Mr. Sundstrom:
Can you tell us more about the conversation between Gorman & Gallegos? It sounds like something that should be shared.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Question about Caucus tactics
(153 posts)-
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 11:26 #
-
Spatny & Catherine: Thanks for calling on the Caucus to reveal its nominating process
Mr. Collins: Thanks for sharing the information about the Caucus nominating process
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 11:30 # -
You're welcome. But what we asked for were the identities of the nominators. How can one form an opinion of their powers of judgment without knowing who they are?
I, and I am sure many others, are not interested in another sample of Eric's erroneous hearsay and gossip.
If Gallegos and/or Gorman want to come on here, fine.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 12:49 # -
I looked up hearsay and found this: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Is it hearsay if Mr. Sundstrom is involved in the conversation with Gallegos?
I would think it is part of one's direct knowledge if he talked to Gallegos.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 13:06 # -
It is if he is telling us what Gallegos said about a conversation with Gorman. That conversation is not part of Eric Sundstrom's direct knowledge. We have already had a misrepresentation from him about an accountant's discussion with RCA, which had to be corrected by Jim Reynolds. As I said then, let's not go to gossip or playing telephone. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 13:07 # -
Misrepresenting. Thats the word that came to my mind when I heard about Mr Shevits joining the caucus after allready having set up the RCA. . By the way Catherine unkown to me, this bit of info about Alex's conversastion this past January with Mr Gorman must have been floating out their because Mr Uphues from the Landmark called Mr Gallegos and asked esentially the same question(s) I asked. To set your fears to rest I spoke to Alex again today and wrotedown what he said down verbatim. Alex stated this to me ." I was contacted by Mr Gorman on Jan 8th where he requested that we meet. On Jan 9th we met at PJ Klems.In conversation Mr Gorman requested that I withdraw from the race.Mr gorman said my running hurt the RCA's chances of a sweep of the coming election. He intimated that the caucus would cause me trouble even to spreading rumors about me and it was in my best interest to withdraw.Mr Gorman told me that with me not running the RCA was going to win.He said there was a rumor out that John Scully would resign as trustee if the RCA swept the election.In this event Mr Gorman said if I dropped out of the race and joined the RCA and the RCA won, he as president of the board, would appoint me to fill the vacant trustee position. I declined his offer." By the way Mike started this all up and I would not have had my interest piqued had he put out his cryptic message. This is not playing Telephone or Gossip.I am reporting what Mr Gallegos said.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 13:48 # -
So what does everybody think of Mr. Gallegos statement? Makes me question why anyone would want to support the RCA.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 14:05 # -
Remember that we are only hearing what eric said that he wrote down, and not the direct testimony of gorman and gallegos, the two who allegedly had the dialog.
But if we assume this much is true, that gorman asked gallegos to step aside to better the chances of an RCA sweep, this seems quite a reasonable thing to do. GOrman's request, if true, would be a TACTICAL decision EXACTLY equivalent to the Caucus rejecting Gallegos. The decision of the caucus to reject gallegos and split the disaffected vote was a very reasonable thing to do, politically, I may add. The caucus has seen the last two elections and how their party's initiatives went down 4 to 1. To me it says that they were on their game. I only asked the question, in this thread called questions on caucus tactics, and never made a CLAIM of conspiracy.
--I also think it was a great choice of a blue sign for gallegos. Makes it easier for the voters.
When I tell some dyed in the wool democrats that I voted for Nader this past time, they just about take my head off for what they think he did in 2000 - the .05 pct of aging hippies voting for Nader in FL split the vote enuf to make it close enuf to count chads, Bush got Fl, got the first term, the rest is history. It was well known that the democrats begged/demanded Nader to get out of the race.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 14:14 # -
IDIC5: Big line in Mr. Sundstrom's post you are not paying attention to is "He intimated that the caucus would cause me trouble even to spreading rumors about me and it was in my best interest to withdraw." Sounds a bit slimy.
Also, I forgot the even bigger part, trading a trustee slot for dropping out sounds almost Blagojevichian.
I wonder if Mr. Fitzgerald is free this weekend.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 14:31 # -
That's the kind of stuff that is in Gallegos' interests to say (to eric). The more nefarious he can make it sound, the more disaffected votes he'll gather. As Alex jovially said at one of the forums, he did not need to be first place; he'd be happy with third place - and so would the Caucus. That is, I bet they calculated: if 'we cannot have a sweep, we'd rather have Gallegos than an RCA sweep'.
james, based on hearsay, you are smearing someone. blago has now become a bad word.
Posted Friday Apr 3, 2009 14:34 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.