social conservatives and social conservatives that don’t want to address social issues..

    I don’t know of one candidate tea party activists have backed that have not been social conservatives. If you do, please name him or her.

    There are a few tea parties that address social issues but Tea Party Patriots and Atlanta Tea Party does not. The over whelming majority of activists affiliated with TPP voted a long time ago and made the decision not to address social issues and the over-whelming majority of those are social conservatives.. There are great groups that address and advocate for social issues activists can join if they want to address social issues.

    There are tea party organizers that are gay that are to the right of me on fiscal, constitutional issues and they are hard workers. I consider one of them a friend and confidant and whenever I go to D.C., I usually meet him for dinner to talk about tea party issues. We concentrate on what we have in common.

    Many in the tea party movement that are social conservatives would argue very strongly about the fact the reason the GOP lost control on the national level is because there was too much attention focused on social issues while the GOP elected officials were fiscal liberals and big government Republicans that had ethical issues and those problems were ignored because the officials were social conservatives. . They just don’t want that to happen again. Do you realize the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pro life ?

    The main issue in the 2010 was repealing ObamaCare and the out of control spending. The main issue in 2014 and 2016 will be the increasing size of government, taxes and our massive deficit.

    Reagan was a social conservative but social issues were not his main issues. Defeating the evil empire of the Soviet Union and limited government was.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      What was the main issue in 2012? Or at least the one that seemed to scare the helloutta those Reagan Democrats (yep, that’s what they called ’em! My God, how that would be slanderous, today)? You conveniently skipped over that one.

      The result? an unholy alliance between a TEA Party who says that they lead on fiscal issues that looks the other way when so-called “social conservatives” want to erode the very constitutional rights that these TEA Partiers rally around in support of hands-off economic policies and “less government”.

      • debbie0040 says:

        Bob, come out your hole and stop hiding.

        It is clear that you think because someone is a social conservative that disqualifies them from office. I don’t believe that.

        As for 2012, what happened with the establishment candidates? The tea party had a better track record than the establishment candidates did, many of whom were social conservatives as well.

        • Bob Loblaw says:

          Where did I say being a “social conservative” disqualifies anyone from office?

          What I said was that while you’re right side of your mouth holds up the Constitution as you talk fiscal policy, its left side buttons up when that same Constitution gets trampled on by your unreasonably right-winged friends that, for instance, want to deny a raped pregnant women of their constitutional rights available to them under the law.

          2012 was a disaster on so many levels, Debbie. Thanks to Murdoch and Akin, 39% of all women went to the polls with “abortion” as their number one issue–twice the support of “jobs”, which was the focus of pretty much everyone else. Why? Because your TEA Party supported primary candidates who beat the “establishment” couldn’t shut up about something that has been settled law since 1973.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            “2012 was a disaster on so many levels, Debbie. Thanks to Murdoch and Akin, 39% of all women went to the polls with “abortion” as their number one issue–twice the support of “jobs”, which was the focus of pretty much everyone else. Why? Because your TEA Party supported primary candidates who beat the “establishment” couldn’t shut up about something that has been settled law since 1973.”

            I clearly don’t always agree with Mr. Loblaw, especially on his support of the dysfunctional status quo, but that is a very good point.

          • Vicki says:

            “Settled law”? When did Congress pass, and the President sign, a law giving women the right to kill their babies in the womb at any time throughout all nine months of their pregnancy?

            • Bob Loblaw says:

              A pregnant woman doesn’t have a right to terminate a pregnancy throughout “all nine months of THEIR pregnancy” (emphasis added), as you purport, above.

              Viability of a fetus outside the womb is the law relating to when women can terminate THEIR pregnancies. See Roe v. Wade, 1973. See also Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

              • Vicki says:

                You’re forgetting the companion case to Roe v. Wade: Doe v. Bolton, which effectively legalized WOMEN to terminate THEIR pregnancies at any point throughout all nine months of THEIR pregnancies.

              • Vicki says:

                AND, again, you cite COURT opinions, which are NOT “the law,” they are COURT opinions. I will agree, however, that they are “enforced” as if they ARE “law”.

    • Nonchalant says:

      Though I do not quite have the words I wish at the moment to best express my concern, I would say the centeal issue of our times are not just those you cite, as valid as they are, but instead is a larger one of which your three are just manifestations of the threat–will this Republic have a trajectory that is central and top-down in spirit, or one that is local and bottom-up?

