There are hard-core Ron Paul supporters who will never get over the 2008 Nevada Republican convention. In their made-up minds, then-GOP Chairman Sue Lowden was the bad guy and nothing will ever convince them otherwise. But as we all know, there are always two sides to every story.

The other side of the story is what led to the chaos in the first place. Here’s the Reader’s Digest version….

Jeff “Chemtrail” Greenspan was hired by the Paul campaign as its southwest regional director. And he held himself out to Lowden and the Nevada Republican Party as speaking for the Paul delegates.

Greenspan entered into negotiations with the party for divving up the convention delegates and agreed with the party to allot 5-6 delegates to the national convention to Paul supporters. That number was based on the fact that Ron Paul had received 13 percent of the vote in the presidential caucus back in January.

The party, having no reason to doubt that Greenspan spoke for the Paul delegates, thought the deal was settled and proceeded to launch what they thought would be a united convention.

But on the morning of the convention, Greenspan double-crossed the party and proceeded with efforts to snatch all of the delegates for Ron Paul. He confirmed this in a letter explaining why he launched his “contingency” plan to Chairman Lowden after the convention.

His stated reason for the double-cross was the distribution of a fake delegate slate flier which did not include the names of the Paul delegates that Greenspan had submitted to the party – a flier that numerous sources have told me Greenspan himself forged and had distributed.

Anyway, at that point all hell broke loose and, as they say, the rest is history.

Now I know some Ron Paul delegates are now saying that Jeff Greenspan never had the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Paul delegates, but the party didn’t know that. Greenspan claimed he DID have the authority and he WAS Dr. Paul’s paid district director. The party had no reason at the time to doubt him.

Could the party have handled the situation better after the big Greenspan Screw Job? Sure. But after being double-crossed, I can understand why party leaders weren’t exactly in an accommodating mood. Maybe they could have/should have proceeded differently, but make no mistake….the root cause for the convention chaos that ensued was Jeff Greenspan, not Sue Lowden.

Anyway, this whole brouhaha comes down to a he said/she said between an untrustworthy out-of-state political operative and a longtime, highly-respected Nevada Republican Party leader whom I’ve known for the better part of 15 years. No surprise whose word I take on this.

But some still believe Greenspan’s concocted version of events. They think the man’s word is good. They think he must be of good character solely because he worked for Dr. Paul’s campaign. They’re wrong.

I received the following email yesterday from a person whose name I will withhold for confidentiality reasons. After reading it, especially you Ron Paul folks who continue to believe Greenspan’s story over Lowden’s, see if you still believe Greenspan:

“Hello Mr. Muth,

“My name is (withheld) and I’m a resident of a condominium complex in Phoenix AZ. Currently, Jeff Greenspan in president of the complex association’s board of directors. I am one of a growing number of owners who seek to remove Greenspan from the board for the very reasons you cite in your comments during the Republican State Convention in April 2008.

“Greenspan has proven to be a dictator with a Napoleonic ‘little man’ complex who will not entertain any direct contact which does not agree with him. He is rude to homeowners who disagree with him and threatens lawsuit against anyone who he says ‘harasses’ him. He has been elected basically because of the apathy of most homeowners and it is our job to educate them.

“We have many other issues concerning his ‘reign,’ including $100,000.00 and growing in legal fees for two settled lawsuits, ignoring state law which requires posting of agendas prior to board meetings and generally bullying those he feels are ‘against’ him.

“By way of background, I am not a conservative but I was impressed by your parsing of the issues revolving around Greenspan’s activities at the convention. I am a retired newspaperman and journalism professor. I voted for President Obama. So, as you can see, I’m not in your political camp. But one thing I think we both can agree on is that truth and transparency in the political arena — be it presidential politics or condo governance — are the ideals to be striven for.

“Thanks for shedding more light on Mr. Greenspan.”

Folks who are supporting a Republican U.S. Senate candidate other than Sue Lowden on philosophical or other political grounds….fine. But to oppose her over a botched convention that someone as untrustworthy and loathsome as Jeff Greenspan was actually responsible for causing is probably not the best reason.

 

21 Responses to The Further Misadventures of “Chemtrail” Jeff

  1. [...] Well, for those of you who think I’m exaggerating what a paranoid low-life Greenspan is, I received an unsolicited email yesterday from someone advising me that ol’ Chemtrail is up to his same underhanded, over-bearing shenanigans, this time at the home owners association he heads up on Phoenix.  Read all about it HERE [...]

