Brian, please rethink your approach to this subject; it is backwards. Frederick’s defenders do not have to prove Frederick has done anything. Because Frederick is a duly elected party official, the people who would remove him have to show cause. So far Frederick’s opponents have not shown such cause. What they have done is stir the pot with unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo. What they have proven is what we knew when we elected Frederick.
1. Conservatives are not popular with the rest of our elected officials.
2. Frederick is human.
3. With enough effort anyone can be made to look foolish.

kgotthardt – You ask an interesting question. I will deal with it in a separate post.

As for judgment, the same thousands who elected Frederick elected the members of the SCC.

I don’t see how you can call the charges insubstantial. How is the undisputed charge that he used his own company to do RPV business not “substantive”? How are the multiple gaffes not substantive? Each time he makes a mistake publicly, he undermines confidence in himself and in the party – and that leads to poor fundraising. No one will give money to someone they think is incompetent. Fundraising is one of his primary jobs as Chairman.

You never answered my question. Other than his election, what has Frederick done that makes you confident he can succeed as Chairman? If he can’t, why support him?

Is Frederick perfect? No. I cannot make the case anybody is perfect. I don’t like everything Frederick has done, but I had no problem with Frederick’s jokes. If you look at the policies Obama is trying to implement, he is a menace. What is different is that we must deal with Obama via elections and ballots instead of bullets, but that does not make the threat he poses any less dangerous. A nation can vote for its own destruction. Ask Germany.

What has sour grapes you have expressed got to do with racism? Would you like to explain?

I haven’t admitted anything because I don’t know anything more than you do. I don’t know if the SCC has more information that they aren’t releasing or not. All I am saying is that if they do, I am fine with that because I recognize that the more that is in the public domain, the more potential for long term damage there is. The evidence amounts to plenty – it amounts to bad judgment, an unwillingness to work with others, and an indifference to appearances of impropriety.

Like I said before, the state party plan doesn’t require evidence of a crime or a conviction to remove the Chairman. Just 75% of the SCC.

This has nothing to do with Frederick personally. I don’t know him well enough to like or dislike him. And “sour grapes” is just another strawman.

Was it sour grapes that caused Frederick to make Obama/Osama jokes in front of the national media? Was it sour grapes that made him use his own company for RPV business when he was specifically told not to? Was it sour grapes that made him twitter the possibility of the State Senate shifting before it happened? Was it sour grapes that Was it sour grapes that made his own transition chairman Anthony Bedell sign a letter calling for his ouster?

First you’re complaining that the SCC is keeping secrets from us. Then you complain that there’s no evidence of a crime. Then you complain that people attacked him and made him ineffective. Now you’re complaining that it’s all sour grapes? What’s next? We’re all racists?

Other than the fact that he was elected, has he done anything at all that makes you confident we can succeed with him as chairman? If so, what is it?

You have already admitted that the SCC is withholding whatever evidence they have. The “evidence” that has been provided does not amount to anything. There is certainly nothing criminal.

What we are dealing with is a bunch of immature griping. What we have is you and some others who don’t like Frederick. What we have is a severe case of sour grapes. Sour grapes does not constitute grounds for Frederick’s removal. What is does constitute is the inability of some people to accept Frederick’s election.