George Lilly, a candidate who ran in CD-1 as the American Constitution Party candidate in 2004 and later converted to the Republican Party, sent the following notice to my personal email account this evening:
You have libeled me with your blog. I have contributed money to Bob Schaffer on two ocasions for his Senatorial bid, and I have spoken well of him on many occasions and told people like Ryan Call (State Republican Legal Counsel for the Republican Party) as well as others, that I support Bob. I have known Bob for close to twenty years, and I think he is an excellent person and legislator. He is also friendly with Ron Paul, and thinks very highly of him as do I. I recommend that you print an immediate retraction of your false allegations against me and issue an apology, or I will seek legal redress against you.
I am not a "lock step boot licking Republican" as many Republicans seem to be. If the Republican leadership is wrong, I won't support them, because I answer to a higher authority than the Republican Party - namely my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ and the Biblical principles that guide my life. That may mean nothing to you or a large number of Republicans today, but it's where I stand like it or not.
I have made a copy of your blog which I am keepiing on file, and I am sending this email to my supporters, so that you may get a "heads up" from someone other than myself. If you doubt the veracity of my statement that I support Bob Schaffer, it is public record who gives money to a candidate. You may also speak with Bob and ask him. If you wish to speak with me personally before you make rash assertions about me, then please feel free to contact me.
The post that Mr. Lilly was referring to had actually already been deleted at the time he sent this email after I had reconsidered the CD-1 primary and decided I was too harsh on George Lilly's candidacy. The post opposed Mr. Lilly on the basis that he was running against the "establishment" and would not be a team player for the GOP ticket. I'll take George Lilly at his word that he supports Bob Schaffer and donated to his campaign and apologize for any confusion over the issue. My statement was based on items posted at Mr. Lilly's website that were harshy critical of the Colorado GOP and Bob Schaffer's campaign. It appears that George Lilly just has a problem with Dick Wadhams and those running Bob Schaffer's campaign as this video his campaign posted to YouTube reveals:
Not only does this video take shots at Dick Wadhams and the Republican Party, but it singles out a number of people as "Ron Paul supporters." In fact, I have spoken to several of the people pictured in this video who are not and never have been Ron Paul supporters and were none too happy about being called such; I wonder if any of them would be interested in pursuing a libel suit against George Lilly?
I stand by my statement that George Lilly as a "Ron Paul republican" who goes around to Denver GOP events attacking the "establishment" (as seen in his campaign video) is likely to be a drag on the other Republicans on the ticket in terms of vote margins in CD-1 and in terms of fundraising. George Lilly's supporters were disruptive at the CD-1 assembly and were responsible for many of the disruptions at the Colorado State Convention. I also question George Lilly's motivations for sending that email out to his list as, at least in the copy I received, my home address is prominently listed and would appear to be a veiled threat. I sure hope that my "heads up" doesn't involve a psychopath in the parking lot with a tire iron.
As George Lilly is new to the Republican Party, I am willing to forgive him for not realizing that frivolous lawsuits are frowned upon here. I would also like to suggest that he makes his campaign material a bit more clear in his support of Bob Schaffer as the only mention on his website is a video going after Schaffer's campaign manager and people are likely to get the wrong idea when you use your allotted time at public events railing against the Republican Party (again, see his campaign video).
If people have a perception problem of you then that's your fault, and if that perception caused you to only get 61% of the assembly vote against a homeless man then perhaps you should spend your time trying to correct it instead of threatening lawsuits against people who don't like you.
Update (12:53 AM):
Upon examining the original post which George Lilly is threatening me over, the passage he is upset about reads as:
At his public appearances at Denver County GOP events he has launched tirades against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns and has made it clear that he will not support the Republican ticket in November.
