Danny Tarkanian has been one of top three throughout, and is the only one who can beat Reid!

[Edie Boudreau]

The article below was sent by a conservative friend who had learned about RINO Sue Lowden's background and record in politics. If you live in Nevada (or have friends or family living there) and haven't voted yet, you will be interested in this.

Also, though Sharron Angle seems to be a far-right conservative, she would be easily beaten by Harry Reid and his $millions because of her political connection with Scientology, which many people believe to be a cult religion. In addition, though she claims to be supported by the Tea Party, the truth is that the “Tea Party Express PAC endorsed her and is bombarded the Internet asking for money for her. They do NOT represent the grassroots Tea Party movements. This out-of-state group was founded by some questionable people who use only 1/3^rd of the donations that come in to promote the candidates and use the rest for “expenses” and “salaries.” If many people realized that, they would not be donating to her or allowing her to make false claims.

Danny Tarkanian is a Constitutional Conservative and the only one who can currently beat Harry Reid in November 2010. He hasn’t been a politician yet, and so isn’t heard about much because he doesn’t have the $millions that the two women have. He has been endorsed by several important people and has the right positions on the issues. Just check out his website: tark2010dotcom or see his page on Facebook. He would make a great U.S. Senator to represent Nevada. If you haven't voted yet, please vote for him.

_______________________________________________-

Sue Lowden and the Stolen Election

By Robert Holloway

SUMMARY

Sue Lowden has entered the race for the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this discussion is to consider whether or not she would be a good candidate and a good senator. [See also the following account of the counting of the "Ghost Ballot Box" from the 2008 convention.]

Probably the best predictor of a person’s future actions is their record. In my opinion, Sue Lowden’s record is dismal, especially during the past two years when she was chairperson of the state Republican Party. Based on her record, I believe that she does not have the qualities necessary to be an effective senator. It is entirely possible that if elected she might soon become mired in controversy as she was last year in the state convention.

The main problem that I have with Sue Lowden is that in April of 2008, her actions in disrupting and halting an election at the state convention undermined one of the most important institutions of our form of government. It was an action that is more commonly seen among South American dictatorships than something that happens in the American political landscape. I will give some background to that sordid event and describe what really happened based on what can be documented from reliable sources and my personal observations. There is plenty of documentation. In discussing this history, I am not dwelling on the past nor am I upset that John McCain got the nomination. I am concerned about what last year’s events show about Sue Lowden and her potential as a senator. In my opinion, her actions were so lawless and so improper as to suggest that she will be a danger to our form of government if she is elected to the senate.

Disclaimer - This website is paid for by the Fair Nevada Elections Political Action Committee, Robert Holloway, Treasurer. It is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The website address is www.fairnevadaelections.com and the phone number is 702-275-7846.

THE BACKGROUND

Prior to the state convention of April 26, 2008, it was quite clear that John McCain was going to be the Republican nominee. Most of the leadership of the state Republican Party jumped on the McCain bandwagon. Visions of sugar plums in the form of offices and appointments from a McCain administration must have danced in the heads of Sue Lowden and others in the state party leadership. They didn’t want to be left out in the mad scramble for influence in a McCain administration. But they had a problem. The problem was that Ron Paul was still in the race and in Nevada he had an ardent band of supporters who were not giving up, even though on a national scale, their cause looked hopeless.

The party leadership was worried and just prior to the convention, the leadership was involved in two deceptive surveys of delegates to the state convention. The information they wanted was who the delegates favored for the presidential nomination but the callers had been instructed to give misleading reasons for the call. This was my first indication of the use of deception by the party leadership.

On the day of the state convention in Reno, the convention opened with a struggle about the way in which delegates to the national convention would be selected. The party leadership wanted the convention to endorse a list of delegates drawn up by the leadership. But they gave no information as to the names on the list. The proposal of the leadership was rejected and in a crucial vote of about 750 to 405, the delegates voted to allow nominations from the floor for national convention delegates. At this point Sue Lowden and her friends realized that they were in deep trouble and would not be able to hand pick those going to the national convention.

The convention decided to select the delegates by two methods, one was a vote by the three congressional districts to select a portion of the delegates and the other method was to select the remaining delegates on an at large basis. Approximately 280 people put their names in for the at large election. The arrangements for these elections seem to be going very slowly, possibly due to deliberate delay and by 5 p.m., only a few delegates had been chosen in the three congressional districts. In the two congressional districts that were completed, the winners were not those desired by the party leadership. Suddenly the convention was abruptly halted without a vote of the delegates, even though discussion and a vote were required by the convention rules to halt the convention. Until that point, the relations between the various factions had been civil but after the gavel struck to halt the convention, there was uproar from angry delegates whose wishes had been disregarded and whose votes were being thrown out.