      One trajectory, I submit, invariably leads to autocracy, as in ancient Rome the Senatorial Republic became over time the Principate, then Dominate; the other can, with appropriate harnessments of human ambition and appropriate watchfullness always, secure liberty to the end of time.

  16. debbie0040 says:

    @noprty, Just for the record, there are many long time Republican activists that also are tea party activists.

    • Vicki says:

      And just for the record, @noparty does *not* sound like he or she has “no dog in this hunt”. At all.

  17. Charlie says:

    This thread demonstrates so much that is wrong with the Republican party on so many levels.

    Those crowing over yesterday’s victories aren’t celebrating a new path to political majorities, they’re celebrating their new found positions “leading” a minority party, with a plan to continue to purge rather than grow.

    Many of those resistant to these newcomers are equally defensive about trying to find any common ground with those same folks that have clearly invested the time and organized around the rules set forth by the “establishment”.

    I’ll leave you to it. It’s crap like this that had me leave organized GOP membership a decade ago. While I’m back now as a member of the Cobb GOP, don’t expect me to play in these reindeer games nor put up with either side’s BS.

    When you guys get serious about winning general elections, let me know. Otherwise, I say a pox on all your houses for your continued petty and childish infighting.

    • debbie0040 says:

      @Charlie, no one is purging anyone . I like both Nathan and Doug and don’t think they are RINOs, but I don’t live in Walker County. I think that was more about personality and the activists up there wanting their people in leadership positions. How is that different from the way the party has operated for decades?

      There has always been a battle for control of the GOP between different factions. How many times in Georgia GOP history has there been contentious races and elections but both sides continued to work within the GOP. The ones not in power stay involved and work to take back power again from the ones in power. There has always been a battle between conservatives and establishment within the GOP. I remember in 1976 at the RNC, floor fights broke out between the Ford forces and the Reagan forces. It was nasty. Reagan lost, stayed involved and came back in 1980 and won.

      So now all of a sudden because the power structure is changing, it is a purge?

      Many tea party activists have as much and in some cases more time invested in the GOP as most establishment. In Fayette County, it was the people affiliated with the Watsons that ostracized people and were resistant to new people and anyone not their allies. The people that took power had been hard workers in the GOP and got tired of the screw you attitude. People will only take that for so long until they do something about it.

      In Gwinnett, we have both establishment and tea party working together on issues we agree on. We get along pretty well in Gwinnett even though we don’t always agree.

      • debbie0040 says:

        Just how sucessful was the establishment in winning in 2012? We had a better record than the establishment. There were Senate races where the establishment picked candidates lost-one lost even in a state Romney won. You can’t blame Romney on the tea party. We were basically told by the national Romney people to get lost and stay in the back ground. We did not take our marbles and go home because we were shunned by the Romney campaign. Instead, TPP gave out over one million dollars in GOTV grants to local tea parties across the nation. We took vacation time to travel to swing states and went door to door. We rode on buses to swing states to campaign door to door. I would have much rather spent my vacation doing other things but like many other tea party activists, I did not because I felt our country was worth the effort and Romney with all his shortfalls, would make a much better President than Obama.

        We went to Washington State and went door to door and helped the GOP take control of the state senate.

        • Tiberius says:

          your door to door convinced Sens. Tom and Sheldon to ally with the GOP Senators (note I did not say switch)? Were you instrumental in the decision to have them become the Pro Tem and Majority leader as well? Or were you vital in the effort that netted the GOP 1 seat in the 2012 election?

          • debbie0040 says:

            @Tiberius, we spent time and money ( in Washington state educating voters and this was the outcome according to activists on the ground.


            We may be a lone bright spot in a sea of darkness on this election
            night. I will share some assessment below I received tonight and
            mirrors our thoughts.

            Nationally, the results have been disappointing. But something
            unexpected happened in the middle of this apparent sweep by the Left.

            Where grassroots voter education was conducted, some voters bucked the
            trend and elected conservatives to the WA state legislature.

            Four – possibly 5 — House seats, and 2 Senate seats went with the
            conservative candidates (all Republicans), eliminating the
            near-supermajorities that the Democrats have held in each chamber.

            The coalition that worked on the voter education project in Washington
            State has demonstrated that educated voters make better choices.

            Washington State is a bright spot shining a light on tactics and
            coalitions that can be replicated across the nation to educate voters
            and impact their electoral choices.

