Subscribe to EspressoPundit

About Greg

« Shameless Sucking Up | Main | A Conversation with Lisa James »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

And they want to make a fuss over Randy giving $600 to Democrats nine years ago when he wasn't even really involved with the Republican Party? Yikes...

I wonder, in their roles as lobbyists, how much money Bob Fannin and Matt Salmon have instructed their clients to give to Democrat candidates and causes. If the over/under is $600, I'll take the over... Oh yes, and both were Party Chairmen...

Randy,

I have been watching your campaign to become Chairman of the AZGOP. You have repeatedly claimed that you served as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee for the AZGOP in 2000, so that proves you have the ability to raise the money needed to help the Party keep the lights on, pay salaries, and support our candidates.

Recently, you conducted an interview with Espressopundit.com where you again reiterated that you served as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee in 2000 and that you “helped raise over$2,000,000.”

As you likely recall, I was Executive Director of the AZGOP in 2000. I don't dispute that for a very short period of time you served as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee. Also, I don't dispute that you attended two meetings regarding your position or that you wrote a $1,000 check.

However, as you and I know, that was the limit of your involvement in fundraising for the AZGOP in 2000.

It is highly inappropriate, and frankly dishonest, for you to claim that you helped raise “over $2,000,000” for the AZGOP. I was closely involved with all our major donors, why they gave, and who asked them to give. I don't remember one donation that came into the party coffers because of your efforts. In fact, I distinctly remember the Chairman Mike Minnaugh asking Jordan Rose to take over your position because you were not doing any fundraising. As a result, Jordan helped raise several hundred thousand dollars toward the end of the cycle.

Because you clearly misrepresented your fundraising prowess, I felt the need to set the record straight. Please refrain from misleading state committeemen about your involvement in raising funds for the AZGOP in 2000. You and I both know that your claims are far from accurate.

In interest of full disclosure, I am also posting this email on Espressopundit so Greg’s readers can see a different perspective.

Nathan Sproul

Sproul & Associates

80 East Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 814

Tempe, Arizona 85281

480-303-7175

nathan@sproulassociates.com

Nathan deserves credit for posting his name to his letter... Of course, working literally next door to Lisa James and working with her (allegedly and not depending on the media account) on various campaigns and relying on fat contracts from the State Party might, just might, require some of us to question his motives. But heck, I suppose that's why they call it politics! And at least he signed his name to it...

Prediction: this thread is about to erupt.

Nathan works next door to Lisa? His address on the post says Tempe... I think her office somewhere near Camelback in Phoenix. Does Tim mean next door, as in the city next door? Sounds like you've been reading too much of the lefty blogs Tim.

Sproul & Associates used to share office space with Coleman Dahm & Associates at 4715 N. 32nd Street in the same building where Gordon C. James Public Relations (Lisa James' husband) is also located, so they were basically next-door neighbors.

However, since 2005, Sproul & Associates has been located on the 8th floor of the Hayden Ferry Development at Tempe Town Lake.

That being said, who cares! The question is whether Randy Pullen or Lisa James will make for a better state party chair and Nathan's comments regarding fundraising (or the lack thereof) by Randy Pullen are quite interesting.

Thanks for clearing up the office space issue Jason. My information was from the various newspaper articles alleging improper/illegal behaviour by Nathan's firm in the last couple of years and the much was made over his proximity to people he was required to be functioning independently of. Naturally, his office move was not covered by any media so it was known only to his friends and clients.

And now Crawdad knows it wasn't the product of lefty blogs...! Although frankly, I don't know of any lefty blogs other than Kos something which does national stuff and hates Lieberman. Are there any lefty blogs covering this race?

Boy, that didn't take long...Actually, Crawdad was right. It was from a lefty blog. I've pasted it below. It comes from www.Salon.com. Not exactly a bastion of conservative thought.

Tim, just so you know, I have piles of paperwork from the Department of Justice that go into great detail pointing out that there was no merit to the allegations made by Democrats in 2004. Ted Kennedy requested the investigation. Now there is somebody that no conservative should agree with.

Why don't we stick to the merits of the discussion instead of believing what liberal Democrats say.

The facts are these:

1) Randy Pullen gave significant contributions to Democrats in 1998.
2) Instead of apologizing to the Republicans he opposed with his financial resources, he blames it on the fact that he was a lobbyist. Fair enough, but I think State Committeemen have a right to know he has supported Democrats in partisan general elections against good Republicans.
3) He attempts to justify his actions by proclaiming privately and publicly that he raised $2,000,000 for the AZGOP in 2000. A claim that is blatantly false.