It is important to understand that this uproar happened after the convention was halted and was not the CAUSE of the ending of the convention. Sue Lowden and her circle halted the convention because they were losing the election and for no other reason. The reasons Sue Lowden gave at the time can easily be shown to be false. One reason that Sue Lowden gave for halting the convention was that the contract for the meeting room had expired. However there was no attempt by her to gain additional time. Those of us stayed for awhile after the convention had no difficulty in learning from the hotel that the ballroom was available for a few more hours. There is reason to believe that it was available for the next day also. The fact that the convention was halted without discussion and without giving anyone a chance to object also shows the real motives behind her actions.

It is worth noting that the convention was halted while the votes in one congressional district were being counted. The ballot box was sealed and was taken away to be placed in the safe of the hotel. The arrogance of Sue Lowden and her friends can be seen in the fact that they have never provided an accounting of that ballot box and have not explained why it was never opened and why the counting was never finished. It may be that the ballot box was swallowed up by a black hole somewhere in Reno! Aren’t the disappearance of the ballot box and the disruption of the election very much like what we would expect under a dictatorial regime? Is this sleazy disruption of the election a good record for someone hoping to go to the United States Senate?

Ultimately the disruption of the election produced a counter convention that was attended by 325 delegates who had been delegates to the disrupted convention. This alternative convention was determined to do what party rules and state law require, which is that the delegates to the national convention be elected by the state convention.

The alternative convention produced a slate of delegates to the national convention which was not recognized by the state party leadership. The natural and obvious thing to do at that point would have been to compromise but compromise was not in the minds of Sue Lowden and the state party leadership. Sue Lowden’s inner circle named a slate of delegates to the national convention. Eventually the matter was decided by a contest committee made of representatives from the National Republican Committee. In its report, the Contest Committee noted that the state party leadership had violated an agreement with the national party that required that the state convention select the delegates to the national convention. State law also requires that delegates to the National Convention be elected at the state convention.

The Contest Committee that reviewed the controversy surrounding the state convention was made up of nine representatives of the National Republican Party. The committee consisted of two state chairpersons and seven committeemen and committeewomen from various states. Here is a direct quote from the report:

“The Committee on Contests, however, is deeply troubled by the ineptness of the State Party in conducting its process to select delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention. This committee rejects any process to select delegates and alternate delegates that restricts party grassroots activists from participating in that process, as appears to be the case here.

In its certification to the RNC, required to be filed by September 4, 2007, the Nevada State Party certified that it would elect its national convention delegates and alternate delegates at its state convention. The record before this committee is clear that this did not occur. Rather the record reflects that delegates to the national convention were selected by the State Party’s Executive Committee via teleconference after the state convention failed to elect delegates and the State Party failed to reconvene the state convention. The Committee finds the State Party’s delegate selection process flawed, inadequate, and unacceptable.”

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that Sue Lowden halted the convention in order to advance her own personal ambitions and those of others in the state party who were committed to the McCain campaign. The allure of having influence in a McCain presidency overwhelmed any respect that she had for fairness and the rule of law. She and others of her circle decided to use dirty tricks to get their way when they could not prevail by allowing a fair vote. There are a considerable number of Republicans, those who perhaps hope to benefit by their association with Sue Lowden, who are willing to overlook her questionable actions. But I believe that to allow those dirty tricks to go without objection is to set a dangerous precedent, one that might ultimately do severe damage to the form of government that has served us well for 200 years. I can’t imagine Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater or Abraham Lincoln showing such contempt for our form of government as Sue Lowden did at the state convention. One additional troubling aspect of this situation involves the national convention. As I have mentioned, a few delegates to the national convention were elected at the state convention before the convention was stopped. Those delegates were recognized by the Contest Committee and allowed to attend the national convention against the wishes of Sue Lowden. But they were treated like lepers and at least two were followed by men who were apparently security agents of the national convention. This Soviet style procedure probably could not have happened without the cooperation of Sue Lowden and Bernie Zadrowski, who was at the time the Clark County chairman. Incidentally, the use of federal funds for political purposes in this context may be a violation of federal law. Each convention was given federal funding for security purposes. The diversion of these funds to the purpose of placing dissenting delegates under surveillance is a dangerous precedent and if it is not illegal, it ought to be illegal.

