96 Barnes, Cory JRespect for the law should be a big part of this, don't you think?
Defendant Cowlitz District LON003000 05-05-2012
97 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Camas/washougal 58685 07-02-2010
98 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 114112 09-10-2007
99 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Cowlitz District XY0451201 09-23-2010
100 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 157302 11-10-2010
101 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Camas/washougal 109986 01-18-2011
102 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 1Z0016612 01-25-2011
103 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 9Y6298431 11-03-2009
104 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 1Z0405889 07-18-2011
105 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 1Z0532789 08-01-2011
106 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 110364 02-25-2011
107 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 673624 02-26-2007
108 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Cowlitz District 1Z0423692 06-10-2011
109 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Cowlitz District 1Z0402587 06-16-2011
110 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Camas/washougal 23569 05-10-2012
111 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Camas/washougal 59262 05-10-2012
112 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Camas/washougal 1Z0671434 10-02-2011
113 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Camas/washougal 1Z0671433 10-02-2011
114 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 2Z0379960 05-31-2012
115 Barnes, Cory James
Defendant Clark County Dist 2Z0379961 05-31-2012
And, of course, the guy running against me:
3 Byers, GaryRemarkable.
Defendant Clark Superior 03-2-05247-1 10-09-2003
4 Byers, Gary
Defendant Clark Superior 07-2-02680-4 05-18-2007
5 Byers, Gary
Defendant Kcdc-so Div (auk) 992314 05-11-1999
6 Byers, Gary A
Defendant Clark Superior 03-2-05370-1 Available 10-17-2003
7 Byers, Gary A
Defendant Clark County Dist 310850-06 09-04-2007
8 Byers, Gary A Jr
Respondent Clark Superior 09-3-02330-9 10-06-2009
9 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Clark County Dist 260203-04 10-14-1998
10 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Clark County Dist 294117-03 11-18-2004
11 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant King County District 7Y5034523 12-24-2007
12 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Kent Municipal Court K00078783 10-06-2009
13 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
RESPONDENT Clark Superior 02-2-06020-3 08-05-2002
14 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Clark County Dist 235331 02-18-1997
15 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Cowlitz District C00187998 03-21-2000
16 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Skamania District L00025896 09-03-1997
17 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Battle Ground Muni 2Z0339806 04-09-2012
18 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Battle Ground Muni 2Z0339807 04-09-2012
19 Byers, Gary Alan Jr
Defendant Clark County Dist 6625259 04-06-2012
7 comments:
Astonishing!
Cleary you do not do your research thoroughly. The Gary A. Byers and Gary A. Byers Jr. here to whom you are referring are in fact not the man running for this position. I would caution you to be careful on whom you choose to slander.
If this is not, in fact, the Mr. Byers in question, I'm pretty sure that he can speak for himself.
That I get a cowardly, gutless Paulbot leaving an anonymous message on my blog?
That don't impress me. Nor does the fact that, apparently, Gary Byers, this great fake Republican movement's representative here cannot, apparently speak for himself?
That don't impress me either.
As always, if the person in question has a different view, or is not in fact one of these individuals, then I will so note on this blog, providing them with an unedited platform specific to this issue.
Meanwhile the Cory Barnes I provided the record for IS one of your brighter lights and frankly, it's disturbing that you'd want to run someone who has zero respect for the law to represent your sort to do anything.
And I also find it odd that as fast as you run your mouth here over allegations concerning Byers, you and your winged monkeys are absolutely silent about Barnes.
But then, since the only requirement to be in your little club is slavish devotion to Ron Paul and HIS idiocy and the ability to breath in and out, I suppose that isn't too terribly surprising.
I'm sure everyone is voting for me based on my political convictions and that they know I am shamelessly willing to stand up for the idea that the Republican Party leadership should be inclusive to political activists, the shoulders of whom the future Party rests.
We must reform back to an organization that facilitates conservative political engagement, rather than one that demands submission to backroom-brokered deals with personalities representing pretty damn close to nothing.
Example: McKenna vs. Hadian
It's being borne out just how portly McKenna represents the Republican persuasion, yet our local leadership is obsequiously bound to the you-know-who liberal force of Esser-esque evil.
Your post illustrating my unlucky collection of minor traffic indiscretions is meaningless in the face of unsolved issues that have left the CCRP operating by archaic tribalism favoring top-down control over independent grassroots involvement.
Any power the PCO position affords, I will fight to have retrieved from the dying-grasp of the CCRP board and back to the activists and numerous conservative organizations that still appreciate young, new faces... The young folks who are of the persuasion that even despite personal indiscretions, it has been left to them to salvage an American standard of living and way of life that Party-induced political cronyism has threatened to destroy.
There is always the choice of voting for the continued lack of leadership represented by the numerous incestuously-approved opponents of Liberty PCOs, many opponents whom graciously had help sending their precincts postcards informing voters of absolute subservience to Party candidates. The record shows that is a falsehood proven by the forgotten conservative leaders all shunned pre-primary to make way for progressive cronies. Every time this bias happens, I blame the GOP for leaving voters without political differences to choose from.
I have filed for PCO as representative of an ideology that favors a strong bottom-up organized Party and that promotes representative candidates in a fair and transparent way. Until someone comes along to represent my stances as PCO, I'll have to keep filing to declare the contrasts of my views with the current popular insanity. PCOLA has a disclaimer posted clearly online stating our affiliation is purely position based, for the presumable purpose of changing a majority of the central committee's leadership ideals. It's up to voters to establish trust with their distinct neighborhood candidates to determine elegibility, and PCOLA sees it the same way.
It is the voters' choice: vote for me, I'll set you free. Vote for my opponent, same sucks don'it?
One of the very problems that I have with you, Cory, is your chronic disregard for the law.