Voters have a right to know.

www.salon.com
- - - - Democrats in Arizona who claim to see a connection between Nathan Sproul and the efforts of the state and national Republican Party point to this fact : Sproul's Phoenix office is located at 4715 N. 32nd St., Suite 107. The offices of Gordon C. James Public Relations, a Republican political firm run by a former member of the advance team for George H.W. Bush, and his wife Lisa, the head of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign in Arizona, are located at 4715 N. 32nd St., Suite 104. At least geographically, then, Nathan Sproul is very close to a few of the most well-connected, powerful GOP politicos in the state.

hmmmmm... Lobbyists tend to get a bad rap. I know many lobbyists, due to the nature of their work, they are often pretty involved in politics. However, if a Republican lobbyist gives a money to a Democrat (or vice versa- if a Democrat lobbyist gives to a Republican), they sure as heck give money to their opponant ( and of their party), in order not to anger anyone (which if they didn't give to the Republican candidate- it would anger many). The rule of thumb is to give to both campaigns.

Randy was pretty one-sided with his donations. He didn't even bother to help the Republican candidates-- That is no different than those that were listed on the Republicans for Janet website. Randy and the Republicans for Janet folks chose to support Democrats instead of Republicans....

These are just my simple musings.....


Which brings us back to the main concern...who will better serve the party? That does not have to be a slug fest of attacks waged at one or the other with the purpose of last man/woman standing wins!

I for one am looking for a chair with both vision and skill in developing solid, effective strategies to build our numbers and our dollars. Someone who does more than say what they are about or list a resume' but has proven it over and over again through winning elections and raising the necessary dollars, a person who has and will work to promote the party and not themselves. Who built the strongest grassroots effort ever seen in an Arizona campaign? Who has remained steadfast in their support of Republican candidates? Who is supported by the leaders of the issues I believe in?

For me, those are best answered with the chairmanship of Lisa James. I have donated my time and treasure to this party because I believe in the purpose and principles of conservatism. In my view, Lisa will be the best steward of our seed by bringing the best harvest and longevity of results.

There is no ill will intended for Randy Pullen or his supporters and none should be directed at Lisa based on my comments.

I think Max Fose isn't getting the ink he deserves for sharing an office with Coleman, Dahm, and crew. Nathan moved out almost two years ago, and Max jumped on in.

It seems we are getting sidetracked and need to take Sproul's charges more seriously. If what Nathan said is true we need to hold Pullen accountable for this deception, especially since fundraising is the most important duty of the Chairman.

Furthermore, why are so many James' supporters listed as his supporters on Randy's website? This doesn't look good for Mr. Pullen!

Tim-

I've got a lefty blog, and I'm covering this race...

Ted.

Tim hit the nail on the head about Nathan Sproul's letter. It's about Nathan Sproul trying to keep the river of Republican contracts flowing in his direction.

The bigger picture is getting rid of the handful of establishment figures that have been running the party so badly. Several readers of this blog and others have discussed how James is a part of the status quo leadership, which has failed us over several election cycles. Nathan is the key political operative behind that group, and his capstone failure is leading Len Munsil to the slaughter. I'm not an expert on campaigns, but, in response to a posting by Ann pushing Lisa James's candidacy on this site, others detailed why she and Nathan needed to go. The indictments were so strong and well-reasoned that Nathan responded himself and invited one of the commenters to lunch. Of course, Greg Patterson, a friend of Nathan's, erased the lengthy thread. That's how the establishment works.

Nathan Sproul has a history of lies and distortions about Pullen. When Pullen ran for National Committeman, Nathan organized the message that Pullen was pro-choice, because his wife made a donation to WISH several years back. The killer detail was that Sproul was pushing Mike Hellon's candidacy, who was himself staunchly pro-abortion. That's how Nathan plays with "facts." (By the way, that was one of the many races that Nathan lost.)

Bottom line, this race is about the establishment versus the grassroots. The establishment--indeed, McCain himself--asked Lisa James to run. Nathan is carrying the its flag.

I'm voting for a new direction and against the failed leadership that lost us the nineth floor, two congressional seats, and 10% of the legislture. That means I am voting against Lisa James.

Wow, I would almost think I was reading the logic of libs.

Steve - Nathan is not running for Chairman. The only question that is important which involves Nathan is whether his charge is true or not. If the accusation is true who cares about the motive? It disappoints me to see Republicans using the old tired rhetorical tactic of the left: the redirect.

Clearly Randy nor none of his supporters have refuted it. Why not? Does it not trouble you that (if Nathan is correct) Randy Pullen pulled a Bill Clinton?

I thought this was about Lisa and Randy?.... As to the background singers, there are plenty of the "unsavory characters" on both sides of this debate, depending on what litmus test is being used. The continual blame game of everyone but Lisa being the reason she is not superior to Randy for the job is wearing thin.

The WISH list was not several years back, it was 2003. Whether or not Nathan has worked with pro-choice candidates is a red herring when he is not really the subject.

