Guess WHAT Shawn Millerick? Establishment R's DID plan to have a meetup to pick their Chair! - Granite Grok

Guess WHAT Shawn Millerick? Establishment R’s DID plan to have a meetup to pick their Chair!

I am still waiting for NH Journal (as far as I know, still co-owned by political operatives Patrick Hynes of Hynes Communications and Shawn Millerick of Millerick Financial) to post a retraction to their story that a number of grassroot activists met to “choose” someone to run against the Establishment candidate, Jennifer Horn.  Every person named in that story has told Millerick that there was no meeting to which they were “not invited.”  To date, the only notation that Millerick has put on his post has been verbiage intimating there was a meeting but that the “invitees” were not invited (re: how else would you take his phrasing of “UPDATE: Surprise! Diane Bitter tells NH Journal she was not invited to the meeting.” ?).

Well, the bigger problem for him is that the Establishment was talking about having such a meeting – I was forwarded an email thread speaking to that point.  Here are two of them (emphasis mine):

From: fran wendelboe []
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 12:26 PM
To: <redacted>
Subject: RE: a new path

As soon as possible. But I am going to be away for a week but this can still move forward and I will be available by phone/email.
AND YOU NEED to put out an email message to the troops yesterday, shoring them up, feeling their pain but expressing we will move forward with a new strategy and redefined effort.

First we need to get the data, how many really voted, the party breakdown, and so on.  I think the libertarian vote stayed home for the most part.  That cost us BIG TIME.  I will do an analysis of the numbers when I get back by town. <redacted>

Well, it is clear that while the TEA Party / 9-12ers have been met with “disdained toleration” (ok, I’m being kind with the use of “toleration”), there is outright hostility toward the libertarian wing of the Party from the Establishment wing.  I have, in several past discussions, heard such said in my presence – until the Establishment Republican speaker was reminded that I was within earshot – but only in a couple of instances did the speaker cease and changed the political topic.  So you wonder why libertarian Republicans “stayed home?”  Why would they come out for the Party when the Party gives them the feeling that they are unwanted?  This is certainly an area in which the Establishment could use ” a new strategy and redefined effort”; it is my contention that unless these folks are truly embraced, the Party will remain a minority party.

Say something about not sacrificing our principles but looking at a NEW way to define our message and strategy to get voters to vote for our candidates….. A more aggressive information program on where we are on the dem bills….. we need to do this with a smile, graciously and just say no, we cannot support the democrat plan to do so and so BECAUSE this is how it would be bad for NH.   Based not on why it is against OUR PLATFORM, but why it is bad (or good) for our state.

Yet another “ding” against the Conservatives in the Party that truly believe (like yours truly) that the Platform defines the Party, and those Principles should be up front in messaging and emphasize today’s situation, and how those Principles are germane to anyone’s life.

Yes, Fran is right – the messaging coming out of the NH GOP sucked big time, and has for a long time.  When you can’t figure out what a Republican is, how do you tell others why they should align themselves and vote with Republicans?  When Republicans act COUNTER to that philosophy (like NH GOP Secretary Greg Carson acting as the front man for Obama’s Sustainable Communities Initiative by HUD, EPA, and DOT, which Federalizes local zoning issues and removes control from local communities) how do you tell others why they should alignthemselves and vote with Republicans?.

And for the line that proves the point of the Establishment “choosing” a candidate for NH GOP Chair:

We should have a big meeting of activists sometime in the beginning of December.
And we need to take a serious look at who will be chair of the party….who will be running and the “image” they project.  I don’t know what you decided on whether or not to run, but I think the message of this electorate and how our party is viewed will define what kind of public face we want to put forward.


Well, I never got an invite to any such meeting (either to this one OR to Shawn Millerick’s) – and none of the activists (real activists) got an invite either.  But this next email from Jim Foley, Finance Chair of the NH GOP and Chair of the Derry Republican Committee, makes it QUITE clear that the only activists that count are those

on the NH GOP Executive Board

So, what does Foley have to say?