  2. Jeff Greenspan says:

    Chuckie,

    Are you still upset because your candidate and “special friend” was ruled to be “inept” by the RNC?

    Now, I see you are taking advice from Democrats and Obama supporters! You look to them as the source of truth. Nice.

    Anyway, since you know zero people who worked on the Paul campaign as staffers you actually have zero insight into the operations of the campaign.

    Furthermore, no one told you anything about slates. Nor have you EVER been able to demonstrate otherwise. It’s just one more concocted story by Muth’s Fantasies, et cetera.

    Nor was the ever any deal, therefore there was no deal to break. For crying out loud, you are defending people who were ruled INEPT by the RNC Committee on Contests. Does that make you inept?

    Have you caught up on your child support payments?

  3. Jeff Greenspan says:

    This is from an affidavit of what really occurred at the convention:

    The person walking from the counting room took a straight line to State Chairwoman Sue Lowden, leaning over and whispering into her ear. After the person walked off Sue sat there for about 30 seconds tapping her foot and then stood up and walked over to Commissioner Woodbury who was sitting in front of me, leaning over she said, “If we can break Quorum, can we invalidate this?” After saying this rather loudly and glancing at the expression on my face she quickly quieted down and I was unable to hear the rest of the conversation.

    I sat in a dazed confusion for about five minutes trying to figure out what quorum was in this convention of 1347 delegates, which was 674 delegates. Soon after Chairwoman Lowden left, a John McCain staffer, Paul Jackson, came by. I had been gathering signs and information from him all day, and he believed I was a hardcore McCain supporter. He came up to me and got on one knee as if to propose his undying love. He began his conversation with, “They are trying to pull a coup, we are going to leave and quarter the convention.” I responded, “Do we even have the numbers, all they need is a couple hundred to keep Quorum?” He answered back, “The powers that be have the numbers, I am just doing what I was told to do by my boss.” At this moment I knew that they had lost control of the convention and were desperate. About an hour went by before they finally figured out they did not have enough people to pull off this little stunt.

    I watched the party officers directly in front of me huddling up with the parliamentarian and trying to come up with something. Soon after this huddle, the party began to filibuster the convention filling it with videos and speakers over a course of 60 minutes. During this time Sue Lowden began barking at Chairman Bob Beers, and I could clearly see Chairman Beers not agreeing with what she was telling him. First it was just her talking to him, then after going on and off stage to present the next video or speaker, three people gathered around him, by the fourth time he stepped off the stage, eight people were surrounding and pressuring him, which I can only assume was to end the convention, being that was the next thing that happened when he returned to the stage.

    When he returned to the stage for the last time, Chairman Beers ended the convention illegally calling an indefinite recess without a vote of the delegation to do so, at 6 pm. This was not before their first plan of ending the convention was attempted to be put into play by a member that was not informed calling for a Quorum which we would still have had. But Beers interrupted him saying, “I will save you some time”, and called the indefinite recess. Later it was claimed to be the end of the contract of the room. But upon request from the Hotel they gladly gave us three more hours for free.

  4. Jeff Greenspan says:

    By the way, I have screen prints of your post today and the original letter as well as the comments just in case you delete anything contrary to your opinion, in your typical Muth’s (Lowden) Fanaties fashion. Did I just say that about you and you know who? LOL. You reap what you sew, Chuckie.

  5. Jeff Greenspan says:

    You do realize she will not take you to DC if she goes, right?

    Oh, you don’t. You believe the promises?

    Aw, that’s so sweet. You really think she will? LOL

    It’s just like highschool again.

  6. Mary P. says:

    The amusing thing is that with each post you can actually so Chemtrail become more and more unhinged. Near the end all he is doing is suggesting that you have a crush on Sue. “It’s just like highschool again” is right.

  7. Jeff Greenspan says:

    Not a crush. It was more than that. But you have to ask Chuck yourself directly. He’s hoping it will be more than that again. It wont be, of course.

  8. Mary P. says:

    There may be a serious issue here. If Sue Lowden was duped by *THIS* guy maybe Republicans should consider backing a different candidate. Admittedly, I was not present when negotiations were going on with Mr. Chemtrail so I have no idea if Sue actually met him in person. Still, all I have is some blog posts to go on and I can tell that he is clearly insane.

