DC press knows what San Diego voters know — Scott Peters makes the “Endangered” List.
-Carl
Roll Call’s latest edition of the “Top 10 Most Vulnerable House Members” shows several more incumbents in peril. Some of them face top-notch opponents, others are running in unfavorable districts; a couple members just don’t run good campaigns.
(excerpted)
Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif.
Peters got a spot on the last edition of this list because he faces a top GOP candidate in a competitive district that will likely see Democratic turnout drop off this year. San Diego Councilmember Carl DeMaio is his opponent.
Not much has changed since then — and that’s not good for Peters. Polling shows this to be a near neck-in-neck race with three months to go.
This race is gearing up to be one of the most expensive House races on the map. More than $3 million has already been reserved on the airwaves here for the fall — including money from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and House Majority PAC.
Rating: Tossup
Comments 30
“Toss-Up” Those 25,000 “rube” Jorgensen voters just became a whole lot more important.
Perhaps the establishment GOP and it’s brownshirts at the New Generation should have thought about that before they decided to marginalize, vilify, and abandon conservatives with their unethical processes for endorsement, deceptive mailers, emails, and robo-calls. Many of those 25K know the despicable and unethical way RPSDC enablers, DeMaio campaigners, and the troika of establishment GOP-media stakeholders treated Jorgensen and his conservative supporters.
This is nothing knew as allegations and reporting is widespread and detailed on the long understood antics of intimidation, unethical, and possible illegal activity from the Etsablishment GOP and it’s backers in San Diego.
How sad that the once great Party of Reagan has become more like the Party of self-licking ice cream cones.
Now we can expect the 11th Commandmant drum beat of “all in the familiy…rally behind the Republican…with us or agin us…” solicitations…If the 25K of Jorgensen supporters don’t recall the treatment of challegers within the establishment GOP in SD, there are scores who will be diligently refreshing their memories.
“Those 25,000 “rube” Jorgensen voters just became a whole lot more important”
Rubes? That’s a bit harsh. I hardly think of those Republicans as rubes. FWIW, at least 17,000 of them signaled that they intend to vote for DeMaio.
“Many of those 25K know the despicable and unethical way RPSDC enablers, DeMaio campaigners, and the troika of establishment GOP-media stakeholders treated Jorgensen and his conservative supporters.”
I gotta step in now, FF. RPSDC delayed the endorsement vote three months so as to properly give Messrs Jorgensen and Simon a chance to present their cases for endorsement.
At the end of the day, a judgement call was made and, when the endorsement went DeMaio’s way, a few of us suggested that Jorgensen run for Congress rather than the RPSDC endorsement.
…and run he did. He and his supporters drew an astounding 20% in the June election (wasn’t surprising to me).
I have no issues with the way RPSDC treated the candidates. In a post-Prop 14 world, we’re going to be endorsing before the June elections. Did we do this flawlessly? Absolutely not but I doubt we’ll ever pull off an endorsement flawlessly. Did we do it fairly and ethically? Absolutely.
RPSDC made a judgement call– a judgement call with which you disagree. That’s fair enough but stop with the “rubes” drama–it cheapens the efforts of the one in four RPSDC members who backed your guy.
7 out of 10 Jorgensen voters already understand . The truth is that “many” , rather “most” Jorgensen supporters get what really happened.
Losers like to re-write history all the time. Here are some FACTS.
-Every one of DeMaio’s mailers were positive. They never mentioned either of his opponents. Jorgensen and Simon actually were the negative ones bashing DeMaio in the mailbox (Jorgensen) and on the radio (Simon).
-Jorgensen and Simon were both VERY well-funded. Jorgensen ended up getting around $700k with his committee and several far-right IEs done for him. Simon did at least $500k. They got their message out to voters. Voters rejected their message.
-RPSDC announced in JUNE 2013 that they would take up CA-52 in November. Nothing was “rushed.” The schedule was the same from day one and was not modified one bit. Your guy had months to prepare and work the central committee, which I recall he DID. In teh end, he simply lost the vote at central committee.
These Facts are hard for Founding Father to accept. So instead of getting a counselor and processing his grief in a healthy way, we here on ROSTRA get to read about his conspiracy theories each day and associated name-calling.
Seriously FF – give it a break.