            • Tiberius says:

              The GOP gained one seat in the Senate and one in the House in 2012. Senator Cantwell (D) got re-elected with 60% of the vote and the GOP’s nominee for Gov., Rob McKenna only ended up with 48% of the vote even after universal recognition that he had the best chance to bring the Gov’s mansion back to the GOP for the first time since 1985.

              I don’t know what the Tea Part is selling out there but the people of Washington aren’t buying.

              Now you might be able to claim that without your efforts, it could have been worse but let’s not drape yourself in the glory of great accomplishments in the Evergreen State. This is especially true since the recent changeover in the state Senate was the ultimate insider-baseball move, an example of a move often looked askew by the Tea Party movement for its lack of transparency and grassroots support.

      • Charlie says:

        You use the word coup, and then object to the word purge?

        It’s classic of the lack of consistency on which you change your reasoning from moment to moment depending on the argument you’re having.

        Re-read your comments on this thread and others. You are taking the tone not of a leader that is looking to build a movement, but of a shrill and vendictive sore winner. We’ve had enough of those in this state, and we don’t need your version of the establishment taking on the tones of other ones. And – good time to note this – you ARE the freaking establishment now. Every time you rail against the establishment you cheapen your own accomplishments. I’d suggest you strike that word from your vocabulary if you wish to have credibility in your future communications.

        You have the title. With it comes responsibility. It’s well past time you leared how to use it with your public comments including blog postings.

        • debbie0040 says:

          When I mentioned coup, I was referring to take over of power.

          I am just one person no different from anyone else on this blog. I can’t build a movement , it takes team work and dedication. There are thousands of dedicated activists out there that help build this movement and I am just but one.

          This movement is just getting started good and has been quite successful considering how young we are. I can remember the days TPP went day to day wondering whether or not we would have money to pay for events and our email database. We were sacrificing time and gave up lucrative jobs on the side so we could help build the tea party. We virtually had no life for some time outside the tea party because it would consume our resources and time that we had to spare. I remember leadership in TPP wondering from day to day if we would have to take our personal money and pay for TPP bills. We sacrificed much and it was worth it. We realized what our founding fathers had given up to fight for liberty and freedom and we kept on course. Despite what the left said, we were not financed by rich billionaires. I wished we would have been because we would not have had so many sleepless nights. No one gave us a chance of surviving this long nor being this successful.

          Charlie you don’t understand what we are referring to when we mention establishment. Establishment has nothing to do with those currently in control. Establishment to me are moderates that believe power belongs to the powerful elite and they know what is best for the grassroots and should make the decisions . There are many in positions of power and control that are not establishment.

          When tea party activists fail in achieving thier goals, people gloat so why shouldn’t we be allowed to gloat when we achieve our goals. Yes I am proud of what we have accomplished and sometimes seem like I am gloating, but I am happy the tea party movement achieved a victory for everyone out there that has sacrificed for their local tea party. There are activists out there that literally have sacrificed almost everything fighting for our nation. We have had set backs and people gloat when we do, so with everything we have been through, I think some gloating is in order.

          • John Konop says:


            I think you have worked very hard to get a grasp of the issues since you have been elevated to leadership status in the TP. Charlie is right about the difference of being part of movement……..

            If your goal is help our country, leadership is about bringing people together for the greater good…….I do think in fairness you have lead on some issues, and reached across lines to do that……

            Also I realize that TP was not cultivated in that spirit……but unless you can move the TP beyound the current tone and lack of tolerance, it will be movement that hurt the conservative movement……

            Finally the biggest issue I see is the lack of rational voice in the negotiations on issues from voices like William F Buckley from the past……I came from a liberal democrat family, and in college it was voices like him that turned may from my generation into Reagan republicans……The problem is many of us no longer feel like we are even welcomed in the party at all…..We may disagree with family members on politics, but we still love them ie tone… it or not without us and a growing minority population ….winning nationally will be hard…..I know in your heart it is beyound just the power of being a leader in a movement…..

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              Great points, Mr. Konop, though IMHO, this state owes a lot to Ms. Dooley, the TPP and the left-right coalition of activists that came together to help defeat the horrible transportation policy known as T-SPLOST as well as other questionable policies put forth by our political leaders.

          • Napoleon says:

            Debbie said: “When tea party activists fail in achieving thier goals, people gloat so why shouldn’t we be allowed to gloat when we achieve our goals.”

