Early this morning, I received the following response from Nathan Sproul. Unfortunately, I did not have time to post it until this evening and only after I confirmed with Nathan that he still wanted his response presented.
After I post this, I will have more to say…
Your website is not posting my comments. They may be too long for what you guys have set up to accept, but I expect this posted in its entirety.
I have to say that this is a new low. For the record, all three stories that you cite are false. I appreciate my defenders as well, but I think the explanation below is adequate. So, please refrain from defending me. I don’t want this to get out of hand, which clearly it has the potential to do.
Here are the facts about the sources you cite:
Mark Crispin Miller wrote the article for the Baltimore Chronicle. Tucson’s parallel liberal magazine would be the Tucson Weekly. He is a professor of Cultural Studies at NYU. He also wrote a book Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election. You guessed it. I get 20 some pages. With the exception of Arianna Huffington and now Sonoran Alliance, just about everyone has dismissed his book as wild-eyed conspiracy theories. Not exactly the type of person a conservative blog should use as a credibility source. His book did influence Robert Kennedy Jr. to write a large article for Rolling Stone magazine. I am currently in the process of having the magazine framed. We get mentioned early and often.
Speaking of a non-credible source, let’s talk about Blog For Arizona for a moment http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/nathan_sprouls_.html. According to them, I run the Franklin Charter Schools. They get Ben Franklin charter schools and Franklin Arts Academy mixed up but why should we worry about little details like that? For your information, I don’t run any charter schools. The rest of the story gets some things right. I did make the political contributions they report although those are now out-dated. I did work for Voyager and I did work with the RNC to do voter registration work. There conclusions on every single subject are simply false.
Finally, the Pittsburgh Gazette story gets into the whole question of whether Nathan Sproul committed voter fraud. These allegations were first made by non other than Ted Kennedy and Terry McAuliffe three weeks from a Presidential election that everyone expected to be decided by a very thin margin. They were trying to create a paper trail for contesting a NATIONAL election. Do you have any idea what stunts they were willing to pull to do that? For starters, my wife and I received death threats. Yes, death threats. Robert Kennedy Jr. gave out my office phone number on national radio and encouraged his readers to call my office. Needless to say, they didn’t say nice things. Daily Kos plastered it everywhere. They called it the “Smoking Gun.” Moveon.org started holding press conferences in states where we didn’t even work claiming that we did it. I have the web page from a Democrat in Minnesota who infiltrated our operation after hearing the first story about it. He bragged that even though we gave him meticulous rules to follow that he lied to the newspaper reporter and the reporter believed him.
Three different states investigated the accusations of Kennedy. Two of them, including Arizona, were conducted by Democrat AG’s. the Department of Justice opened an inquiry. ALL and I mean ALL of those investigations were found to be without substance and have been dismissed.
Those are the facts surrounding the three links you maliciously posted. On the other hand, I have posted the letter that I first wrote to Randy Pullen and later sent to State Committeemen. Unlike the writers of this blog, I put my name on it. Randy Pullen in a public forum claimed that he “helped raise over $2 million for the AZGOP.” I was Executive Director of the AZGOP in 2000. Randy volunteered to be Co-Chair of the Finance Committee, attended two meetings and wrote a check for $1,000. All of those things were helpful. However, he did nothing more. In his email reply to me which I have included with this post, he admits to playing a minor role in the fundraising. He claims he made calls to help. I don’t remember him making any calls and if he did, he was remarkeably unsuccessful.
I would not have written to disagree with him if he had simply said that he helped raise money or that he volunteered to be Co-Chair. That isn’t what he said. He said he “helped raise over $2 million…” By any reasonable understanding, he was claiming to be very involved in raising a significant amount of money. He wasn’t. I pointed that out in a very factual way.
If someone came to work for me and greatly exaggerated their resume to get the job, they would be fired. By inserting the $2 million figure, he was clearly trying to demonstrate fundraising prowess that he does not have. He has never been successful at raising money, so he wanted to make his accomplishment sound much much better than it really was.
Below is the correspondence. Frankly, you should all be more than a little ashamed. This is unseemly and irresponsible of you. If you keep this post up, you are now keeping on your website information that you know to be false.
Dear State Committee Member:
I believe it is important to share with you an email correspondence I have had with Randy Pullen. This email is one of the many reasons why I can’t support Randy Pullen for AZGOP Chairman. For those of you who don’t know me, I served as Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party from 1999-2002. I have run my own political consulting company since 2003 and have worked for well over 100 clients in 23 states. My consulting company is 100% Republican. I have had the distinct honor of working on the campaigns of many good Republicans including Trent Franks, Andy Thomas, and Len Munsil.
I was troubled this morning when I read www.espressopundit.com and saw Randy Pullen’s response to a simple question. He was asked why he financially supported Democrat candidates Harry Mitchell and Paul Johnson against two Republican candidates in a partisan race. One race was for State Senate and one was Governor. Instead of admitting that he made a mistake, he used two excuses to minimize the contributions.
1) He was a lobbyist and that is just the way it is done.
2) He has raised so much for Republicans that these contributions “pale in comparison.”
I guess the Republicans who endorsed Janet Napolitano over Len Munsil could have said that their endorsement of Napolitano “pales in comparison” to all the endorsements they have made for Republicans.
However, the fact that was most troubling to me was his claim that he “helped raise over $2,000,000” for the AZGOP in 2000 as Co-Chair of the Finance Committee. I was Executive Director for the AZGOP in 2000, so I knew from first-hand experience that his claim was demonstrably false. I have attached our email correspondence from today. Randy Pullen’s response is stunning. He admits that he played a very minor role in fundraising in 2000. Yet, in his public response on espressopundit and in many emails that I have seen, he claims that he “helped raise over $2,000,000” for the AZGOP. By that logic, Al Gore helped invent the internet and Janet Napolitano helped cut taxes and secure the border.
It is true that Randy Pullen volunteered to become Co-Finance Chairman. It is also true that he attended two meetings and wrote a $1,000 check. Beyond that, I don’t know of one dollar that came into the State Party because of Randy Pullen. But, in his public comments he wants people to believe that he was a central figure in raising $2,000,000. He simply didn’t do what he claims.
I know from working at the Party for three years that you don’t “help” raise money. You either do it or you don’t.
Randy Pullen doesn’t have a track record of raising money. That is troubling enough. But, what is far more troubling is that Randy Pullen seems willing to mislead the State Committee into believing that he is something that he isn’t. How many more misrepresentations from Randy Pullen are out there?
The job of State Chairman is too important. Please don’t vote for someone who appears willing to misrepresent himself. As I said in my letter to Randy, if we can’t trust him to shoot straight with us now, how can we trust him to shoot straight with us if he becomes Chairman?
Sproul and Associates