Agreed-“Rubes” is a bit harsh…but it is illustrative of the ongoing New Generation narrative from those against conservatives and specifically Jorgensen supporters regarding traditional marriage values…in fact, the new GOP mantra is to “fully” support SSM…where as just a couple years ago, TK himself was fire-branding the “unwavering support” for traditional marriage…since then, two significant candidates endorsed by the RPSDC have positions ABSOLUTELY antithetical to that previous GOP plank…so while the leadership has done a complete 180 to its previous “unwavering support” BS, the constituents remained convicted in their original position of traditional marriage advocacy. Hence the New Generation attack packs loosed the hounds and attacked every conservative they could, anywhere they could, to create the narrative of “intolerance” etc…hence…”rubes.”
Brian, while you are convinced the process is “fair”, many are convinced it is not. If fact, several have alleged it is corrupt.
RPSDC has been “charged” with repeated allegations of manipulation, intimidation, by-passing bylaws, and multiple other perceived unethical maneuvers to assure the deck is entirely stacked in the favor of the Chairman’s favorites; incomplete CC mailers, calling meetings that are missed by CC opposing members, threatening fellow members, insider-offers, and drumming even others out through false, misleading, or unsubstantiated charges of “racism” “disloyalty” etc…it’s a pretty well documented and a continuous charge…are you not aware of it? Is this news to you?
While the reporting has been from smaller, independent source, it is pervasive and detailed..and it makes the same charges…intimidation, nepotism, cronyism, manipulation…and apparently all kept under wraps because the main media engines that could or would pursue with any level or investigative vigor are alleged to be in on it.
http://hoawrites.com/state-investigates-alleged-san-diego-republican-corruption/
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/jul/09/city-light-2/#
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/mutiny_at_the_gop
Most notable-
http://eastcountymagazine.org/images/documents/MemorandumRPSDC.pdf
Are we to believe Ms. Quach, Sacramento Bee, San Diego Reader, Voice of San Diego, MaryRose Consiglio and Tom Sherman, Mary Moran, Karen Grube, Laura Surmall, Priscilla Schreiber, Mariam Rafferty, and countless other targets and victims of the RPSDC are ALL discredited? Are they all “out” to destroy the Republican Party?
Given the “strategy” meeting of Aug 2013, where Jerry Sanders, TK, Doug Manchester, and others “crowned” both Mr. DeMaio and Mr. Falconer as the “heirs apparent”, the “complaint” from Ms. Surmall sheds light on that meeting from a whole new perspective.
It just doesn’t pass the smell test, My Friend.
As I have documented and laid out time and again, now we see this alleged and persistent quaff of unethical and irreverent behavior now coupled with Mr. DeMaio’s streak of plagiarism, embellishments, and deceptive tactics (Claire being targeted by Mr. DeMaio in a deceptive false avatar email scam should be particularly alarming to people of conscience), only codifies this persistent drip-drip of inappropriate, unethical, or prohibited actions by a small cabal of establishment GOP-insiders and their sycophantic political class guzzling at the campaign troughs.
Brian…I have spoken to people that speak with great reverence and respect for you…they say you are a man of integrity and principle…yet, the smoke (I’d say peeking flames) to this ongoing and perceived corruption stemming from the highest levels of the organization appears, on its face, incongruent to your reputation and character.
This, my persistent criticism and opposition to the establishment GOP leadership, was never about one’s chosen life style…it was always about a greater erosion and collapse of the party, a lack of due process, integity, and conviction…a collapse, that it now appears to me, has been ongoing for years.
BTW..thanks for the “follow”.. 😉
Details..
1. Ask Claire Reiss about “fair mailers.” She was one of several targets by DeMaio and his campagn.
2. Your info on Jorgensen’s funding is completely inaccurate.
3. The crux is not the vote..its the process..in Aug 2013, ALL the tools of political, business, and media power in San Diego GOP politics were brought to bear to assure DeMaio got the call..with TK at the helm with his gavel unilaterally deciding who could speak, for how long, etc..
Like Thermopylae..we tell a tale of victory…:) every day, people are becoming more aware of the Rotten stink in the state of Denmark..or was it Sweden…
The “once great party of Reagan” ? Are you kidding me? Tripled the debt, granted blanket amnesty, voted for abortion rights as gov.. Anyone remotely like Reagan today is now a villified RINO in your world. ST. Ronnie did get things done because he (shudder the thought) could work with the other side. Politics is the art of comprimise. Tea Party folks want it their way or we’ll shutter down y’all.
