Oct 292023

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In this case, I am referring to the fantastical corruption monster that seems to infect conservative county parties. They convince themselves there are ghosts of Tammany Hall in their own county that they alone have to ferret out.

As shot 10-27-2023 after Safely Crossing the Border back in to the State of my Birth and Residence

Your intrepid blogger went and visited the Shasta GOP meeting on 10-26-2023. On the menu was a Shasta GOP endorsement in CA-01, SD-01 and AD-01. But, there was also a By-Law amendment that would have forced any duly-elected member (or ex-officio) to have to recuse themselves from voting on their own endorsement. This was clearly directed at Tanessa Audette in AD-01.

While I am not a fan of Audette as a candidate because she has told multiple lies on the campaign trail whilst attempting to represent herself as the Bethel Church candidate, this attempt to muzzle candidates is foolish for a variety of reasons. (One example: Audette claimed at the meeting that she had County Supervisor Endorsements in every County of AD-01, this is simply and easily proven false. Another would be her repeatedly claiming to still be working with the Dahle’s in an attempt to imply their support)

One issue I will lay out in public is that the Chair of the Shasta GOP had a clear agenda and biases. He is entitled to his choice of candidates and his opinion, what is the issue for your intrepid blogger is the lack of transparency. It was clear that Dan Sloan supported the insane and dishonest David Fennell for SD-01 and Mark Mezzano for AD-01. Now you have further color for the run at Tanessa’s ability to vote for herself.

One member of the Shasta GOP took the argument over the By-Law amendment public. (It was tabled to March because it seemed absurd to change the rules mid-process.)

Conservative Shirts 2 970×350

Start the Windmills folks, it is time to get jiggy

The AD-01 endorsement failed after 4 ballots. The Shasta GOP used a secret ballot AND a collapsing ballot for their endorsement process. Both are pretty unusual for an endorsement process and using both in the same process is typically only done when there is a desired outcome in mind. (This has been my observation for over 20 years) The SD-01 endorsement also failed because blank ballots were counted as votes against the total needed.

In the days since the endorsement meeting, there have been a ton of emails flying around. (Typical for county parties, lol) Your intrepid blogger has gotten several of them.

It seems that the Shasta GOP Chair by taking a run at Tanessa Audette under the veneer of corruption has activated a fringe of the County Party over an issue that is not even illegal nor is it challenged in Robert’s Rules of Order.

In fact, in my years in Placer County, several sitting electeds were on the committee and voting on their own endorsements and sometimes on those of their colleagues! It is and never was an issue because it is allowed in Robert’s Rules.

Central Committees are exempt from the Brown Act. So there goes that argument.

Further, getting a Shasta GOP endorsement does not guarantee a financial outcome for a candidate. Some offices are not compensated and others that have compensation are not guaranteed to be compensated by the time said person gets sworn in. For these reasons and more there have never been laws or regulations similar to what is being proposed in Shasta County.

Every Partisan elected gets members to the county parties within their district. But, a side effect of passing such a by-law amendment would be to deny them the ability to represent their own interests because it is some sort of “Perk” of office. I’d submit that being part of a County Party is the furthest thing from a “Perk” of office there can be – especially when groups like the Shasta GOP accuse them of corruption simply for existing.

The saddest thing is that if this by-law amendment were to pass, it would not stand up in court because it would strip duly-elected members of their rights. What Mr. Gorman, who should know better as he is a campaign operative in part of his life, is that Audette got elected separately to the Central Committee several years before running for AD-01.

Also, in public, Dan Sloan and another candidate have publicly pledged to recuse themselves from their own endorsements. This means little as neither Dan’s pending endorsement for County Supervisor in D3 or the other guy in D2 are controversial to the Shasta GOP. I doubt if the endorsement was hotly contested either would make such a move.