    Maybe this is how Republicans should choose their Senate candidate. Put each candidate in a room with Chemtrail and see which ones can spot him for what he is and which can not. Hey…if Mike Wiley was still in the race that would be quite an encounter. Maybe Mike could introduce Jeff to all the aliens he always suspected existed.

    Beam him up Mike, beam him up.

  9. Jeff Greenspan says:

    What’s a Chemtrail?

  10. Mary P. says:

    “Not a crush. It was more than that. But you have to ask Chuck yourself directly. He’s hoping it will be more than that again. It wont be, of course.”

    Again, he duped Sue Lowden. Maybe it is time to consider supporting John Chachas.

  11. DL says:

    I think Jeff Greenspan has done good things for our party. Nevada has benefited from all the active Republicans that the Ron Paul campaign brought in. It sounds to me like Muth is trying to divide Republicans in the state.

    Hmmm. Very strange for a Republican to reference a message from an Obama supporter to make a point here.

  12. That journalism professor is a terrible writer. Bad grammar, punctuation, and spelling make me wanna call BS. And, I don’t mean Bryan Sandyballs.

  13. Bob Hastings says:

    Chuck – Pretty amazing. Anyone who opposes Sue is a liar to you. It appears you have also pulled down some of his information. You are truly not concerned with the truth.

    By the way I have also been making screen prints of the information that I post that suddenly gets “lost”.

  14. Matt says:

    I am going to respond for Chuck…

    You guys are idiots. You’re stupid and you don’t know anything about politics here in Nevada.
    The Founding Fathers would have wanted Sue Lowden to be our Senator and anyone who disagrees hates the Founding Fathers and America. Why don’t you guys make yourselfs useful and take a political dirt nap, you stupid PaulTards…

    That’s my guess for a response… if he responds at all.

  15. Bob Hastings says:

    Matt –

    Nice response. Very mature. But as a supporter of Muth I would expect no less. Why do you feel you know what the founding fathers would want. Somehow I don’t think they would want a candidate who in the last 15 years has flipped her opinion on abortion, Harry Reid, taxes and Yucca. At the same time she has a very questionable stance on bailouts and her business practices can be called into question. Of course I would like to post that info but to date Mr. Muth demand I post it (Muth’s Truth and Tark Tales) but when I do he is TOO AFRAID to post it. I have stated many times if he thinks my information has so many holes, post it and debunk it. Not posting it means he has no way to defend it.

  16. Bob Hastings says:

    One more thing Matt. For the record I am not a “PaulTard”. I never supported him at any point. I was a Duncan Hunter guy. So sorry to burst your bubble.

  17. Bob Hastings says:

    Below are excerpts from articles written regarding Sue Lowden, her positions and practices. All articles and information can be found online.

    BAILOUTS:

    Lowden 2010: “All she said is it’s easy for people to (play) Monday morning quarterback (for) votes,” Uithoven said. “It’s easy for him and others to say they would have voted no. But Sue Lowden is not willing to say it was an easy vote for (Congress).” (LAS VEGAS SUN/Jan. 20, 2010

    Reality: NEVADA APPEAL/Jan. 17, 2010 –
    Lowden had different reactions to the bank bail-out legislation and the stimulus package.

    On bail-out spending: “It’s easy to say, no, I wouldn’t have voted for it. But people were panicked, we were facing collapse — that’s what they were saying. It’s easy to say from a distance I would have voted no, but I can’t do that.”
    In hindsight, he (Uithoven) said TARP was bad legislation but that Lowden is focused on the future.

    CHUCK MUTH (president of Citizen Outreach and Nevada Conservative blogger/Oct. 10, 2008
    http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/cmuth_20081010.html
    “this deal (the bailout) stunk like yesterday’s diapers”
    It was the government’s way of calling the “garbage man” a “sanitary engineer.” It was, indeed, a con. The people didn’t buy it — but Congress did
    It all came down to this fundamental philosophical question: Is home ownership a “right” or a “privilege”? Conservatives instinctively know the answer is “privilege.” Home ownership is something to be earned. You save enough money for a down payment and establish a credit record of trustworthiness.