I don’t know if I”ll change your mind, FF but I’ll tell you what I know about the endorsement process in CD52. I can’t speak to the pre-2013 issues as I’ve only been an elected Central Committee (CCOM)member since then.
Here is what happened:
1- The full committee passed a set of endorsement rules in December, 2012 (first meeting of my term). We agreed to endorse as early as Feb 2013 for “targeted races” (CD52 was one of them). One person voted against adoption of these rules–I voted to accept them.
2- I serve on the Executive Committee (XCOM) as well. When I met Mr Jorgensen, I, with two other XCOM members, made a motion to delay the CD52 endorsement until Fall of 2013 so that we could properly deliberate about it. That motion was passed unanimously.
Now this is important; both candidates knew this was going down in the Fall of 2013. Each had approximately six months to make their case to CCOM members
3- Most CCOM members went out of their way to meet and interview both candidates. They took this vote VERY seriously.
4- Filner happened. I don’t know what promises were made in the Sudberry meeting but I DO know that the CCOM Chairman can’t bind CCOM to an endorsement without a full vote.
5- Faulconer’s primary was coming up.. There was some talk in XCOM about delaying the CD52 endorsement again but every single XCOM member agreed that the full CCOM was ready to vote in November.
6- Some last minute rumors about “October surprises” came out of both candidates’ camps. When I queried the candidates, both Jorgensen and DeMaio denied that those “surprises” existed.
7- Both candidates personally lobbied hard to be endorsed. Both were fair and respectful in their quest.
8- CCOM voted to endorse DeMaio. It was close. I know some definite DeMaio votes switched and some definite no endorsement/Jorgensen votes switched too. CCOM members knew that we were “under a microscope” when it came to the process and went out of their way to keep their minds open.
That’s what REALLY went down. We set endorsement rules, we bent them for Jorgensen and Simon, we did our homework, and we made a decision.
Kirk said this after we opted to endorse DeMaio:
“The central committee’s decision is a mistake and proves once again that political insiders and our party leadership are out of touch with the voters who will ultimately decide which candidate will represent them in Washington”
That’s a fair (but incorrect) statement. The voters chose Peters and DeMaio to advance and 70% (or more) of Jorgensen’s voters siganled that they will back DeMaio in November.
As the only CCOM member to publish his votes, you can challenge my decision–that’s fair. Call me an idiot, uninformed, “weak”, sell-out, or moron. I can handle that criticism.
You can question the endorsement rules but you’ll have to ask each and every member (except one) about those. As an XCOM member charged with protecting “the process”, I’m telling you how the endorsement rules were respected.
The only recourse you have about the process now is to call me a liar. You won’t because you know I”m not lying. (but you might think me a “moron”). 😉
Brian, a completely accurate description of the process. Appreciated. FF (Frank Dowse, by his own outing here on Rostra, so no one better say I did it) doesn’t care about process, he only cares about criticizing the process and accusing those involved of corruption, because it didn’t go his way.
Brian,
I appreciate your candor…
I don’t know who “Spin Zone is..” That explains why he/she clearly doesn’t know me..or my impetus and motivation to illustrate the persistent and increasingly acknowledged irregularities and perceived un-democratic processes, nepotistic relationships, and the danger they pose to the Republican Party and its fundamental principles.
The “sour grapes/sore loser” charge is moot/baseless. Someone here early on challenged me to “stop complaining” and to “walk a precinct” and get involved. I did just that with a terrific candidate, Kirk Jorgensen (and BTW, as a former Co-Chairman of majot senate race campaign long before that). While it was incredibly enlightening, it was also a stark lesson in the encroaching cynicism applied by GOP stakeholders in the name of “political pragmatism” and the abandonment of moral and ethical conviction to “win at all costs”…even in the face of evidence, facts, and measured intuition by scores of Republicans in and formerly of the RPSDC, 100s in ancillary groups in the forms of Republican Federated, Liberty Caucuses groups etc, and 10Ks who have left the party in protest over the last several years in San Diego CO. Don’t take my word…the evidence is staggering. (80K have left the party…)
If I may…some observations-
Why was the 52CD “targeted?” Perhaps, as alleged by many, the “targeting” was the candidate, not the district. One of the original “complaint” issues I reference earlier was referring to some preferential treatment to Mr. DeMaio by the chairman nearly 6 years earlier. Also mentions Mayor Sanders endorsement over Steve Francis..Sanders is now the CEO of the CoC…and was one of the major stakeholders in the private Aug Confab with TK, papa Doug, et al..the perception of ongoing impropriety is in and of itself perplexing..if not concerning.
