Comments on: Dan Quiggle is No Marco Rubio

By: Austin Cassidy

Austin Cassidy — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:58:02 +0000

Slight correction… Thrasher actually got a little over 39% of the vote and Quiggle got a bit more than 27% of the vote… the other two candidates essentially tied with about 17% each.

By: Austin Cassidy

Austin Cassidy — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:53:48 +0000

Erik,

I’ve read the rules and I don’t see anywhere that it says REC members cannot support Republicans in a Republican primary… that would be absurd since REC members are at the core of most Republican primary campaigns.

It does limit members from supporting anyone other than a Republican in a partisan election, a Registered Republican running in a nonpartisan election, etc…

It seems like this has gotten blown out of all proportion. Good people worked on all four of these campaigns.

Hopefully we can put this all behind us an unite as Republicans for 2010…

By: RabidElephant

RabidElephant — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:40:35 +0000

Disbelief says:
OK, now you are just trolling. Nobody could be that bad.

Clarification: “I can’t refute your points, so I’ll just make “you” the issue instead.”

Congratulations for illustrating that intelligence supercedes emotion when conversing about facts.

. . .and you’ve yet to refute any of the points I’ve made.

By: Disbelief

Disbelief — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:55:46 +0000

OK, now you are just trolling. Nobody could be that bad.

By: justice

justice — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:23:14 +0000

You’re right Jean Wallis it is wonderful just read below. The factions talking to eachother is outstanding. I am looking forward to the “perhaps finding common ground to unite” part of your statement. By the way it is Marxist not Marxism. For Pete’s sake get an exorcism!

By: RabidElephant

RabidElephant — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:51:16 +0000

Congratulations for exemplifying the very attribute that causes many Qiggle supporters so much trouble. I read the article, I know the definition of Am homenim, and still saw NONE in the article. Your proclomation that the entire article fits that definition cause me to wonder if you have a clear understanding of the word.
The reality is you’ve not refuted one point that I set out, nor have you illustrated why they are not reasonable.

Once again, we see emotionalism disguising itself as reason, and it falls far, far short of its intended goal. Thank you for illustrating the difference between the two.

You should change your name from “disbelief” to “uniformed”. It seems to fit you better.

By: Disbelief

Disbelief — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:59:13 +0000

Congrats on your recent enrollment in Philosophy 101. Hopefully you have a few more vocab words you have learned and can share with us. Ms. Barrow’s position as paid staff for the Republican party most certainly does preclude her from having an opinion in a Republican primary. Secondly, if you knew what an ad hominem attack was, you would see that this op-ed is full of them and the entire premise of the op-ed is an ad hominem attack. Lastly, the claim of dishonesty on Quiggle’s part has been addressed several times in several different venues. Continuing to further perpetuate this argument is dishonest in itself.

By: RabidElephant

RabidElephant — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:38:42 +0000

Mr Setzer, My annonymity is allowable. My points are as well. 1. Ms. Barrows was answering accusation made against Thrasher. 2. It is reasonable to expect rebuttal when accusing someone. 3. Her employment status doesn’t preclude her from having an opinion- especially if she presents that opinion within the parameters allowed by her employer. 4. Neither does her membership in the DCREC. I saw no Ad Homenim attacks on Dan Quiggle. There is a difference between analysis and attack. SInce the Republican base is the most likely to vote in special elections, it’s reasonable to assume that many did remember the campaign to replace Congressman Crenshaw. While Quiggle supporters may not appreciate the conclusions, they were not attacks. Had she conpared Quiggle to a jacksass, there would have been some validity to the claim. 5. Ms. Barrow did attempt to soften any (or expected) offence by drawing attention to the grassroot support of Speaker Rubio. 7. Anyone who’s publically attacked another Republican- while being a Republican still has no gravitas in their complain about Ms Barrows opinions. Why? Because it’s a textbook example of hypcrisy. You see, my points were quite valid, and the antithesis of the adolescent (thank you Ms. Wells) diatribe recorded in these many post.

In spite of your emotional proclamation, my opinion doesn’t slander others, nor do my points fall short of validity.

By: RabidElephant

RabidElephant — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:02:57 +0000

Thanks, I stand corrected. While the spelling wasn’t correct; the conclusions were.
I tip my proveerbiale hat in appreciation.

By: Erik Setzer

Erik Setzer — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:29:20 +0000

Kristi asked if she could speak for Dan, and was told she could.

As an REC member, unfortunately, the loyalty oath pretty much *does* forbid you from publicly supporting one Republican against another in a primary – that is, helping them, speaking for them, endorsing them, etc. – unless the local REC specifically says so (and typically they have to get the okay from the RPOF). In this case, there was no such endorsement for a candidate from the DCREC (as there shouldn’t have been).

It’s a silly rule, I’ll admit, but the rules have been used lately to selectively target certain people, and in this case were used – once again – in a double standard sort of way. My preference would be to remove all such rules and let a primary be a primary, let people back who they will. In the end, we do more harm by trying to promote a “speak no evil” mentality that can be easily used to claim the RP is “against free speech” than we would by allowing Republican candidates to run as hard a race as possible against each other to ensure that we truly have the best candidate possible running in the general election.