As to grassroots vs. establishment... as one grassroots player let me tell you my experiences; Lisa James has done much to bring in talent, skill, hard workers, and build coalitions that prove their value at the polls. She welcomes people and honors their time. I have not had the same experiences with Randy, given his track record of financial support to Dems in general elections, his WISHy-washy excuses about his contribution history and the divisive nature of some of his practices… I too have made my decision....to support Lisa.

Just so no one gets bored, I am posting an email that I sent today to many members of the State Committee. Randy Pullen now admits that he wasn't "the focal point of the AZGOP fundraising effort." That is an understatement. By my calculation, he accounted for .005% of the total fundraising for the AZGOP in 2000. Yet, he claims that he "helped raise $2,000,000 for the AZGOP" in 2000. As you will see in my email to members of the state committee, that is like saying Janet Napolitano helped cut taxes and secure the border.

I apologize for the length of this commment, but I believe it is important to see everything in context.

From: Nathan Sproul [mailto:nathan@sproulassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:15 PM
To: nathan@sproulassociates.com
Subject: FW: Misrepresentations

Dear State Committee Member:

I believe it is important to share with you an email correspondence I have had with Randy Pullen. This email is one of the many reasons why I can’t support Randy Pullen for AZGOP Chairman. For those of you who don’t know me, I served as Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party from 1999-2002. I have run my own political consulting company since 2003 and have worked for well over 100 clients in 23 states. My consulting company is 100% Republican. I have had the distinct honor of working on the campaigns of many good Republicans including Trent Franks, Andy Thomas, and Len Munsil.

I was troubled this morning when I read www.espressopundit.com and saw Randy Pullen’s response to a simple question. He was asked why he financially supported Democrat candidates Harry Mitchell and Paul Johnson against two Republican candidates in a partisan race. One race was for State Senate and one was Governor. Instead of admitting that he made a mistake, he used two excuses to minimize the contributions.

1) He was a lobbyist and that is just the way it is done.

2) He has raised so much for Republicans that these contributions “pale in comparison.”

I guess the Republicans who endorsed Janet Napolitano over Len Munsil could have said that their endorsement of Napolitano “pales in comparison” to all the endorsements they have made for Republicans.

However, the fact that was most troubling to me was his claim that he “helped raise over $2,000,000” for the AZGOP in 2000 as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee. I was Executive Director for the AZGOP in 2000, so I knew from first-hand experience that his claim was demonstrably false. I have attached our email correspondence from today. Randy Pullen’s response is stunning. He admits that he played a very minor role in fundraising in 2000. Yet, in his public response on espressopundit and in many emails that I have seen, he claims that he “helped raise over $2,000,000” for the AZGOP. By that logic, Al Gore helped invent the internet and Janet Napolitano helped cut taxes and secure the border.

It is true that Randy Pullen volunteered to become Co-Finance Chairman. It is also true that he attended two meetings and wrote a $1,000 check. Beyond that, I don’t know of one dollar that came into the State Party because of Randy Pullen. But, in his public comments he wants people to believe that he was a central figure in raising $2,000,000. He simply didn’t do what he claims.

I know from working at the Party for three years that you don’t “help” raise money. You either do it or you don’t.

Randy Pullen doesn’t have a track record of raising money. That is troubling enough. But, what is far more troubling is that Randy Pullen seems willing to mislead the State Committee into believing that he is something that he isn’t. How many more misrepresentations from Randy Pullen are out there?

The job of State Chairman is too important. Please don’t vote for someone who appears willing to misrepresent himself. As I said in my letter to Randy, if we can’t trust him to shoot straight with us now, how can we trust him to shoot straight with us if he becomes Chairman?

Nathan Sproul

Sproul and Associates


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randy Pullen [mailto:rpullen@wagewatch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:27 PM
To: Nathan Sproul
Cc: Greg Patterson
Subject: RE: Misrepresentations

Wrong!

Randall Pullen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nathan Sproul [mailto:nathan@sproulassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:49 PM
To: Randy Pullen
Cc: 'Greg Patterson'
Subject: RE: Misrepresentations

Randy,

I think by any reasonable understanding, you just admitted to egregiously misleading the State Committee. Here is exactly what you said in numerous emails and later on Espressopundit.com

“These contributions pale in comparison to how much I have raised or given to Republican candidates. As Co-chair of the Finance committee for AZGOP in 2000, I helped raise over $2,000,000.”

You were attempting to explain away the fact that you gave significant financial resources to two partisan Democrats against two Republicans. One excuse you used was that it was a drop in the bucket compared to all the Republican money you have raised.

Based on your email below, you should have said that you helped raise hundreds of dollars as Co-Finance Chair for the AZGOP. Maybe you could have stretched it and said that you helped raise thousands of dollars. But you didn’t. You said you helped raise over $2 million. You clearly intended for the readers of that statement to believe that, at a minimum, you were a major factor in the Party’s fundraising success. Now, by your own admission, you played a very minor role.