Successful strategies are often imitated. If Sue Lowden is elected to the senate in spite of such an unsavory record, it may be that other conventions in the future will be corrupted by similar irregular actions. Abraham Lincoln, in one of his earliest published speeches in 1838 wrote about disregard for the rule of law as follows:

“I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected. The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.”

I don’t believe that Sue Lowden, with her bag of dirty tricks, is qualified to be in the U.S. Senate and I hope everyone who has respect for the rule of law will not support her efforts. You can imagine that if all state conventions and other elections used the tactics that she used, then result would be anarchy and very likely civil war. But to avoid anarchy everyone must agree to abide by the results of the ballot even though the results may not always be easy to accept. It is especially important for anyone aspiring to a leadership position, to be an example to others by showing high regard for civilized methods, rather than methods that have such a strong element of Soviet style dictatorships. Sue Lowden showed no respect for our system of government by disrupting the election of delegates while the ballots were being counted. I find it hard to understand why her supporters consider her a viable candidate for the Senate.

Another item of importance is the contempt that Sue Lowden’s actions showed for those who attended the convention. To those attending the convention, a powerful motivating force was the desire to help select delegates to the national convention and most spent hundreds of dollars in travel expenses to be involved in that process. But Sue Lowden’s abrupt and premature ending of the convention, contrary to the convention rules, was an expression of contempt to those attending that cannot and should not be overlooked or excused. Sue Lowden’s decision to run the convention as a dictator meant that in the aggregate, several hundred thousand dollars was wasted in travel expenses by attendees who thought they were going to be able to vote for delegates to the national convention. In summary, I think that whatever political skill Sue Lowden has is overshadowed by the absence of an ethical sense when dealing with those with whom she disagrees. If she is elected to the senate, I think that she will eventually be a disgrace to the party and state in much the same way that former president Richard Nixon was a disgrace to the country and to the political system in the 1970s. It is worth noting that last year’s convention was not the first time that Sue Lowden used dirty tricks to get her way at a convention. The article at the link below alleges that she used similar unfair and improper tactics at the 1998 county convention.

The 1998 County Convention

Additional information about the events at the state convention can be found at the following website, which also has the complete report of the Contest Committee as well as two videos about the convention.

More Information about Sue Lowden and the Disrupted Convention

THAT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION TO HARRY REID

I understand that several years ago, Sue Lowden gave one or more campaign contributions to Senator Reid totaling $8,000. That does very little to validate her claims of being a conservative.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS

One of the more curious aspects of the state party convention last year was that the party leadership did not follow state law in selecting Presidential Electors and in disregarding state law, they also ignored the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution requires that each state legislature devise a method for selecting Presidential Electors. The legislature of Nevada devised a method and mandated that Presidential Electors be selected by the state convention of each party. Apparently the party leadership of the Republican party in Nevada has been ignoring state law for several years, which is backed by the U.S Constitution and has failed to select Presidential Electors at the party convention. (The other major party abides by state law.) When I noticed this inconsistency several weeks before the state party convention, I sent an email and a letter to the state party leadership. The party leadership, including Sue Lowden, ignored the letter and failed to select the electors at the convention. This is just one more indication that Sue Lowden has little regard for the rule of law. This personality trait is not something that we need in a U.S. Senator.

CONCLUSION

In closing, it is worth noting that Sue Lowden understood very well the irregular nature of her intervention in halting last year’s state convention. The convention was taped by Dennis Grover and a few days after the convention, a woman claiming to be Sue Lowden called him and asked for the original copy of the tapes. Dennis offered to sell her a copy of the videos at a modest price but she wanted the originals. The only significant difference between the original and copies is that only the original can normally be used as evidence in court. After this first friendly call, Mr. Grover received another call from an attorney representing the Nevada Republican Party. This time the call was less friendly and the attorney pressured Dennis to give up the original copies, claiming that they were the property of the convention. Dennis again refused to give up the originals and he did not hear again from Sue Lowden or her attorney. So I think it is clear from these calls, that Sue Lowden understood that it was not a trivial thing to undermine the convention and to violate the agreement with the national Republican Committee.

Based on the information outlined above, I feel that it is my duty to do everything that I can to oppose the election of Sue Lowden to the United States Senate. I hope the readers of this message will also oppose her election. We owe it to all those who have given their lives in past wars in opposition to dictatorial regimes. It makes no sense to oppose dictatorial regimes in the rest of the world but allow tyrannical methods and dictatorial personalities to gain a foothold here at home. If you agree with these comments, please forward this letter or link to your friends and associates.