While Mr. DeMaio has every right to pursue his candidacy within the confines of the “process”, all know he has been campaigning for 8 years. Any challenger would be hard pressed to gain the necessary momentum, let alone recognition. Why endorse at all? Why not allow the constituents to make that choice in the primary, then endorse? Perhaps the lure of $ 1mil dollars that Mr. DeMaio reminded the CC members and political consultant class was a “process” altering incentive. Not sure why the 52CD was essentially different than the 53rd given all the conditions wrt Mayor’s race were the same…yet 52CD was moved up..clearly benefitting the “selectee.”
I have spoken with several (some current and former) CC members, and active and involved associated Republican/Conservative groups. While I have every reason to believe your veracity and sincerity to do the process justice, the narrative, vignettes, and repeated altercations and episodes of subtle (and not so) intimidation, coercion, and bypassing of due process speaks volumes. Again, over the last 7 years, are all those allegations, people coming forward, some at great personal and political expense, all “sore, losers, crazy, closet democrats..” out to create havoc for the RPSDC leadership? The actual sustained theme is they love the Party..they, l discovered, were disheartened to see the party misguided, and what is described as an encroachment of neo-progressive stakeholders that work hard to marginalize conservative voices. The complete reversal by the chairman himself, along with the recent endorsements of candidates who possess antithetical positions to long standing Republican tenets is convincing enough to underscore this.
The primary results are what they are…contrary to distractors here, that is not the issue of greatest concern; Key issues of concerns-
-The allegations, proof positive in Hedgecock’s denial of having Demiao’s opponent on his show, leading to the FCC complaint on the unethical media practices in politics here in San Diego.
-The DeMaio campaign used false avatars and identities to smear his opponent.
-Sen John Walsh (D) is loosing fundraising and is heavily rumored to drop out of his general race based on the plagiarism allegations?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2014/08/06/sen-john-walsh-ditches-fundraisers-fuels-drop-out-speculations-n1875598
While unethical in both counts, Walsh’s poor judgement was an innocuous thesis…Mr. Demaio’s recent plagiarism revelations were about his raison detre budget reform..but apparently, it isn’t even his…Is it prudent for the RPSDC leadership to still support “their” guy in light of Walsh’s indiscretions?
If you, Spin Zone, Union Buster, Rankin, Schwartz, even Rider think I’m critical, even destructive (not my intent)…what does the RPSDC believe Peters is going to do?
Brian, I don’t believe you are a liar for one second..but do you support any of this? Or will it all just be swept again under the rug of political pragmatism and blaming “losers” and former “bitter” recalcitrants who will be then vilified, charged with more ad hominem attacks, and accused of party disloyalty and recklessness?
Brian, you left out certain elements about the process.
For example, the candidate application asks no questions about whether the candidate supports the Republican Party platform. It does ask about whether the candidate will raise money for the Republican Party and if elected will he come back to the RPCC to hire.
You also left out that while XCOM knew when this endorsement would happen CCOM wasn’t told until 5 days before. You also left out that XCOM does their evaluation of the candidates in a closed door meeting removing CCOM members who wish to observe.
But probably the most important for full honest decision making is the fact that no debate is allowed. So when Carl tells Claire that he is pro-life neither Claire nor anyone of the CCOM is allowed to bring facts that Carl is self-described as pro-abortion.
This universal gag rule is not healthy for the party and it has lead to a steady decline in the quality of candidates and a subsequent decline in Republican registration. Every month 1000 San Diegans leave the Republican party. Since RN and TK took over the party San Diego has lost its Republican majority. Based on results the process is not working.
I can’t tell you how pleased that you commented Dr Guffanti because yours was the lone vote against adoption of the endorsement rules–I didn’t want to reference you as the one until you raised your hand..
I won’t refute that the endorsement rules need to be changed only the insinuation that the rules were broken or that Simon and Jorgensen weren’t given a fair chance to win the endorsement.