Ultimately, this is why I haven’t supported you in this election or in the past. I simply don’t trust you to shoot straight. That is unfortunate, but I believe this email demonstrates the point.

If the State Committee can’t trust you to shoot straight with them now while you are running for Chairman, how can they trust you to shoot straight if you are elected Chairman?

Nathan Sproul


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randy Pullen [mailto:rpullen@wagewatch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Nathan Sproul
Cc: Greg Patterson
Subject: RE: Misrepresentations

Nathan,

It is not a misrepresentation. I did not say I raised $2,000,000. I said I was a co-chair and helped. I certainly made quite a few calls on behalf of the party for contributions off lists I was given and invited guests to a number of fundraising events during the cycle, bought tables at Trunk n Tusk events, etc. I did in fact raise money for the AZGOP. I never have said I was chairman or the focal point of the AZGOP fund raising effort. In fact, I told Mike early in 2000 that I did not want to be the chairman because I was President of a non-profit and did not have enough time nor the experience to be chairman of the AZGOP finance committee. I agree, Jordan Rose did a great job towards the end.

Randall Pullen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nathan Sproul [mailto:nathan@sproulassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:14 AM
To: Randy Pullen
Cc: 'Greg Patterson'
Subject: Misrepresentations

Randy,

I have been watching your campaign to become Chairman of the AZGOP. You have repeatedly claimed that you served as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee for the AZGOP in 2000, so that proves you have the ability to raise the money needed to help the Party keep the lights on, pay salaries, and support our candidates.

Recently, you conducted an interview with Espressopundit.com where you again reiterated that you served as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee in 2000 and that you “helped raise over$2,000,000.”

As you likely recall, I was Executive Director of the AZGOP in 2000. I don't dispute that for a very short period of time you served as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee. Also, I don't dispute that you attended two meetings regarding your position or that you wrote a $1,000 check.

However, as you and I know, that was the limit of your involvement in fundraising for the AZGOP in 2000.

It is highly inappropriate, and frankly dishonest, for you to claim that you helped raise “over $2,000,000” for the AZGOP. I was closely involved with all our major donors, why they gave, and who asked them to give. I don't remember one donation that came into the party coffers because of your efforts. In fact, I distinctly remember the Chairman Mike Minnaugh asking Jordan Rose to take over your position because you were not doing any fundraising. As a result, Jordan helped raise several hundred thousand dollars toward the end of the cycle.

Because you clearly misrepresented your fundraising prowess, I felt the need to set the record straight. Please refrain from misleading state committeemen about your involvement in raising funds for the AZGOP in 2000. You and I both know that your claims are far from accurate.

In interest of full disclosure, I am also posting this email on Espressopundit so Greg’s readers can see a different perspective.

Nathan Sproul

Sproul & Associates

80 East Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 814

Tempe, Arizona 85281

480-303-7175

nathan@sproulassociates.com


"Now there is somebody [Ted Kennedy] that no conservative should agree with." -Nathan Sproul

*Sen. McAmnesty joined with Ted Kennedy to push an amnesty bill.

*Sen. McAmnesty joined with Kennedy to oppose tax cuts.

*Sen. McAmnesty worked with Kennedy to pass campaign finance "reform."

The list goes on and on. So why are you supporting McCain and his pick for state chair, Lisa James, Nathan? Talk about hypocrisy!

Randy Pullen has a fine response to Nathan Sproul. He said he was Co-Chair of the Finance Committee – and he was. He said he helped raised $2 million – and he did. Never did he make the sweeping claims of being a fundraising God that Sproul is trying to get us to believe.

Look – anyone who does not think that Lisa James is the establishment’s patsy choice for Chairman is either an idiot or a liar. Barely anyone even knew who she was more than a couple of months ago. McCain et al wants to put her into this position to solidify his base for his Presidential bid. He chose her because of her loyalty and relative anonymity.

I don’t really know much about either candidate, and frankly, I don’t care. I won’t be voting for chairman, and I’ll have to accept whatever the AZGOP choose to shove down my throat. But I do care when people like Nathan Sproul, a proven vindictive operative with a huge amount of personal gain to be had from this election, sweeps into a forum such as this a pretends to be “helping” the little person understand what is going on in the “important people’s” political world. Don’t insult my intelligence, Nathan.

Randy Pullen touted a bullet on his resume like every political candidate on the face of this planet. Nathan Sproul is now twisting that into an attack like any “good” political attack dog should. But don’t tell me that this relatively insignificant parsing of words suddenly makes Pullen a dishonest or inadequate candidate.

From where I sit, Pullen is an average candidate and Lisa James is a below average candidate. Pullen has more experience and is solidly conservative – a couple of donations NEARLY 10 YEARS AGO notwithstanding. Lisa James has a record of losing campaigns and loser allies. I think I’ll take a pass.