            Because we’re supposed to be better people.

            • Wait – whaat?

              Napoleon, do you identify yourself as a tea partier now?? It’s not a slam – I’m just a little shocked. You disappeared from the GOP…is that where you’ve been?

              • Napoleon says:

                I’ve been a tea party supporter since the beginning. I’ve supported the Tea Party financially since day 1. I was at the big Tea Party rally put on by Debbie’s tea party group at the Capitol with Hannity in 2009 and was at the rally again in 2010, plus several other smaller tea parties. I’ve also spoken to tea party groups. I just don’t always brag about all of the things I do.

                As for not being around, you know I’ve had some pretty big changes in my personal life that has sucked away most of my free time. I haven’t just dropped my party activities, including tea party, but also dropped out of a couple of civic organizations I was active in.

                  • Harry says:

                    I accept that you are a fiscal conservative who identifies as a Republican, and please accept that I am a social conservative who identifies as a Republican and I vote.

                    • ?? Where is this coming from, Harry? I don’t know that you and I have ever met nor even bantered on this blog.

                      But… duly noted – you’re a social conservative.

                    • Harry says:

                      You are one of those who makes a point of being a fiscal conservative – as opposed to social conservative. I’ve never particularly noticed you getting inspired about fiscal conservative matters on here, but no matter. What is “conservative” is strictly in the eye of the beholder…anyway it may not be too smart for either of us to try to marginalize the other.

                    • Simeon Barsabae says:

                      What exactly is the point of your reply to Bridget @ 8:19PM?

                      It just sounds like you are trying to goad her into something…

                    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                      It looks like the point that Harry is trying to make is that social conservatives, like himself, feel like they are increasingly being marginalized by the GOP after playing such a prominent role in the party for so long.

                    • Harry says:

                      I would say there is an attempt being made to marginalize, not that we are in fact being marginalized – as we prove in most every election.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        I assure everyone that Nathan and I are not RINOs. What happened in Waller County was NOT a case of activists wanting a change, but at least one candidate who didn’t win, complaining because we didn’t prohibit party switchers from joining the GOP. The county party did not back any candidates in the primary in anyway. There were quite a few first time attendees, but by definition, that means they weren’t activists.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      @ Charlie, March 10, 2013 at 4:37 pm-

      I wouldn’t say that what is going is necessarily a bad thing as often when one is in a dark and scary place they’ve sometimes got to go to an even darker and scarier place as part of a very long and hard road to recovery.

    • Three Jack says:

      What Charlie said! Instead of going to the this year’s version of ‘Real GOPers of Georgia’, I decided to hike and after reading this thread, there is no doubt I made the right choice. But I do look forward to the Cherokee County episode based on Bridget’s earlier post.

    • seekingtounderstand says:

      Charlie……………this is one of your best, wish a paper would print this just as your wrote it.
      You just described what most people think.
      The only way the GA GOP could get anyone elected is if GA was a one party state ………..

  18. Jane says:

    I was driven out of the Fayette GOP by the Watts 12 years ago. Moved to Gwinnett. Much healthier party.

  19. atticuspatton says:

    It was unfortunate for those new to the process to witness this type of infighting at the Forsyth County convention on Saturday. Everyone is screaming party unity but how do unify two groups who are diametrically opposite. As long as the “factions” fight the democrats win. When you see the man who was supposedly one of the founders of the Tea Party of Georgia tell one of the volunteers at the meeting to #$%k off and throw a business card in the her face, because he was not allowed into the meeting after the 10:00 cut off, the tone for the day was clearly set. If we are sending mixed signals to Party newcomers we cannot send a positive message to voters—that they can believe in.

  20. xdog says:

    These gop upheavals are being duplicated across the nation. The process looks a lot like a political version of Gresham’s Law in action. The question is, who’s the ‘good’ faction who gets to run the gop and who gets forced out? Given the recent shunning of Christie, the ruckus about the Illinois party leader’s support for gay rights, the possibility of the VA lt-gov running as an indie, I know which way I’m leaning.

    • Vicki says:

      He should have won. Not a bad showing, for someone who declared a week before, and was refused access to delegate lists…

  21. WeymanCWannamakerJr says:

    If loving this is right
    I don’t want to be right.

    With apologies to Percy Sledge, Bobby Blue Bland, Barbara Mandrell, Isaac Hayes, etc.

Comments are closed.