One small correction though— CCOM knew in the October meeting that we were endorsing in November. It was announced that we were putting off the endorsement vote until “Fall” in the April CCOM meeting. It wasn’t communicated in writing, until five days before the vote, per the endorsement rules.
We don’t disagree that the endorsement process should change, Dr Guffanti.
“Why was the 52CD “targeted?””
The thought was that certain races needed extra emphasis because they were important and an early endorsement would allow the candidate to focus on voter contact. The narrow Bilbray loss to a personally wealthy (but weak) candidate led us to believe that we needed strike hard.
“Brian, I don’t believe you are a liar for one second..but do you support any of this?”
Please read my previous comment to Dr Guffanti.
Brian,
Might you, or Spin Zone, Details, or other stakeholders be willing to elaborate why the RPSDC, the presumed premier Republican organization, chartered to promote and support Republicans in San Diego CO, did not hold a single debate either prior or even after the endorsement?
I cannot personally think of any other process that provides a real time comparative analysis of candidates, transparency, clarification and accountability to positions, claims, and statements that would be a better opportunity for the RPSDC to consider the optimum endorsement. This plays right into the earlier comment about disclosure and accurate descriptions of candidates and positions to constituents.
The one event that came close to that was sponsored by Skyline Church..all candidates in the 52CD showed up, including Scott Peters. They had constructive questions posed, opportunity to codify and clarify positions, and responses, follow up by their fellow candidates…all in a collegial and respectful environment.
After having RSVP-ed in the affirmative initially, the only one who didn’t show up, and repeatedly refused to be in ANY event together with his opponent was, in fact, Carl DeMaio.
But the voters, and I’ll surmise many of the CC members, were not made aware of that.
Before I left the Executive Committee, I tried to get the questionnaire changed so that it simply asked candidates what they did to help the Party elect candidates, raise money, grow their volunteer list, and get out the vote.
I thought it would make both sides happy and make more sense. Side 1 being the Party doesn’t enforce the platform and side 2 being the Party should enforce the platform. And made more sense since those 5 items are what the Party has committed to doing and not one of the 5 items has to do with the platform or taking funding from unions.
My idea was angrily denied, but oddly not by the side that doesn’t think the Party should enforce the platform.
I quickly realized the stupid questionnaire is useless anyway. Nobody on any committee bases their decision on the answers on the questionnaire.
Perhaps the questionnaire should have no questions beyond “name?” and “office desired”? Then let the Cent Com and the voters decide which candidate best fits the platform based on their own due diligence and conscience.
Any committee member should be able to vote for any candidate’s endorsement based on any reason they want. It’s kinda why they are elected. If there was a set in stone criteria…why ask elected Cent Comm folks to make a decision?
Before I left the Executive Committee, I tried to get the questionnaire changed so that it simply asked candidates what they did to help the Party elect candidates, raise money, grow their volunteer list, and get out the vote.
I thought it would make both sides happy and make more sense. Side 1 being the Party doesn’t enforce the platform and side 2 being the Party should enforce the platform. And made more sense since those 5 items are what the Party has committed to doing and not one of the 5 items has to do with the platform or taking funding from unions.
My idea was angrily denied, but oddly not by the side that doesn’t think the Party should enforce the platform.
I quickly realized the stupid questionnaire is useless anyway. Nobody on any committee bases their decision on the answers on the questionnaire.
Perhaps the questionnaire should have no questions beyond “name?” and “office desired”? Then let the Cent Com and the voters decide which candidate best fits the platform based on their own due diligence and conscience.
Any committee member should be able to vote for any candidate’s endorsement based on any reason they want. It’s kinda why they are elected. If there was a set in stone criteria…why ask elected Cent Comm folks to make a decision?
I’m interested in every idea you have, FF, but not on a blog. I’ll be at Andiamo’s Ristorante in Tierrasanta at 6PM tonight, at Town and Country on Monday night at 6PM, or I’ll always drink a beer and talk politics. Just call me at eight 5 eight, triple 7, nine 7 five 1
Not being a member of any Central Committee, I was unaware that endorsements are based not on what you would do for the City, State or Country but on whether you would raise money for the Party and agree to hire members of the Central Committee (the same people who decide who to endorse) to be on your staff.
Can someone please explain to me how this ethical? Is the endorsement really based on the candidate promising to raise money for and provide jobs to the people voting on the endorsement?