Lobbyists routinely give $s to both sides because they are afraid to pick a winner. Pullen has given to Dems cause apparently he thought they would win. Randy is also a lobbyist and no better than our past two lobbyist chairmen. Randy couldnt even win an election against Mayor Phil. What a loser!

Does any one remember how far behind Pullen was versus Gordon? Is that the kind of leadership we want at the party? Havent we lost enough?

I have to disagree with Nathan as to the significance of Randy’s statement about helping raise $2,000,000. Although he may have done a sub par job in his fundraising efforts, by having held that position and worked on fundraising projects he had every right to claim what he did. Nathan should have focused his criticism simply on Randy’s alleged failure to successfully fundraise rather than feign such an indignant response on what really weren’t misrepresentations but perhaps rather exaggerations.

I have known Randy and Lisa for a couple of years now and had the pleasure to get to know them both to some degree. I respect Randy a lot, he is intelligent, supports conservative policy that I agree with, and has a great deal of perspective on campaign issues throughout the state.

With that being said I have come to greatly support Lisa James. Her work on the Bush ’04 campaign was in my opinion phenomenal both in grassroots organization and in fundraising. She did a good job picking up the slack fundraising for the AZGOP this last cycle as well. Moreover, Lisa is a incredibly hard working, intelligent, coalition maker who I believe will succeed in 1) grassroots organization, 2) fundraising, 3) party registration growth.

I am concerned with the fact that Randy seems too comfortable fighting with the delegation that he is supposed to support and too happy making news headlines ostracizing moderate republicans, independents, and libertarians.

At the end of the day we need to ask what we really want from a State Chairman. I want to elect someone who is going to improve the image of the party to moderates, libertarians, and waylaid conservatives. I want to elect someone who can successfully raise the funds to bring victory in 2008. I want to elect someone who can work with those they disagree with and unite the people under a big tent by supporting the Republican cause without nitpicking on a handful of issues despite how irritating they can be.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how we know that McCain's pick for Chairman is Lisa James... I figure he really doesn't care about this race - when is the last time he was even IN Arizona? I understand he (or his people) were involved in the LD 11 Chairman race, but it seems to me that he is more focused on Iowa and New Hampshire... Arizona isn't going to even matter in his run for President and he knows it.

Yes, where is it anywhere that McCain picked Lisa James- or that she's the McCain lackey? The humor here is that those who are in support of Randy Pullen keep touting that Lisa James is McCain's pick. I certainly don't see McCain's name listed as an endorsement on her website, and I am pretty sure that he hasn't weighed in since he asked Len Munsil to run for Chairman (Len Munsil also includes this on his blog: www.lenmunsil.com). Lisa James worked against McCain from the very beginning heading up the Bush efforts in 2000 here in AZ, something I'm sure that McCain doesn't take lightly. In fact, that is probably why he has purposely not weighed in.

"Grassroots" girl:

You gave the answer to your own confusion. You say that McCain was interested enough in the leadership of the AZGOP to get involved with one legislative district, so why wouldn't he be interested in state chairman??

AZ Country Boy- I agree with you. It looks like Randy is greatly exaggerating his claims about the influence that he wields in the donor community. Raising money to help fund the Republican party to help fund elections is extremely important. When Randy stated that he raised "2,000,000" and only forked over a 1,000 check, he technically accounted for 1/4 of less than 1% of the total amount raised. Wow. That is some mighty fundraising power.

Good points from Grassroots Girl and Interested Blogger. Where is the smoking gun that James is being pushed by McCain?

Nathan describes $600 as "significant" contributions. How would Nathan describe the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's been making off of our party? Bet he'll be sorry to see that stop...

And thanks to the observant post about Nathan shilling for pro-abort Mike Hellon. In all the laughter that accompanied Tom Liddy's "pro-life blood in my veins" speech, Sproul's role as attack dog often gets lost.

As should Sproul... Isn't there a race in Nevada or someplace where he isn't being investigated by an Attorney General's office where he could go lose by 30 points?

How about teaching a class in how to lose a defense of marriage initiative. Up until Nathan came along, no one had ever done that before.

I guess now that Nathan is involved, a push poll on the State GOP race can't be far behind, eh?

You notice how in all of this noise no one ever says how much Lisa raised? She's supposed to have all the tools and connections needed to raise the party its money, yet we hear nothing about her "accomplishments".

I think its because the party got its butt kicked in fundraising and if Lisa had these skills, the question would be why didn't she use them?

She doesn't have them, and like so many posts attacking Pullen, her supporters are all about what's wrong with Randy instead of what is right with Lisa.

So tell us, how much money did she raise the county parties? Randy Graf? The State Party?

Silence... Instead, attacks on two contributions totaling $600 made before Randy was so much as a PC in the Republican Party.

