Shootout at the KCRCC Corral

Our email was abuzz with reports out of the KCRCC April meeting. Seating was limited, and the meeting went smoothly, considering the Covid situation. But towards the end there was a verbal shoot-out of sorts.

According to our sources, PC Terri Seymour gave a passionate plea for the KCRCC to adopt some sort of vetting process for hopeful political candidates. The reason is to better inform voters of any RINOs that tried to slip in under the radar. As she stated, it was simply a discussion on the matter for future elections. She acknowledged it was likely too late for this election.

Here is where things get interesting. After she begin speaking, at least two sources noticed KCRCC Secretary, Alex Barron, pick up his phone and start typing as if he was sending a text. Then he put it down and looked towards the direction of one of his supporters, Phil Thompson. One source noticed Phil look at his phone, and type what they assume could have been a reply.

At this point Phil Thompson raised his hand, and when called upon,  gave his opinion of why this was a horrible idea. Witnesses report he kept pausing to look at something on his desk, either notes or his phone for prompting. He spoke for almost 2 minutes on why it was such a bad idea, in what we were told was a condescending, belittling manner. He got so worked up his face was red, and he ended with, “Oh Hell naw.” One source said, “It was obvious he pre-wrote the reply.”

Terri held her composure and answered Phil with dignity and grace, before fielding the next question.

The next question was from Elections Committee chair Bjorn Handeen. When Terri went to answer, she was gaveled by Chairman Brent Regan. He stated it was getting too heated and they needed to keep it civil. Hmmmmm, Brent let Phil beat his chest and get red faced, but he shut Terri down. Well played Brent, did Alex get to you also?

Enter Alex

So here is some back history. Alex Barron, you know the candidate with a storied past, has been the most outspoken opponent of anything to do with candidate vetting. There were two resolutions on this matter, both of which he spoke out against. He even went to the extent of campaigning against them behind the scenes to any committee person that’d lend their ear. Alex’s efforts were effective enough that both went to the elections committee, where they are currently MIA.

Remember folks, Alex is not a precinct committeeman, he is the secretary. It was after his appointment that the bylaws changed to allow officers who were not PC’s to vote. Prior to him being secretary, ONLY precinct committee-peeps could vote. But because Alex loves to whine, cuss like a sailor, and cause a HUGE scene, he was given voting privileges. HERE are the latest bylaws. Our issue with this, is it allows two votes for the precinct that Alex lives in. But remember he’s the self-inflated and important. Plus he bullies people when he doesn’t get his way, so he was given magical voting powers.

We’ve also heard from a few PCs that this week, Alex contacted numerous committee members asking if they would be at the meeting. He went to the extent to warn them that space in the room was limited, but he’d gladly submit their proxy vote against the straw poll…if a motion was made to approve it. So we have a non-PC with special voting privileges begging for “NO” proxy votes on a subject that would’ve kicked his campaign to the curb. Process that for a moment.

Analysis

Of the local candidates running for office, Alex stands to lose the most if a vetting process was put in place. He’s built his campaign on half truths and lies, bullying anyone that gets in his way. His gangland tactics have gone so far, he even told a precinct committee person in his district if they didn’t support him, he’d run someone against them. This latter point is illegal, but people turn a blind eye to anything Alex does, for fear of being called racist. Yes folks, he really has people that scared.

For insiders, you’ll recall it was Alex who threw a fit when Candice Owens’ name was tossed around as a potential speaker for Lincoln Day. He groveled so much, Candice was taken outta consideration. Perhaps the KCRCC should be called, “Alex’s Club”, since he bullies the committee to the direction he wants.

But back on track. Based off the reports we’ve heard, it seems plausible the attack on Terri Seymour was planned before hand. It’s a shame this is allowed to go on, and others don’t speak out against it.

Our hats are off to Terri for making a stand for candidates to be transparent. You did a stellar job, and we commend you. You did more on this matter last night than the KCRCC chair has done. Never mind he claimed to have spent 5 1/2 years looking for a good vetting process. Terri, our hopes are your efforts do not go unnoticed.

Chester

5 thoughts on “Shootout at the KCRCC Corral”

  1. This article on Boise Leaks hints at something sinister going on within the KCRCC. Personally, I smell a RAT – or maybe a couple of them!

    It’s obvious that Regan and Handeen are bought and paid for by Doug-O, the Boise Establishment and other big money interests and that no candidate vetting is going to take place. Neither of them want to upset the KCRCC sugar daddies. What they see in Alex is anybody’s guess. At best, Alex is a one-time embarrassment, but Doug-O is a dangerous out-of-state influence on Idaho Politics.

    Of further interest is the fact that Brent Regan is the Chairman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation. I wonder what Wayne Hoffman and Fred Birnbaum would say to their chairman covering for candidates who fund Democrats – you know, those evil bogeymen that hate the IFF.

    Hey, Handeen and Regan, it’s time to shit or get off the pot! Vet your candidates or admit that you are frauds and RESIGN!

    Here is the Boise Leaks article…
    https://boiseleaks.org/reports/kootenai-county-gop-release-report-on-okuniewicz/

  2. It’s all about keeping the status quo for them. Very perceptive connections, we agree.

  3. I am not a member of the kcrcc mainly because I reside in Shoshone county.
    As a dobbin dolt, I was one of those that worked diligently to rewrite the Party Platform and as a district officer was instrumental in insisting that candidates affirm their belief in it and if they had problems with anything in it, explain their reasoning for disagreement. If their reasons were valid, then that was noted and people made their choice based on truth and transparency.
    Can candidates lie and circumvent the acceptance of the platform? Sure they can and do but I would suggest to you, it should only happen once.
    The platform is the essence of the party. If you do not support it, you do not belong in the republican party.
    For the same reason that if you do not support and bear true faith to the constitution of the state or the country you do not belong in public service, you do not belong in the party and any support given to you by the party should be withdrawn immediately.

  4. interesting that my reply from yesterday has not been published. Would think that a personal balanced review from the actual meeting would be censored here, on a blog that proclaims transparency.

  5. When we have time we’ll dig through our Spam comment section and see if we can find yours. A new plug-in is supposed to filter our SPAM, but it’s acting up of late.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.