    QUESTION: Why can she give a definitive answer on the stimulus but not bailouts? In either case she was on the outside of Congress and did not have the full story. To say you can take a definitive position but not the other makes no sense.

    BUSINESS:

    Lowden 2010: “fighting for your job is my job” (TV Ads)

    Reality: LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Feb. 24, 2010 –
    Sue Lowden’s husband was awarded a $200,000 bonus from their casino company last year at a time when its work force in Laughlin was cut and matching worker 401(k) contributions were stopped.

    The work force at the Archon-owned Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall in Laughlin dropped from 459 people in September 2008 to 353 people in September 2009. In April 2009, it stopped its 25 percent match of employee contributions to the company 401(k) program.

    Paul Lowden, the company president, collected a $550,000 salary and a $200,000 bonus in 2009, and the same in 2008, according to the company report. Sue Lowden, who is executive vice president, secretary and treasurer, was paid a salary of $138,000 in 2009 and did not collect a bonus. In 2008, her salary was $136,182, plus a bonus of $6,797.

    LAS VEGAS SUN/Feb. 25, 2010 –
    Washington — Republican Sue Lowden’s company gave her husband a $200,000 bonus last year — bringing the couple’s combined paycheck to nearly $1 million — even as it slashed more than 100 jobs and eliminated the employee savings match, according to an annual report.

    The company cut its workforce by 25 percent in 2009, eliminating 106 jobs and doing away with the company match for employees’ 401(k) savings plans. The savings plan was costing the company $67,000 a year.

    While her husband received the $200,000 bonus for two years in a row, Lowden said he had not received a salary increase since 1996 and had turned down additional stock options. Her pay has steadily increased.

    LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Jun. 21, 2005 –
    Archon Corp. diluted minority shareholders’ interests by giving unjustified bonuses to relatives of majority shareholder Paul Lowden.

    In the complaint, filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, D.E. Shaw & Co. claim that Lowden, who is also Archon’s board chairman, gave bonuses worth $4 million each to close relatives to the detriment of minority shareholders.

    Last month, Archon granted Paul Lowden’s son, Chris, and his brother, David, options to purchase 150,000 shares for $1 per share, effectively amounting to a combined bonus package of $8 million, SEC filings show.

    However, they confirmed D.E. Shaw’s claim that bonuses in the $4 million range for employees who are not senior executive officers are very rare for firms capitalized at less than $200 million.

    ETHICS:

    Lowden 2010: “I was a state senator in this very difficult time of right to work,” Lowden said in an interview. “You know, was it going one way or another? And it went right through the Assembly. It passed that the state would not be a right-to-work state. And I stopped it in the Senate” (RENO GAZETTE JOURNAL/Mar. 15, 2010)

    Reality: (RENO GAZETTE JOURNAL/Mar. 15, 2010)
    The only problem? There never was such a bill, and there never was such a vote, which Lowden acknowledged later when pressed for specifics.

    “I don’t even know what she’s talking about,” said D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 225 who was involved in the fight to unionize the Santa Fe. “I guess that’s a bill that’s all in her mind”.

    Unable to find any bill that matched Lowden’s description, the Reno Gazette-Journal asked her to clarify her remarks. She admitted she had been wrong in her re-telling of the 1995 session.

    Admits misstatement: “I absolutely want to clarify that,” she said. “We’ve gone over the records meticulously, which maybe I should’ve done before I said anything. It was my vivid recollections of so many close votes. That’s how I remembered it, but the record doesn’t show it.”

    REID:

    Lowden 2010: Lowden says her positions opposite of Reid’s to fix the country (RECORD COURIER/Jan. 15, 2010)

    Reality: LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Oct. 1, 2009
    … (Lowden) former Reid supporter …… In the 1980s she and her husband, casino owner Paul Lowden, donated $8,000 to Reid over several election cycles.

    RECORD COURIER/Jan. 15, 2010
    Describing Nevada as a “center right” state, Republican Senate front-runner Sue Lowden says she will replace Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate by appealing to a broad spectrum of Nevadans, not just a few groups on the right.

    She said she supported Reid in the past when, “he was a blue dog Democrat.”

    NOTE: “Blue Dog Democrat” is a term referencing members of the Blue Dog Coalition. The coalition began in 1994 during the 104th Congress. The Blue Dog Coalition describes itself as a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats committed to financial and national security, favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline. There is no evidence or records showing that Harry Reid was ever a part of the Blue Dog Coalition.