Every other element aside, that you only obey the laws you want to, when you want to, shows me that you're unfit for elective office.
You've been busted so many times, I find it hard to believe you can even begin to afford car insurance.
You ARE insured, aren't you?
That said, how many times have you been popped since the word came out last year that you viewed the law as an annoyance more than something to be followed?
I see at least 7 different citations since then. And it makes me wonder: if you can't even follow the law in what you call "minor traffic indiscretions," then what other laws do you blow off when you feel like it?
So, as *I* am a strong conservative who has been fighting the establishment at ALL levels, including locally for at least a decade; feel free to explain why your group has targeted me.
We both know it's my outspoken opposition to Ron Paul.
You complain about the Party leadership. There is room for improvement, to be sure, but who are some of those who've been there the longest and who, as I understand it, are not being challenged for PCO positions?
The Millers.
Deb Peterson.
Why did they get a pass, since they've been members in good standing of the local GOP leadership for years?
Seems your group can be quite selective in targeting the "establishment." And your recitation of the talking points in no way makes them true or accurate.
"Young, new faces?" Many of those who got a pass as PCO's a even older then I am. Many of those running are, you guessed it, even older than I am.
So now that we've established that it's who you know; that youth, in reality, has not one damned thing to do with it... what about the truth.... for once.
Whatever you do, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Outcomes in politics are the only thing that matter. In the end, with the group in charge now, we're likely to have 12 out of 15 legislators representing this county in the GOP, and likely 2 out of 3 commissioners in the GOP.
How, exactly, do you believe you can do better?
"Glittering generalities" don't cut it. NONE of the reasons you cite show any great vision or system to come up with more Republicans, or more wins... or how to "turn around" a Party that by any measure doesn't NEED to be "turned around."
And that's because this isn't about that. It's about somebody trying to take over the entirety of the party apparatus. It's about power.
The rest of this crap is smoke and mirrors... and my contempt for the effort is that you all lack the guts to tell the truth about it, because you know that chances of voting for you if you DID tell the truth would be precisely zero.
Much like, come to think of it, chances of you getting elected to PCO if your record went out in a mailer.
But that's not up to me. It's not my precinct you're trying to scam; and frankly, I just don't care enough to make it happen.
But we both know I'm right. And if the people of your precinct elect you, Cory, well, then, they'll certainly deserve you.
Well Kelly, there are several others who have been involved with the CCRP for years and who aren't opposed by the Liberty Alliance either. Sharon Long springs to mind. One of the things you'll probably find is that those who aren't opposed, have a record of trying to find common ground and meeting folks from the Paul, Santorum and Gingrich camps half-way and in a spirit of trying to work together. And guess what! They don't have a history of behaving like spoiled trolls, libelous jerks, or self-absorbed egomaniacs. Can you make the same claim?
All of which begs the issue, Tom: if the claims are that those running the party are incompetent or inadequate in some way, and the majority of the leadership of the party isn't being challenged in their PCO races... then what's going to change if you people are successful?
Nothing.
So, as far as that goes, I appreciate your confirmation of my position: that this isn't about changing anything, really; it's just about power.
As I pointed out before: of 15 legislators in Clark County, 12 of them are likely to be GOP, and all 12 of them to varying degree will be conservatives. Of the commissioners, 2 are likely to be GOP and both of those are likely to be conservative instead of just the one we have now.
Barnes again repeats the lie that the insurgency is "purely position-based."
"PCOLA has a disclaimer posted clearly online stating our affiliation is purely position based, for the presumable purpose of changing a majority of the central committee's leadership ideals."
Since my "positions" are in direct conflict with the GOP establishment's positions, and since many of, or much of the central committee is not being challenged, then very little of that statement is true and, in reality, has nothing to do with the true motives for the PCO insurgency.
Instead, it's about eliminating those opposed to the Paulbots and their enablers.
And yes, yes I can make the same claim because what it boils down to Tom is this dirty little secret: if I had been as fanatic in my support of the Paulbot movement as I have been in my opposition, we wouldn't be having this little chat, and I damned sure wouldn't have a Paulbot opponent for PCO.
Would I?
And that's the crux of the matter. Barnes' essay didn't say anything about kowtowing to the Paulbots like yours does. And that's because in this case, that connection will NOT, as Barnes put it, "set you free," OR get you elected, given the abysmal outcomes of your hero figures who achieved such a tiny minority of the overall vote. As a result, Barnes didn't saying anything about that.
He refers to the "dying grasp of the CCRP Board" when many of them aren't even being looked at by you people.
And yet, no one has laid out a better plan. No one has been specific about the Board's shortcomings or how any of you would have done, or would do, or even COULD do, anything different.
In the political realm, it's easy to bitch, moan and complain. You and your sort have been doing that for months... maybe even years.
But coming up with a plan, a specific blue print (What is that... a top secret of you people and this playground alliance?) where you could share a vision of how to be MORE effective and get even MORE Republicans elected (You remember, don't you: the reason a political party exists? To get more people who share their philosophy elected?) is much more difficult.
SO difficult, in fact, that your insurgency doesn't have one.
But then, this isn't about getting more Republicans elected... is it?
So, if I have a suggestion about any of this, it's that you folks get your story straight, because one of you two are waaaaay off the reservation here.
And remember: when in doubt, refer to Rule One: You always have the option of NOT READING WHAT I WRITE.
I'm not getting paid for this, it's not a community service, and in this case, I'm sure the Paulbot Koffee Klatch is all abuzz about it; but, in reality, I'm never running for office and I have no constituency save my own.
And, as a wiser version of me once said to someone else in a similar position some 12 years ago: "The only thing worse than you losing this election would be if you won it."
Thanks for stopping by... and before casting this type of aspersion set in the future, might I suggest a long look into a short mirror?
Post a Comment