Central Committees are supposed to be incubators for Candidates. Good Committees (like Placer) recruit candidates and get them elected. If you do it the proposed Shasta way, you are telling people that get elected to Central Committee that decide later to run for office they are crooks if they attempt to advance their campaign as a member of the Central Committee. What a message!

Tanessa’s AD-01 Campaign is going to fail on its’ own for a variety of reasons. This is not one of them.

There are emails out there that may well have been forwarded multiple times by now. This issue should have never been created and now it is going to further marginalize the Shasta GOP. Worse, they are railing against something that neither an issue of morality or illegal.

The more things change with County Parties, the more they stay the same.

Stay Informed!

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.

  5 Responses to “Shasta GOP Update: AD01 Endorsement Fails and Chaos Ensues Over an False Flag “Corruption” Issue”

  1. You got several facts from the meeting wrong in this opinion article. If you want to correct them call my at 5303566429. Authur Gorman. Are you worried you will be out of a job if the Dahle Dynasty ends?

    Hi Arthur – thanks for visiting. Your comment is proof good people can all see, hear and experience the same thing and come out of it with a different meaning.

  2. Based on the “unfair” advantage of voting for yourself, should we impeach nearly 535 members of Congress? Reductio ad absurdum!

  3. All members who have enriched themselves off of the American people should be impeached. Inside trading, misuse of campaign funds, gifts from lobbyists, making government a family business, and voting to increase your net worth directly is unethical. All parties have done it. It’s time for new representation for the people and by the people.

  4. Okay, now I’m confused.

    On one hand, Mr Gorman asks: “Are you worried you will be out of a job if the Dahle Dynasty ends? So, now there is a dynasty?

    Yet, on the other hand Mr Gorman writes: ” Inside trading, misuse of campaign funds, gifts from lobbyists, making government a family business, and voting to increase your net worth directly is unethical. All parties have done it. It’s time for new representation for the people and by the people.”

    Commendable at best, kind of doofus at the least.

    How can you accuse, those who run for office, of the things you say, yet still support some of those very people you’re accusing? If an R candidate, abused their powers as you stated, then runs for additional offices, where does that leave the pundits? Some of you folks SWEAR by these candidates. Some folks on here, are down with whomever so long as they get into office. Does Mitt ring a bell? Or Mitch? How about Graham? We aren’t even talking about the D’s who’ve abused their offices. But, I get it. As I said, commendable at best.

    If THOSE people are corrupt, then what’s that say about supporters? Are they as corrupted or just gullible? The article asserts: “What Mr. Gorman, who should know better as he is a campaign operative in part of his life,” So, it begs the question: Is Mr Gorman as corrupt as the system he professes is corrupt? ALL MEMBERS. We talking only elected officials? Or those who swear by, lie for, stand in for elected officials?

    Smh. Don’t get me wrong, on some of these things I agree. Yet, one should be very, very careful when one starts tossing boulders inside of the glass house. I’d like to know, what Mr Gorman is looking for, when he says: “It’s time for new representation for the people and by the people.”
    From what I”VE been told, it’s not about representation or the message. It’s about how much money you can raise. Is THAT what you’re saying, when you say ” It’s time for new representation?” Kind of smacks of cynicism, don’t you think?

    However, to find out more about what YOU believe in, perhaps I can answer your statement with what I believe in. Feel free to call me and ask, if you’re so inclined to do so Mr Gorman. (You can reach me at 9167080027) I’m stuck due to the Hatch Act, from making public announcements. Quiet inquiries however, seem to be okay. After all, I DO have an opinion, and free speech, just like everyone else, right? lol (That and plausible deniability) Orange County and Shasta County GOP. Wow, will I have my work cut out for me when I stand before YOU folks, asking for your endorsements. (Time will tell and I’ll remember this posting) 1 MAY 2024, the announcement is coming.

  5. Central committee members can appoint alternates who vote in their absence. Tessa Audette could have followed this common procedure that maintains her voting privilege she deserves as a Central Committee member, but executing it in a more palatable manner.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>