The endorsement is based on the opinion of the individuals that make up the Cent Com and ECom. They are the ones who vote.
Which is why I now think the questionnaires should have no policy questions on it.
But changing the questionnaire isn’t going to do anything. It’s the same players in the game. When I was a kid playing Monopoly with my older brother, I’d make him let me draw 2 cards from Community Chest and Chance to make it fairer. Meanwhile, he’d build houses and hotels and beat me. This dumb little arguments about timelines and questionnaires are a waste of time.
You can’t win the game by tinkering with the rules. You’re either a bigger, better, smarter player or your opponent is.
“Is the endorsement really based on the candidate promising to raise money for and provide jobs to the people voting on the endorsement?”
Absolutely not. I”m happy to share the RPSDC endorsement questionnaire with any registered Republican who has pulled papers to run for office.
Brian,
Stephen Guffanti wrote in his comment:
“For example, the candidate application asks no questions about whether the candidate supports the Republican Party platform. It does ask about whether the candidate will raise money for the Republican Party and if elected will he come back to the RPCC to hire.”
Was Dr. Guffanti lying?
Dr. Guffanti is not lying, but something has been mis-interpreted or misunderstood. The questionnaire does ask if the candidate will assist the party with fundraising and seek input from the party when it comes to the hiring of staff. Please tell me something is wrong with either question. It makes no suggestion that if a candidate answers no to either question that he or she wouldn’t be considered for the endorsement. But, I can tell you that legislators when hiring often ask if the party is aware of any interns, staffers, job applicants, etc. that might qualify, just as they do with other leg. offices. That is called seeking input. How terribly unethical!!
I will reiterate these statements:
1- I am happy to show or discuss the Endorsement Application with any registered Republican who is pulling papers to run for office.
2- The endorsement rules aren’t perfect. I doubt they ever will be but I hope to make them closer to perfect. I”m happy to discuss those ideas with any registered Republican off the blog. See my comment to FF above for contact information.
I hope other committee members will have the good sense to adopt my policy.
PS: I hope other committee members will have the good sense to adopt my policy
Steve,
“It makes no suggestion that if a candidate answers no to either question that he or she wouldn’t be considered for the endorsement.”
I have no doubt that the answer to any one question would not disqualify a candidate from being considered for an endorsement. I also have no doubt that each answer does carry some weight or else it wouldn’t have been asked. I further have no doubt that is unethical for any organization to base its endorsement, even in part, on a promise (in writing no less) that the candidate will raise money for the organization and provide jobs to some of its members.
“…provide jobs to some of its members.”
Where does the questionnaire ask that?
We’ve seen it. It doesn’t.
T.A.,
From Dr. Gufanti’s post:
“…and if elected will he come back to the RPCC to hire.”
Looks to me like a request to provide jobs to members of the RPCC. Did I misunderstand the question?
HQ, read the comments above. The question isn’t asked. The question is whether the candidate will seek the party’s input. As established above. And confirmed. Seeking the party’s input can mean many things, including “I’m considering Joe Smith from Assemblyman Billings’ office — have you worked with him, what do you think of him?” That takes place in the real world, ALL THE TIME, in politics, in business, in non-profits, etc. Legitimately and ethically. But, what it doesn’t say in any way shape or form is that the candidate will provide jobs to committee members. You have proof otherwise, please produce it. Yet, that would be impossible, as the question isn’t asked. So, the innuendo now stops.
T.A.,
No innuendo intended. I was simply quoting (directly) from Stephen Guffanti’s post above. Since, per Brian Brady’s subsequent post, Dr. Guffanti is a member of the RPCC, I assumed he was quoting the questions directly. If that language was accurate and I was the candidate, I would have assumed that the endorsement was at least somewhat dependent on my promise to raise money for the party and provide jobs. Since I clearly have no first-hand knowledge of the endorsement process, I will trust your word that I simply misunderstood the intent of the question. Case closed as far as I am concerned.
Now HQ is going to ask for proof. That was always the plan; to see our endorsement application. Let’s keep our wits about us committee members.
Brian,
I couldn’t care less about your questionnaire. What Dr. Gufanti wrote piqued my interest. T.A, said I misunderstood the purpose of the question(s) that Dr. Gufanti claimed were on the endorsement application. I take T.A. At his word so case closed.