Stay focused on your vision of the Party Randy, and let Lisa's team sling the mud. That's why you'll win...

Pullens number one priority as Natl Committeeman was immigration. Stopping those darn mexicans from coming to AZ has been his main message for over a year. How effective was he in his role as a Natl Committeeman? What was done as the result of his constant whining and ineffective lobbying as a Natl Committeeman. Nothing. How long can you claim credit for doing something while doing nothing?

Mark,

It is absolutely relevant that Nathan has a history of lies and distortion in campaigns.

It is absolutely relevant that Lisa James and her allies, who have run elections the past few years, have not led the Party well.

It is absolutely relevant that James is McCain’s choice. Her focus will be the McCain presidential campaign, not recapturing the state-level offices.

The misdirection here is coming from Nathan, who is trying to spin something out of nothing. Pullen’s response makes perfect sense.

I agree with the grassroots sentiment on this. Pullen may not be the ideal choice, but he is the better choice in this case, because we need new leadership.

Nathan,

Why did you post the same letter twice?

I’m not going to let you get away with those misrepresentations regarding the allegations of voter registration fraud against you.

The Republican Party paid you over $8 million for services you provided to register voters. In state after state, you represented your effort as a non-partisan registration drive. That alone is a “Bill Clinton.” Do you really expect us to believe that the Republican Party would spend so much of its own resources for you to run non-partisan registration drives? You must think we are dumb.

I love how you lead us to believe that you have been cleared. Is there not an ongoing investigation against you in the State of Oregon, for example? To use your language, it’s “inappropriate” that you left out that important detail.

From what I heard from my friends in Washington (Republicans), including one from the DOJ, the DOJ worked to cover your misdeeds for the sake of the party. Even those who agree with your tactics (I’m not one of them) think you were careless not to cover your tracks better.

Why don’t you email me these documents that detail how you did absolutely nothing wrong. My email is linked below. I’ll keep an open mind, even though the evidence so far leans against your ethics.

Steve writes:
"It is absolutely relevant that James is McCain’s choice."

Evidence please?

When someone says Randy donated to D's, at least we can look it up and check it out for ourselves. This McCain charge gets thrown around but w/ no evidence to back up the claim.

Tim,

I've got an idea. Let's put a call in to George W. and ask him how much Lisa was able to raise for his 2000 and 2004 campaign. There's got to be a reason Bush put her in charge of his campaign twice.

McCain was interested in LD 11 because he holds grudges against those who work against him... Rob Haney has been working against him a lot (although for whatever reason Haney didn't try to mount a challenge to McCain in his 2004 re-election). Of course McCain was gunning for Haney. Which leads us to the State Chairman race. Lisa James is one of the only people in the state who can claim to have worked against McCain in an actual election when she ran Bush's Arizona campaign in the Presidential Primary in 2000. I guarantee that McCain's people remember that... I'm just surprised McCain hasn't endorsed Pullen - maybe that will be the "October Surprise" in this race... after all the bleating from Pullen's supporters about how Lisa James is McCain's pick, he will come out in a last minute endorsement of Pullen. And then watch Rob Haney's head explode!

N. Johnson,

Lisa oversaw Bush's victory in Arizona both in 2000 and 2004. In addition, she ensured Kyl's victory in 2006, where she had to battle against a self-funding candidate. I consider these huge wins. Oh, and what do you call Randy's double loss at Mayor and not being able to make the ballot for whatever proposition he was touting last year?

You also say that "Barely anyone even knew who she was more than a couple of months ago". I'm going to admit that I'm a young'n compared to some on this blog, but I've heard of Lisa since 2004 (my first venture into campaigning). Strangely, I didn't hear about Randy Pullen until this past year! Lisa's experience began when she was a teenager in Illinois. Randy's? Who knows?

Evan just repeats what I've been complaining about. We "hear" about Lisa James' prowess at raising the dollars, but we never get to see it. No dollar figures, no amounts, no nothing. Hey Evan, instead of calling George Bush (good luck getting through and remember, when you reach the White House, press 1 for English), why don't you call Lisa James? Seems she'd have these numbers handy for you folks to use. But no, we just get to "hear" about it.

And that always reinforces the obvious point. IF she had these skills in 2000 and 2004 and IF she has all of these connections to raise all the money we'll ever need, then why was our party outraised 3.5 to 1 in 2006? Are we to believe that Lisa James was holding out on the Republican Party? She could have helped us raise all we needed ('cause she's got those skills and connections, remember?) but she simply decided not to? That might not sound too good for a wannabe Chairman...

Most likely the skills are a myth propogated by the same people who assured us that Matt Salmon would lead us to victory. That is why there are no facts or figures... She didn't help us raise the money in 2006 because she couldn't, not because she didn't care.

Let's vote already!

