Vance, Meadows, iCaucus conference call


As many of you know, on Monday afternoon there was a conference call with iCaucus national and regional leadership, TEA Party and 912 groups from around the 11th District, and Mark Meadows and Vance Patterson, our two leading candidates heading towards a run-off in the 11th Congressional District.

iCaucus Background:  Central to iCaucus are qualities of personal accountability and transparency of candidates seeking endorsements, as well as alignment with the basics of smaller government, less taxes, adherence to the Constitution, etc…. 

The purpose of Monday’s conference call was to lay our cards on the table and discuss the 800-pound elephants in the room.

  1. How do we get through this run-off without cannibalizing other Republicans and giving the Democrats ample ammunition against us in November?
  2. How can all these groups (TEA, 912, and GOP) get through the run-off and remain friends, so we can ALL work together for the nominee in the General Election? And even more importantly, how do we keep everyone invested in the political process through the General Election in November, so they don’t leave the political process?
  3. What role would the iCaucus vetting and endorsing process play in the run-off?
  4. The biggie for many of us:  Which candidate has the support and the money to get them selves across the finish line in November against a very well funded Democrat, Hayden Rogers?

Dara Bailey (iCaucus national vetting director) and Jane Bilello (iCaucus CQQ coordinator and Asheville TEA Party president) started the discussion by preaching the necessity of remaining unified through the election cycle, so that Democrats don’t defeat us in the fall. Their worries are that supporters on the losing side of the Republican run-off will become disenfranchised and not even vote at all in November.  Also trying to avoid Jeff Miller / Dr. Dan drama, by having both candidates promise to support the other candidate after the run-off.  Both candidates responded with an unqualified “yes.”

One group leader detailed the vote totals in 11th District Congressional primary:

  • Meadows (R)  37.83 %, and earned 35,733 votes district wide
  • Patterson (R)  23.61%, and earned 22,306 votes district wide
  • Rogers (D)  55.73%, and earned 35,518 votes district wide

The same group leader further pointed out that Meadows earned more votes than the Democrat primary winner showing Meadows has strong support.  (There’s more….)

During the call, it was stressed that there was an iCaucus endorsement tie months ago with each candidate getting an even 40% of the votes from affiliate group members.  Discussion moved towards having another iCaucus vote to endorse one of these two candidates.  Responses were mixed.  Some wanted another vote, some wanted to let the tied endorsement ride and endorse the winner of the run-off.  One comment was “if we don’t endorse one of these men, then we’re just… vanilla.”

We all agreed that much of the candidates’ positions are the same and the 11th District would be lucky to have either represent us.  But clearly only one would win the run-off and face the Democrat.  Who?  How would the iCaucus vetting and endorsing process play a role in the run-off?

Vance Patterson was on webcam for the entire 1.5-hour conference call.  His body language and facial expressions were “colorful”, complete with eye-rolling, huffs and sighs, slapping the desk, spinning around in his chair, ripping his glasses off, turning to the side and not looking at the camera anymore when he didn’t like what was being said.  I’ve never seen a candidate act like that at meetings or forums in public, maybe he didn’t realize we could really see him on the webcam.

Vance also said he didn’t want another iCaucus vote by paper ballots at meetings, because he didn’t think some would return ballots marked for him.  Dara interrupted Vance and chastised him for attempting to cause trouble between the affiliate groups in the 11th District by calling into question anyone’s integrity without cause.

Vance’s tone throughout the call was shockingly arrogant and angry. He interrupted and didn’t answer any questions to many of our satisfaction.  His answers, if one could call them answers, were arguments, deflections, and accusations.

He took no responsibility for his campaign, like when I asked him about fundraising.  I explained that it was going to take money to defeat Hayden Rogers (D) in November.  Hayden out fundraised Vance 42:1.  Did you read that? *** 42:1 ***  For every $1 Vance raised, Hayden raised $42.  Hayden out fundraised Meadows 2:1, that 2:1 margin is enough of a challenge, but 42:1 is not even in the same political league.  I detailed that Vance has raised $7,431 to Hayden’s $316,264 in the category of reportable Individual Contributions and PAC money, according to the latest FEC filings, public information (http://fec.gov/disclosurehs/hsnational.do?cf=hs_elec).  (Click for clear image below.)

Vance has self-funded his campaign, mortgaged his house, and says he’s not going to ask anyone for money.  I asked Vance if he had another $1 million to $1.2 million to fully fund his campaign?  That’s when it got really ugly and he deflected the question to “the founding father’s rolling over in their graves for making this election about money.”  He also said “This election is not about defeating Hayden Roger’s! It’s about America!” To which the phone call erupted in “YES IT IS ABOUT BEATING HAYDEN!”  We tried to make Vance understand that if you can’t get elected first, then you can’t help America.  He seemed too angry to hear us.  My question was just a straight forward, honest question about his campaign against a very strong and well funded Democrat.