The post clearly specifies his rants against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns as damaging. He is on tape going after the Colorado GOP and Dick Wadhams which constitutes Schaffer's campaign. He is silent on John McCain and continues to push Ron Paul which means he is not supportive of the Republican ticket. No where did I address his personal opinion or support of Bob Schaffer, only his damaging rhetoric against the party in a pivotal election year. George Lilly's attempts to chill discussion of his candidacy in the blogosphere with the threat of a lawsuit is deplorable.
For general inquiries, tips, and blogroll requests; please email: info@rockymountainright.com
Comments
Amen
Amen
Ron Paul morons need to go home
These Ron Paul morons need to go back to drinking silver in their mom's basement and stop trying to harm the Republican Party. I am so sick and tired of these aluminum foil wearing conspiracy theorists screaming in the faces of every attendee at various events for no real reason other than to make a scene.
Here's some harsh reality for you folks. Ron Paul will never, ever, EVER be president of anything other than one of your clubs. 99.98% of Americans think he and all of you are bat s*** crazy and will never support him or any of you for anything. Stop verbally assaulting some political blogger because he disagrees with you.
If you truly believe in freedom, the Constitution, Ron Paul and the other various words you shriek at the rest of us, you will shut up and go back to your message boards talking about how flouride in your water is the government's attempt to control your mind.
Really?
Ever since I was young, back in the days of the Reagan administration, the republican party has been moaning about how it hasn't been able to attract enough young people to the partry. Every time I attend republican meetings, I find myself gazing out into a sea a white and salt-n-pepper hair. Well, guess what, most Ron Paul republicans are young! You may not like it, but if the republican party has any future at all, it's future is in the hands of the Ron Paul republicans. We're not going anywhere until the republican party embraces it's traditional ideals of small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibilty, balanced budget and non-interventionism, so get used to it, or leave the party yourself if you want it to be more "centrist"!
I know plenty of young
I know plenty of young Republicans (myself included) who can't stand Ron Paul. The difference between us is that we're busy with jobs, college, grad school, etc. to show up and scream at people at every early morning GOP event (and no, moderator of the Art Bell Fan Club Forums does not count as a job).
So in other words
You're so disinterested in the republican party and the political process you can't take an hour and a half out of your busy schedule once in a while to attend a GOP meeting. We're busy too, but we can and we do go to meetings because we care about the Constitution and the future of this great country.
I'm willing to bet that
I'm willing to bet that everyone who has responded to you in this thread is under the age of 30.
2nd
I second that bet. There are plenty of non-Paul Rep.'s who are young, and the rest of the population will figure out they are conservative when they have given up on all this "change" and "hope" crap.
You're right
The rest of the population will figure out they're conservative when they give up on the "change" and "hope" crap Obama is peddling, just like the Ron Paul republicans already have.
Really?
Have Ron Paul Republicans really disavowed Obama? Because it seems to me all they care about is attacking the Republican party rather than joining it to defeat a common enemy, the socialist B. Hussein Obama.
So
Since when is encouraging the republican party to return to its traditional conservative roots "attacking" it?
Oh how they disrupt
Hey, justcomehome, I have just the example you're looking in the third part of your comment. Recently, as I volunteered at the state assembly, I broke up an altercation between two delegates (one a Paul supporter who started the whole thing with vicious verbal attacks) by standing in between the two and walking the Paul supporter backwards. Shortly after, another Paul supporter came down from the stands and shoved his video camera and bad breath right in my face threatening to charge me with "assault." When the security guards came down to see what the hell he wanted (he had called for them), he threw a fake punch at my face because he mistakenly believed I did not understand the idea of assault (which is almost what he did; actually punching is called battery). Nothing came of it (cross your fingers), but it does indeed seem that Paul supporters are stirring up trouble rather than participate in the democratic process.
Also, the Paul supporters were clearly outnumbered at state and have no reason to claim their voice was not heard. They were not going to change the rules and subvert the process as they intended by forcing the majority to fall in with the minority (Paul supporters), and the fact that you suggest Dick Wadhams broke rules is simply ridiculous. Wadhams gave the obnoxiously loud Paul supporters their chance with a vocal vote, in which their nay's were drowned out by everyone else's yay's.