Although I like GrassrootsGirl's visual with Rob Haney's head at the news of the McCain endorsement! Good stuff girl!

The fundraising questions raised by Tim cuts both ways... if Randy is such a great fundraiser, why, as the sitting National Committeeman, didn't he jump in to raise the millions that he and his proponents claim he can raise?

To answer the question about actual numbers, somebody forwarded me a letter saying that Lisa James pitched a bunch of donors on the Victory plan last summer and raised $250K at one event! That is twice the amount Pullen raised in both Mayoral campaigns combined!

Tim, I don't think it is Evan that needs to call Lisa James, it's you... you are the one who keeps asking the question. Call her then post the response... that should be informative...

Tim,

Everything you said could be applied towards Randy. Was Randy holding out his fundraising skills too? Heck, he's the one who's giving us numbers (though you'd have to worry when a CPA says that raising $1000 is the same as helping raise $2,000,000), but those numbers aren't substantiated.

Since we are working without numbers, we have to pose questions. Would GWB and Karl Rove put someone incompetent in charge of a swing state (and during the 2000 primaries, the home of McCain)? I firmly believe the answer is NO, thus, Lisa must possess the fundraising skills and the grassroots appeal in order to be given those assignments. You can spin it anyway you want, but it's only logical.

And come on, the Dems may have outraised us in 2000, 2004, and 2006... but what do they have to show for it? Lisa was able to deliver victories using less resources. Maybe it shows that she had enough grassroots support to overcome the money. I don't know about you, but I'd sure like a Chairman who can make people write checks and inspire people to make phone calls.

I'd just like to add that in 2002 and 2006, the main focus race was the Governor's race. In Arizona, a person can donate as much money as they want to a state party to be used on state elections (as opposed federal contributions being limited to $10,000). Jim Pederson personally donated over $1,300,000 (how's that for fundraising, Tim?) to the Dems in 2006. There's just no way that the Republicans could have competed with that.

I just looked it up on the SOS's website and it looked like the State Party raised $1.07 million in 2006 from individual contributions, compared to $931,000 in 2002. Not a huge improvement, but it's something.

For the record, I have not had a conversation with United States Senator John McCain regarding the chairman's race, let alone a call, visit, email, appointment or letter from him asking me to run.

I did have a call from one member of our delegation. I also received numerous requests from volunteers, precinct committeemen, legislators and donors asking me to run. I am very much looking forward to getting to the business of electing Republicans after the vote on Saturday.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this. I certainly hope that all of you that have been interested enough in this race to post on blogs will be equally as enthusiastic about working for the Republican Party and our candidates at all levels for victory in '08.

Respectfully,

Lisa James

Evan, you just called Arizona a swing state? Even Al Gore and John Kerry never considered it a swing state... Wow...

I hope Lisa is as nice as she comes across, although her inability or unwillingness to call off the attack dogs makes me wonder...

Lisa, how many vote commitments do you have and why won't you post them publicly so we can see?

And I believe Lisa when she says she isn't a McCainiac... I heard she was a Giuliani girl...

Best thread ever.

If the accusations that Genuine Grassroots made were not so serious and unfounded, I wouldn't waste everyone's time with something that happened two years ago.

First, there are no on-going investigations against me, my company or anyone associated with my company.

The accusations first made against me by Terry McAulliffe, Former Chairman of the Democrat National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy have been proven to be false.

I submitted a Freedom Of Information request so I have sufficient documentation to prove what I am writing.

These accusations were investigated by Democrat AG Terry Goddard and a Democrat AG in Oregon. I hardly think that either of them would, as genuine grassroots says, cover up for me.

In my personal experience, Goddard's office handled this in a very professional and non-partisan manner. While I hope he doesn't become our next Governor, I can't help but be impressed with the way he handled my situation.

Lastly, it is far more like a Democrat wild-eyed blog to believe that DOJ "covered mideeds." Our side should have a much much higher respect for the law.

If genuine grassroots was really told of a cover up by a friend in the DOJ, I think he is honor bound as a citizen to report that to a law enforcement agency. I am not an attorney, but that seems like criminal behavior.

I told genuine grassroots that i would be happy to send him all the documentation (and there is a lot of it) if he would simply tell me his name. It is obvious that he dislikes me on a very personal level. Once he comes clean about his identity, I will give him all the documentation.

If you've never gone through even the preliminary stages of an investigation with DOJ, I don't recommend it. While I never spoke to anyone from DOJ directly, they handled the accusations in a professional manner. Even with that, it was a very difficult situation for me, my company and my family.

To begin with, Nathan, we have never met, so your claim that I “dislike you on a very personal level” is silly. Regardless, I am far from the only one who has been critical of your many electoral failures and history of lies and distortions.