And so as not to give all the attention to the bad behavior, Mark Meadows was open and understanding to our concerns, listened, didn’t interrupt anyone, and offered positive comments to the conversation.

When asked directly, Meadows agreed to keep the campaign positive and constructive.  When Vance was asked the same question, he said almost sarcastically he promised, but out of nowhere claimed “the attacks had already started against him.”  (He was given a pass and the comment was left unchallenged.  But I think those comments were aimed at me for my recent questions asked on facebook about some of his campaign positions.  I have been harassed by a member of Vance’s staff for merely asking questions and then strangely called a liar for asking same questions.)

After the call, I wondered about his level of accountability if he should take office.  I wondered if he will be transparent in office, or will he block questions.  If questions about campaign positions and campaign finances sends Vance over the edge now, what will his attitude be in office when he must participate in monthly iCaucus conference calls about pending and passed legislation?  If recent behavior is any indication of future behavior, I’m not sure he will be as accountable and transparent once in office as we hope.

Advertisements

About Christine

I believe in the CONSERVATIVE principles and values of the Republican Party as they are written, and not how they are currently practiced by today's RINO's. Smaller government, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, states' rights, free market capitalism, and less government intrusion in our lives!
This entry was posted in NC 11th District, TEA Party, US House and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Vance, Meadows, iCaucus conference call

  1. tarheel conservative says:

    Episodes like this, which are far from isolated, prove that Vance Patterson lacks the temperament and maturity to represent the 11th District

  2. Mrs. Silence Dogood says:

    The attitude and demeanor of Vance mentioned in this article, are exactly like the ones that I’ve witnessed from him in my encounters with him. This being said, I’ll have to agree with the previous comment, as in, this proves that Vance Patterson lacks the temperament and maturity to represent the 11th District.

  3. Mike Emory says:

    It’s a simple question sir, given your inability to raise adequate campaign donations in both 2010 and 2012, causing you to personally fund most of your campaign, do you personally have access to another $1 million to $1.2 million to fully fund a run-off and the campaign to defeat Hayden Rogers (D) in November?…and YES, IT IS ABOUT BEATING HAYDEN!

  4. Pingback: Conference call disappointment | Caldwell Republican Club

  5. John Marshall says:

    Go ahead NC, be “politically correct”- vote in the “nice guy who has nothing to say but smiles” and watch us destroy ourselves with Meadows. Being passionate and knowing what is right does not mean having a temperament. We’re doomed with Meadows.

  6. Shirley Kanode says:

    John, I am in total disagreement with your inaccurate, non-specific criticism of Mark Meadows. I am puzzled why you consider support of him to be “politically correct” and someone who has “nothing to say but smiles.” I have had the opportunity to hear Mark speak several times and answer some difficult questions by Tea Party members. He is personable, a good presenter, AND is conservative and knowledgeable of every issue we questioned him on. Trying to marginalize him with petty insults with no specific examples is unhelpful. We would be very lucky to have someone like Mark Meadows represent us in Congress. He has the qualities and knowledge to become influential and even a leader in Congress–much more than a lone vote.

  7. Jean Thompson says:

    John, I disagree. I’ve talked with both extensively. In this sense, the word “temperament” is being used to indicate character. If Patterson gets defensive when asked questions, he has a problem. Meadows is strongly committed on every single issue that matters for liberty. Just because he has better manners about expressing it than Patterson doesn’t make him weak somehow. Your logic is just off.

  8. carol adams says:

    vance sounds like he is coming “unglued” and his behavior, i think, is his way of getting out of the race without actually saying he`is`pulling out! as for mark meadows…nice guy yes (nothing wrong with that…, nothing to say? absolutely untrue. if you heard him speak you would know that.

  9. Samantha Hayes says:

    ashamed!

  10. Samantha Hayes says:

    I think that you, Christine, are an awful reporter and you are an extremely biased and mis informed person. I am ashamed that you are a member of the TEA Party. You are exactly what is wrong with “the establishment party.” You should be ASHAMED of yourself for actually writing this report the way you wrote it. You sound like an idiot and in all reality, you CLEARLY are one too! Shame on YOU! Consider joining Barak Obama in his mission to divide this country as you have set the precedence to divide our own party. You should really take a look at yourself in the mirror and question why it is you don’t like what is staring back at you… just by this report… tells a lot about your character! Shame Shame Shame on YOU!

  11. Pingback: iCaucus pulls support for Vance | Caldwell TEA Party

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s