Finally, as I recall, Jeff Wright attempted to stall the assembly with one of the very microphones you claim were missing, so, uh, need to check your memory there.
I love Paul supporters' enthusiasm, don't get me wrong. They obviously care deeply about their candidate and what he stands for and are understandably passionate about bringing the Republican party back to what it used to be: less government, more liberty. Unfortunately, many of them seem to be more interested in getting on controversial television spots than actually supporting their man and ideas. If they want to help the party reform to what they think it should look like, then most of us would love their help and enthusiasm in defeating the democrats. If, however, all they want to do is start fights and cause division, they can leave the party. Simple choice.
some clarification
Dick Wadhams broke convention rules when he refused to allow Ron Paul, or a representative of Ron Paul's to speak at the State Convention. Since Ron Paul and John McCain were still running against each other in a primary at the time, it was a clear violation of candidate neutrality and example of favoritism. If Wadhams had simply followed the GOP bylaws, much of the "disruption" at the state convention would have been avoided.
If there were microphones available on the floor, why was it necessary for Chris Maj to yell up to Dick Wadhams instead of using a microphone? Maybe you're the one who needs to check his memory. And since Chris Maj was well within his rights to address the chair according to Robert's Rules of Order, Dick Wadhams refusal to hear him out and have him immediately ejected from the convention instead was another violation of convention rules. Robert's Rules of Order are designed to allow a minority to express their views within a majority, so once again, had they been followed, the Ron Paul supporters would not have found it necessary to be so "disruptive."
If you were threatened with physical assault, I do apologize on the behalf of the Ron Paul supporters, that is not at all what our movement is supposed to be about.
I'm glad you speak on behalf
I'm glad you speak on behalf of all Paul Supporters.
Again, Jeff Wright was allowed to speak, I saw and heard him myself. He thought he was being silenced, said "I have a right to speak," so Dick called a vote for whether everyone should put up with his resolution to change the rules or whatever, and, again, Paul shouts were completely drowned out by the others. And rightly so: under no circumstances should minority voices override the majority in a democratic assembly. That's not the point of democracy. We hear you guys, we take note of what you say; that doesn't mean you're going to win the race though.
If Chris was speaking before Jeff, then he was silenced because he was stalling the assembly and we all wanted to go home. If he was speaking after Jeff, then his obnoxious agenda had already been discussed and we wanted him to shut up because we all wanted to go home. Sorry you think your faction is being unfairly treated, but many of you seem to be very conceited and snobby about your little conspiracies and the rest of us are tired of it. If you want to participate in this party, again, do so. If you want to be annoying, leave the party.
It was afterwards
Chris spoke after Jeff, about something completely unrelated to what Jeff had to say. Allowing him to speak a minute or two would not have disrupted or much delayed the assembly.
And join Bob Barr, the fakest
And join Bob Barr, the fakest libertarian I ever saw.
I'll have to agree
I don't care much for Bob Barr, and I personally don't know any Ron Paul supporter who does.
Explanations, please
Anthony Surace, first of all, could you please point out even one person in the video who is not a Ron Paul supporter? While it's true about half of the 60 or so people present at that meeting were not Ron Paul supporters, I see none visible in that video.
Second, exactly what is your basis for this statement: "I sure hope that my "heads up" doesn't involve a psychopath in the parking lot with a tire iron."? Have you been threatened with violence by a Ron Paul supporter? No, of course you haven't, because Ron Paul supporters are a peace loving bunch who would never, ever resort to violence, and I'm tempted to sue you for libel myself for suggesting otherwise.
Third, please provide even one example of a Ron Paul supporter being "disruptive" at either the CD1 or State Assembly, keeping in mind insisting the Chairman follow both party by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order doesn't count. The political process is something we Ron Paul supporters take very seriously, and if Chairmen are allowed to throw out the established rules and just make up them up as they go along the political process deteriorates from a serious one into a joke, and not a funny one.
