For those of you who missed the Berkeley County Republican Breakfast Club meeting yesterday, we would like to announce that it was a rousing success. There was an overflow crowd in attendance. As usual, the food was outstanding and still a bargain at $5.00. GE&P has noticed the crowds at the breakfast are much larger since the failed coup last year. We wonder what that's all about. We digress.
The program Saturday morning was aimed at introducing local Republicans to the candidates vying to fill the position of State Chairman. As we all know, Katon will not be seeking reelection. This fact alone should provide irrefutable proof to atheists that there really is a God.
All three candidates were there with their networking hats placed firmly on their heads. Rick Beltram, county chairman for 10 years in Spartanburg, Kevin Hall, and Karen Floyd each took their turn at the podium. Each touted his/her accomplishments. Each proclaimed his/her love for the Republican Party. Each explained why he/she would be the best person for the job.
It wasn't until the Q&A portion of the program that an actual difference in the philosophy of one candidate began to surface. A member of the audience asked all three how he/she would react if contacted by Republicans about corruption in their county organization. Mr. Beltram informed the questioner that it is illegal for the State Chairman to get involved in the business of county organizations. He went on to say that there are avenues in place to address any problems that might arise. First, one should appeal to the County Leadership. He said the State Executive Committee is there to hear appeals and, if all else fails, one can contact the State Attorney General. Golly gee, I wonder why the group of Berkeley County Republicans who have been fighting corruption in the county organization for many years didn't think of these actions? Does anyone out there remember the attempted hostile take-over of the breakfast club? Let's see if we can recall exactly who was involved in that. Oh yea, the County Chairman, the BC State Executive Committeeman, and some really high placed individual at party headquarters.
Mr. Hall echoed the same sentiments in his answer to the question. He agreed the State Chairman should never get involved.
Karen Floyd, in her response, seemed to grasp the nuance of the scenario. She realized the questioner was not referring to a situation of day to day operational issues where folks might have a simple difference of opinion. She realized he was referring to blatant corruption. She realized he was referring to the violation of SC Code of Law and the total disregard of SCGOP Rules. Mrs. Floyd answered appropriately and much to the approval of the audience by saying she would never get involved in the regular business of any county organization BUT if she was ever made aware of corruption and the violation of SC Code of Law or SCGOP Rules, she would definitely intervene. She indicated that she thought it is the duty and responsibility of the State Chairman to assure that the party organizations are being run legally and in accordance with the Rules.
Judging from the reaction, these statements seemed to provided a breath of fresh air to the members of the club. Considering their mindset, brought on by the trials and tribulations of the actions of a corrupt leadership, this crowd was not ready to hear a spouting of regurgitated bureaucratic BS. They wanted some good old, common sense straight talk on this issue. Karen's answer seemed to provide just that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I was present and your comments about Karen are not correct.
Her word was "intercede" and there were no qualifications that were added about the procedure . My table was concerned that she might try to take-over the 46 county parties.
It did not go over very well at all.
"Just the facts ma'm" (from dragnet).
T
I always wonder about people that make anonymous comments. I was always told that to have the courage of your convictions was to take credit for your comments. Here's mine. Anonymous must have been at a small table. What the MANY people I talked to after the breakfast said was they were happy someone would make the Party follow its own rules. If the leader of a group does not require the group to follow the rules then why have a leader or rules for that matter? Insuring the rules are followed is a far reach from taking over a county party...but holding people accountable for their actions is a leaders job.
Nancy:
Would you prefer to have your case heard before a police chief or a jury?
We don't how anyone else thinks but GE&P is rapidly losing patience with Anonymous.
Are the comments from "anon" correct? Please do not be impatient, this is very serious business and needs to be done properly NOT just the quickest way with no work or proper procedures.
Thank you.
Todd Hammer
The red herring raised by Mr. Beltram and "anonymous" should be taken for exactly what it is....just that. GE&P interviewed Mrs. Floyd at length on this subject. She made it unmistakably clear that she had no intention of interfering, in any way shape or form, into the day to day running of the county organizations. Her only point was and is that, if complaints of illegality in these organizations are brought to her attention, she considers it her duty and responsibility, as the leader of the State party, to investigate. GE&P considers the overwhelmingly positive reaction of the folks at the breakfast to her statement to be the catalyst for this contrived controversy.
GE and P:
In all due respect,
"intercede"
Look the word up in your dictionary.
Your comments do not reconcile with the definition of the word that was used by Mrs. Floyd.
The record speaks for itself.
I wonder if this "anonymous" is the same one that wrote the same type of comments on Earl's site...oh isn't if funny that Earl had more comments on this subject one day and today they are gone. This is the second time that Earl has posted a comment I made and then removed it. I'll have to ask him about that. Am I being to blunt?
I took Anonymous' advice and checked my Webster for the definition of "intercede", which is: "1.to plead or make a request in behalf of another or others. 2.to intervene for the purpose of producing agreement; mediate." That is clear to me that the State GOP Chairman can and should "intercede" into a local Republican Party organization when it is called to his/her attention that SC Laws and/or GOP rules are being violated by any officer of a County Republican Party. Author: blunt
Post a Comment