    ABORTION:

    Lowden 2010: In 2009, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate named Sue Lowden told a conservative publication, Human Events, that Roe v. Wade was a “bad decision.” (Las Vegas Sun/Dec. 16, 2009)

    Lowden insisted her evolution is personal and not political, providing me with a lengthy statement and declining to speak on the record beyond it. “I am pro-life and I will defend life as a U.S. senator,” the statement began. (Las Vegas Sun/Dec. 16, 2009)

    Reality: LAS VEGAS SUN/May 18, 1996
    Joining Ernaut in opposing an abortion ban: Las Vegas Assemblywoman Deanna Braunlin, state Sens. Kathy Augustine and Sue Lowden of Las Vegas,

    Lowden and Hettrick said the national party ought to follow Nevada’s lead and take abortion out of the platform.

    LAS VEGAS SUN/Dec. 16, 2009
    In 1993, a GOP state senator named Sue Lowden expressed to a reporter support for Roe v. Wade on the 20th anniversary of the decision.

    If circumstantial evidence is to be believed, Lowden is easily convicted of not one, but perhaps two acts of political convenience, tacking left when it was advantageous and then shifting right when the race called for it.

    But her comment about not standing on the Senate floor to salute Roe v. Wade is disingenuous because other senators in favor of abortion rights were caught off-guard by then-Minority Leader Dina Titus’ call for everyone to stand.

    RECORD COURIER/Jan. 15, 2010
    “I voted for choice in 1990.”

    1992 Candidate Questionnaire /Nevada Roll Call/ Christian Coalition
    When asked the question if she would “Prohibit abortion except when the mother’s life is endangered” her response was “OPPOSED”.

    TAXES:

    Lowden 2010: As a U.S. Senate candidate, Sue Lowden signed a pledge to oppose “any and all tax” increases. As a Republican party official, she denounced mandatory fees as “a tax by another name.” (LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Jan. 23, 2010)

    Reality: LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Jan. 23, 2010
    But as a state senator 17 years ago, Lowden voted to impose taxes and fees on things from slot machines to water distribution. She also voted for changes to an employment tax that increased revenue an estimated $7.9 million, a vote her campaign now says wasn’t a tax increase but a “matter of fairness.”

    And it was in a Jan. 14, 2009, letter to Republican legislators that Lowden, then chairwoman of the state Republican Party, characterized mandatory fees as “a tax by another name.” Yet several times in 1993, during her first session in the Legislature, Lowden voted to impose higher taxes or fees on everything from limited liability corporations to water distribution to slot machines.

    Lawrence, who reviewed descriptions of the bills in question from the Nevada Legislative Appropriations Report, said at least four of the bills Lowden voted for could be clearly classified as either a tax increase or imposition of a fee that’s akin to a tax.

    YUCCA MOUNTAIN:

    Lowden 2010: For example, candidate Sue Lowden, the former state party leader, opposes Yucca as a storage site. But she is open to accepting nuclear waste into the state as part of a “state-of-the-art laboratory” on par with Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico or Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California to research energy alternatives. (LAS VEGAS SUN/Jan. 30, 2010)

    Reality: LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL/Oct. 1, 2009
    Lowden says while she was a state senator she voted in favor of a resolution against the project and testified in congress in opposition. “I am clearly on the record being against it,” she said.

  18. Matt says:

    Hey Bob,

    I was being facetious… I was using sarcasm… I was making fun of Chuck, not you…

  19. Bob Hastings says:

    Sorry. It’s been a very long week. I’m setting a little something right now so Chuck won’t be able to delete my posts.

    Sorry again. Have a great one Matt!!!

  20. Laura Hummel says:

    Thanks for clearing that up; I reread the post now I get it. Very clever, but a little obscure.

  21. Angry Clark County Republican says:

    The Ron Paul minions ruined the Clark County Republican Convention. I wished I had brought duct tape with me for the “chief little guy” that kept getting in line to speak. Ron Paul followers fracture the Republican party in Nevada! It is amazing how such a small percentage could cause such destruction. Nevada Republicans need to work together to defeat Harry Reid in November and all the silly political nonsense needs to stop.

Leave a Reply