I am a PC who has had it with the current leadership (aka “the establishment”). As Tedski writes on his blog, Lisa James “promises to keep the same cadre of consultants and hangers on that have lost them two governor's races in a row.” That’s you, Nathan. James’s job this past election cycle was to oversee the state level races, and she did things like dumb six figures to help Jim Weiers at the expense of the state’s other Republicans. That’s about as establishment as it gets. The illegal ways James tried to become and became a state committeeman confirmed the establishment hasn’t changed. We “lowly” PCs are sick and tired of this garbage and being treated like trash.

As far as your cry of victimhood, an attack dog trying to play the role of martyr is truly ironic. You and you alone are responsible for your tarnished reputation. I could go on and on, but I’ll limit myself to the topics about you on this site.

If the allegations of voter registration shenanigans against you were so unfounded, there would not have been so many witnesses and investigations against you. I suspect it came up (OTHERS brought them up) because you started to use your “credibility” to attack one of Arizona’s National Committeemen. Here are two basic questions you have ignored. Why would the Republican Party pay you over $8m to run non-partisan registration drives??? Since the Republican Party was paying you, why did you advertise the drives as non-partisan??? On a point of detail, since you were accused of giving orders to shred and/or change Democrat registration forms, how could the DOJ do an investigation without interviewing you? Did Oregon conclude there was “no merit” to the allegation? What exactly did it conclude?

You are naïve to think—or maybe you don’t really believe it?—that cover-ups don’t happen in the DOJ. We all know that they happened for Clinton ’s benefit in the 1990s, for example. Ever wonder why the independent counsel law passed in the first place?

On this very site, you admitted to having internal polling data that confirmed Bruce Merrill’s polling, yet you told the Arizona Republic that his findings were wrong in your typical indignant way. That was a black and white lie. I guess your character wasn’t a big deal to you at that time.

You never responded to the points that you pushed a pro-abortion candidate for National Committeeman, Mike Hellon, by attacking Randy Pullen with the charge that his wife gave to WISH. As OTHERS have pointed out, the letter you sent then was like to the one you sent against Randy yesterday.

Steve,

I was trying to get us to look at the question at hand and, frankly, your opinion of Nathan is not relevant. It is obvious that Pullen was trying to pull the wool over our eyes regarding his fundraising prowess. How do I know this? Because Nathan posted their email correspondences and Pullen admits that $1000 was the limit of his contribution.

I’ve met Randy a number of times and I personally like the man. However I am troubled by his comments, which I took at face value until Nathan pointed out their deceptive nature. I would also remind you that the Republicans control the Legislature, both Senate seats and the majority of the House seats. Regarding Arizona, the Republicans are still beating the Dems and those who have led our Party deserve credit for this. I am sure we both agree that we could do better. The reason I support Lisa is because I believe she will do a better job at fundraising, which is the most important duty of the Chairman. It is universally believed that Randy, who is hardly a new face, can not match James’ abilities regarding fundraising.

Regarding you comments about McCain, from what I’ve heard Lisa James is in the Giuliani camp not McCain. Also, Lisa just stated that no one from McCain’s camp asked her to run. Furthermore, let’s not forget that McCain soundly beat Bush in AZ in 2000. McCain will have no problem winning Arizona in ’08. In fact the Dems will not waste any of their money on their Presidential candidate in our state if McCain is our nominee, which I believe he inevitably will be. With McCain on the ticket, our state party will be able to focus their money and attention on other state-level offices because they know McCain will win by a landslide in his home state.

Wow, genuine grassroots is one angry young(?) man...

If the proof that Lisa is the "establishment candidate" is because she dumped six figures into helping Speaker Wieres, then why is the Speaker supporting Pullen?

As to who Lisa supports for President, I think she was been pretty clear - neutral.

As to the whole Nathan Sproul thing, does anyone really believe that DOJ would cover something like that up? They have gone after Jack Abramoff and in the process thrown two Republican members of Congress in jail (Cunningham and Ney) and a bunch more lost (or resigned) as the result of being tied to a DOJ investigation (Weldon, Hayworth, Ryun, DeLay) and more than a dozen hill staffers and other lobbyists are under investigation and indictment. If there were any truth to the allegations against Sproul, DOJ would be banging down the door.

By Randy's stated logic, it was ok for him to support Paul Johnson because they are friends, and he has written numerous amounts of checks to him over the years.

Question- What happens if the next Democrat candidate for Governor is a friend of Randy's? If Randy is Chairman, will he lead the Republican Party to support the Democrats?

Why must we constantly argue that the GOP leadership lost the last two gubernatorial elections... is it so hard to believe that Janet Napolitano won the first race because Matt Salmon did not run a great campaign and Dick Mahoney siphoned off part of the Republican vote. As for the last campaign, did anyone really expect Len Munsil to beat a popular incumbent governor? Seems to me that Jesus Christ could have been party chair and Munsil still would have lost.

The comments to this entry are closed.