Out-of-state Ron Paul operative/agitator Brian Greenspan shot off the following email this morning to Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden accusing “certain parties” - whom Greenspan conveniently neglects to name - of scuttling a deal he claims to have made to assure that Ron Paul delegates would be included in the Nevada delegation to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis this summer. Since Greenspan has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth, I’m posting his email to Chairwoman Lowden here in its entirety, unedited…
Sue,
Since before the convention, we were clear that it was our intention to have a unified convention. I think we went way out of our way to reach out into the state party organization to make this clear and to try to establish, up front, some kind of mutually agreeable solution that could be presented to all delegates to satisfy all interests.
In advance, we tried to work out a solution with the nominations committee that would ensure that state delegates that support Ron Paul would be part of that unified convention as well.
Naturally, we also prepared for continengies. Unfortunately, we had to put the contingency plan into action as soon as I found out that the nominations committee, or certain parties on it, had no intention on holding up their end of the bargain.
Now, as before, we are prepared to work out a solution in advance, such that the convention, when it reconvenes, will be a unity convention. And we will be prepared again for contingencies again, though I sincerely hope this time all parties will uphold their agreements.
Now, as before the convention, I am available to discuss this. As always, I am at your and the state party’s disposal. Just call me.
Sincerely,
–
Jeff Greenspan
Regional Campaign Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008
www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted on April 28th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
In your last topic, you said I did make a deal (but you said I broke it). Now, you imply that no deal was made in that I only “claimed” one, in your words. So, Chuck, which is it? Did I make a deal and break it? Or was there no deal?
The evidence is on the nominations committee ballot that was handed out.
Who is talking out of both sides of their mouth, Chuck?
Facts + evidence vs. Muth’s “Truths”
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, *Chuck Muth* joins him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” - Mark Twain
Jeff, the more you try to weasel out of this the more you dig yourself in deeper and deeper.
I didn’t say you made a deal, YOU said you made a deal.
Then you claimed “certain parties” on the other side were conspiring to break the deal.
But you refuse to identify who these certain parties are or what they did to break the deal.
Yet you use this as your excuse not to honor your side of the bargain.
But now I think we might finally be getting to the bottom of this. You allude to a “nominations committee ballot that was handed out.” Is this why you broke your own deal? If so, do you have any proof that this ballot was put out by the nominations committee and not someone else who was just trying to stir up the mob? Did you naively fall for fake nominations ballot?
Chuck, Was there or was there not a deal? First you say there was then you say I only “claim” there was.
How can someone break a non-existant deal if there was not one?
Or, if there was one, then in order for me to have broken it, it would only have been rational if, in fact, there were no Ron Paul supporters on the nomination’s committee ballot or there were fewer than I was previously told there would be, which means someone else broke their deal.
Where’s the weasel? Oh, I think it is the guy (Chuck Muth) who first attacks me outrageously saying there WAS a deal, then turns around and says there was NOT one and says I only claimed there was.
You can’t even get your OWN wild accusations straight!
What do you think about the domain names:
www.muthsoutrageousaccusations.com and
www.muthsfantasies.com
and linking them to your site since they seem to more accurately describe what the actual content of your site is given that you have been unable to produce one single, solitary shred of evidence to back up anything you say.
Thoughts?
Jeff, you’re being hung with your own words and are only making youself look more foolish by the hour. It was you, not me, who wrote to Sue Lowden admitting that you had a deal “with the nominations committee that would ensure that state delegates that support Ron Paul would be part of” the official slate of candidates for delegates to the national convention.
I can understand why you’d be embarrassed at being caught by your own words, especially once all the Ron Paul folks find out you were part of a backroom deal. What I can’t figure out is why you choose to embarrass yourself with such childish taunts as the above exercise in domain naming. How old are you anyway? Is is something I’d expect from a teenager.
If this is an indication of your political “genius,” no wonder Paul only got 14 percent of the caucus vote in January.
I’m not being hung with my own words. I think the note I wrote Sue was quite reasonable. What wasn’t reasonable about it specifically? The statement that the nominations committee didn’t uphold it’s side of the bargain?
Assuming there was NOT a bargain and it was made up, then should we have gone to the convention to LOSE? Is that what you are suggesting?
That’s nonsense Chuck.
And if there WAS a bargain, then either there WERE Ron Paul’s supporters names on the nominations ballot or there were not.
There were not any, Chuck.
What do you think that means?
Can you think through a problem logically, for once here? Or can you not follow that far?
Give it a shot!
Jeff, you fell for a hoax. Or you engineered one. Will explain in a new post in a few minutes. Boy, are you looking more and more foolish by the minute. Please…quit now while you’re behind.
Chuck, I can’t wait. Getting character assassinated by you is a badge of honor for an honest man.
I see you deleted my earlier comments, Chuck. Embarrassed by them? So much for “honest discussion” on your version of the truth. Feel free to visit my blog and post all you want. Unlike yourself, I don’t censor or control what people have to say to or about me there. Guess I should have saved that comment and posted it on my own blog, to ensure it wouldn’t get censored by someone who purports to be looking for “the truth.”
Back to you, Chuck.
You have a right to free speech “Militant,” however, you have no right to use my soapbox to exercise your right. Your earlier comments went to far in addition to being made anonymously. I might be more inclined to allow your drivvel through if you were at least man enough to identify yourself and your opinions the way Jeff Greenspan and I have done.
“Chuck, I can’t wait. Getting character assassinated by you is a badge of honor for an honest man.” could quite possible be the funniest thing I have ever heard! Nice one Greenspan.
Muth… you try to hard buddy. I paid attention what happened at the convention and as a Nader fan/bystander it looked like the Nevada Republican higher ups were trying to pull a fast one over the Paul fans in Nevada.
And Muth, the more I hear from you the more I think your a Neo-Con in a Republican disguise.
BTW… what a jerk move posting Greenspans cell number on line.
Mathew, it’s clear you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid, however, I’ll grant you your point about Jeff’s cell phone number. Truthfully, I never gave that a thought. I simply copy and pasted his email in its entirety knowing Jeff would otherwise accuse me of editing his note. Now that you brought this to my attention, I’ve removed it from the original post. Thanks for the heads up.