Dick Wadhams deserves to be confronted for disregarding Article III, Section C of Colorado GOP bylaws requiring pre-primary neutrality, and he also needs to explain why the microphones normally available on the floor for delegates to address the Chair in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order were absent this time.
First
I am one of the people in that video, and I guarantee I was not a Ron Paul supporter. And there was nowhere near 60 people at that meeting. Maybe 30 people attended, about half of whom were obviously Ron Paul supporters. The other half of the room was made up of regulars. They were not interested in the Ron Paul Republicans' disruption, which resulted in speakers leaving premauturely. If Ron Paul Republicans would stop their anti-social behavior, maybe people would care to hear what they have to say.
Tom Keller
Were you identified in the video as a Ron Paul supporter? There were about 60 people total at that meeting, about 30 of whom were Ron Paul supporters. And before you go off on our behavior, remember, we were invited. Ryan Call made it very clear at the May meeting if we didn't like the way the state convention was run, we should come to the June meeting and let Dick Wadhams know himself. If we weren't going to be welcome, and especially if Wadhams was going to be so thin-skinned he couldn't handle hearing any criticism, then Ryan Call should not have invited us.
Justcomehome
Yes, I am, and so is the couple that sat across from me, even though none of us are Ron Paul supporters and none of us were there for Ron Paul. We were there to hear Dick Wadhams and the new executive director of the party speak. Instead, we got treated to Ron Paul supporters hijacking the meeting and running off the speakers.
And no way were 60 people there. Like I said before, only 30 or so people were there and only half of those people were Ron Paul supporters, most of whom sat on the other side of the room and are not in the video. If you were there, you would know they were wearing yellow Ron Paul shirts; even in the grainy video, it's easy to tell there aren't any people wearing yellow shirts on my side of the room.
I know Ryan, and I'm sure he invited you to air your grievances constructively, not by overtaking a meeting. Next time, heed his advice, and you might get some of the respect you seem to crave.
They can't stop their
They can't stop their anti-social behavior; they're naturally socially inept creatures, obviously, if all they can find with their time is scrutinizing the Patriot Act to the point that they pull rabbits like "government may now poison your water" out of nowhere.
You mean dressing in an Uncle
You mean dressing in an Uncle Sam suit and screaming at the convention Chair until security comes isn't a disruption? It doesn't count because it was "in defense of democracy" just like George Lilly's lame lawsuit threats?
And yes, had my home address been emailed out to a bunch of Ron Paul lunatics like yourself I would be worried about the possibility of physical violence too. You people are out of control at every event you show up to and act like brownshirts shouting people down and fighting with security because you're such a tiny minority it's the only way you can get attention.
You're exaggerating
He wore only an Uncle Sam hat, and the only reason he was "screaming" ("shouting" or "yelling" would be more accurate) was because the Chair didn't provide microphones on the floor as was always customary in conventions past. Even if I were the president of the John McCain fan club, I would find the fact the Chair didn't want anyone from the floor to address him to be disconcerting.
I fail to see why you feel you must resort to childish name calling ("lunatics" "brownshirts") when it comes to Ron Paul supporters.
Someone needs to tell George
Someone needs to tell George Lilly that we have a little thing called "freedom of speech" in this country. As it appears 100% true that he goes around trashing the Schaffer campaign (gee, maybe posting that clip on YouTube and then threatening people with lawsuits for bringing it up is a bad idea) this guy is just some sort of goose-stepping fascist who thinks he can intimidate people into not saying anything negative about him.
I wonder if the Constitution Party would take him back or if he threatened all of them with lawsuits for making fun of his hair or something.
How dare he call himself a
How dare he call himself a Ron Paul Republican? Dr. Paul would never spit on the constitution and try to silence a blogger with a lawsuit!