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:01pm
Cc: <redacted>,
Subject: Re: a new path

When I first saw the limited number of addresses on the original email had little interest in reading  and when I saw the phase “Vickey S and I had a long talk” had moved on but now there seems to be a thread here and compelled to answer some of the points made

Starting with the belief that none of us are us dumb as all of us-  see no need to have a “pow wow’.  Was at the 2006 meeting and besides the epic smackdowm of Fred Bramante by Governor Sununu don’t remember anything else positive from the meeting.  Do remember that the 2008 election was almost as bad 2006

In addition- we have a meeting of activists every month- it is know as the Executive Board

Don’t think that the State Party did that badly in this election.

The NH GOP just suffered what can only be described as a wholesale slaughter and Mr. Smarty-Strategerist believes that the only activists that count already meet once a month (” it is know as the Executive Board”) – how inclusive.  It is my understanding that Foley was very much in favor of the “poll tax” – putting the rest  of us “faux activists” in the role of “pay up, shut up, vote for who tell you to, and do what we order you to….peons”.  Makes it quite clear who Jim Foley believes should be running the NH GOP Show?

Sidenote: Er, Jim, may I remind you of how well you, as NH GOP Finance Chair, did in raising money compared to your competition this year?

I just shake my head in utter disbelief: “Don’t think that the State Party did that badly in this election.”  Do I even dare to ask what a bad time would be?  How much better, really, was 2012 than 2006/2008?  The NH GOP gets shut out of the Corner office again, gets mauled in the NH House, and with a “spirit of compromise and bipartisanship” in the NH Senate, how much of the Democrat agenda is going to get bunkered by NH State Senate Bragdon? He must be kin to the Black Knight:


Considering where we were after the debacle  Jack Kimball’s Chairmanship to be structurally and financially sound enough to be a vital participant in the election is a testament to the resilience of the Party and the sound leadership of Wayne MacDonald

REALLY FOLEY?  Again, look here.  Take away what the National Party Committees sent into NH (due to the Presidential Election) and you lose to Jack Kimball:  $387,190 to $350,167.

The New Hampshire Candidates and Committees that worked with the Party did better than those who did not.

Go ahead, put out the public list, sir.  I’m betting that the RLCNH had a better overall record.

The State Senate- who had the most difficult path to maintain a majority- did so and an important part was the support of the State GOP.   The House- whose Leadership went out of it’s way to distance themselves from the State Party and whose arrogance knows no bounds- suffered an embarrassing defeat.  Ovide’s campaign seemed to wander aimlessly and dis-interested in accepting advice or help from anyone

Arrogance – with this email, it proves your pic is posted right next to the definition.  Me smells, rather, condescension towards somebody that actually stood for Principles, and then got those Principles put into law.  What  you see is failure, I see (in you) as a failure to support that action.  But again we see the problem: the Establishment, when cowered by those actually trying to get things done according to the Platform Principles, lashing out in a mindless fury (“but WE weren’t in charge!”).

And then the BIGGEST jaw dropping line of them all:

There is not no need for a grand redesign or retooling of the the Republican Party- a few “tweaks” and we will be fine

Oh.My.God.  This is a typical Ostrich in the Sand – or one who has not been sufficiently spanked for possessing an over-achieving self of hubris and brightness.  So, of course, he’s all in for a Jennifer Horn chairmanship.  This is who you want on the E-Board, leading the Party?  Shades of frozen water and unsinkable iron ships (cue music – “Nearer My God to Thee”).

What needs to be avoided is people who take their talents and resources elsewhere when they don’t get their way within the Party and this unseemly jockeying for power and position (and the disingenuous answer about the maneuvering) that is now taking place

Jim Foley

 I have heard of the goings on in Derry – all of the “Liberty” type folks that Fran talked about got shoved overboard over the last couple of years?.  Question to Foley:  what have YOU done lately to encourage those folks to join? What is your plan, even if only a “few tweaks”?  Those bolded words above are the mark of a man that has no shortage of hubris, so no wonder if he feels that he should be part of the “next pick”.

So Millerick, your call:  what say you over “Liberty” meeting that never was vs an Establishment one that was actually being planned?

Oh, and there is more to this thread as well.  It might be useful to put more up.