Who in the Hell is Lew Waters to Try to Dictate What is Posted on This Blog?

In Lew's latest offering, he spent an amazing amount of effort defending himself.  Let's break down his invective piece by piece and see if it holds any water:

"As you all know, this blog and its author have been under anonymous assault" 

Lew Waters has never been under assault.  If someone disagrees with your public statements and challenges them in a public forum, that is not an assault, that is a debate.  A debate, we might add, that Lew has bee spectacularly unwilling to engage in, maybe because he knows his point of view is rubbish.  The fact that Lew continually thinks that public calls to set the record straight equate to an assault on him just shows the depth of the man's inability to distinguish reality.

" operatives of the Clark County R3publican Party"

Nope! This screed is starting to be comical. Lew Waters Watch operates without the sanction, approval or guidance of any party or candidate.  Just one independent citizen calling BS on another independent citizen's BS. If Lew thinks that this is part of some greater dark conspiracy, then I suggest his tinfoil hat is wound a bit too tight.

". . .disapprove of my calling myself a conservative, even to naming this blog as conservative. . ."

Not the case at all.  What we at LWW disapprove of is you, in your guise as a Conservative, trying to define what a conservative is, and publicly deriding other conservatives in Clark county who don't fit your myopic definition to the detriment of the conservative movement and the betterment of the Liberals.  The Democrat party is having a field day with Lew's public paranoid nonsense, to the point of citing his specious accusations in the Columbian to try to drive an unnecessary rift in the Republican party. Basically, Lew's not doing anyone any favors,  hurting his own cause.

"Contrary to what they may think, they neither own rights to conservatism nor do they sit in any position of authority to define or dictate who is and is not conservative by their narrow, disillusioned views."

Contrary to what Lew may think, he neither owns rights to conservatism nor does he sit in any position of authority to define or dictate who is and is not conservative by his narrow, disillusioned views.

"Since these people proclaim they are the true defenders of liberty, where do they get off establishing a smear site aimed at one person that disagrees with their “in your face” tactics and refuses to support their hand-picked candidates?"

If Lew claims to support liberty, then why is he complaining when a fellow citizen exercises their liberty to comment on his public offerings?  Lew certainly has a right to have his blog and say any damn thing he wants to on it.  And we at Lew Water's watch have the right to have our blog and say any damn thing we want to.  And if what we have to say is commentary on his paranoid, ill-conceived and ill-informed nonsense, then where does he get off saying that we can't speak our opinion in a public forum and have it heard? 

Lew's first amendment rights guarantee his right to free speech, but it does not mean that his free speech can be used without consequences. By what stretch of logic does Lew assert that his public offerings are immune to counter-argument, fact-checking and reality checks? Where does his right to exempt himself from derision, scorn, satire and embarrassment come from, a right that not even presidents have?

"They are fond of throwing out the invective “establishment” in a pejorative manner, parroting the 1960’s long haired, dope smoking Liberal Hippies, unaware that now that they have seized control of the local party, they are “the establishment.”

Perhaps so, and if so, we're quite proud of the changes the new management has brought to the local party.  Decisions are made at a lower level, by the quorum of elected party representatives, and not handed down by a select group of a few central committee members who are working under direction from a state or national party level. Nevertheless, the changes wrought in Clark county which have promoted the cause of conservatism and grass-roots politics are the exception, not the norm in the National Republican Party, which is still in control of a small group of people who do not share the rank and file conservatism that we in Clark County do.  These are the ones we identify as the "Establishment," and there is an element of this establishment in Clark County that's pretty cheesed that they have lost power.  The fractious PCO races this cycle show the lengths to which the establishment is willing to go to try to regain power, apparently so they can hand it back to Olympia and Washington DC.  If you feel that political power bests rests at the lowest level possible, as close to the communities it affects as possible, then you should be supporting the currently elected Republican party of Clark County, instead of standing on the sidelines inventing libelous stories to try to discredit them.

" this latest flare-up seems to be on behalf of RLC candidate Lisa Ross and my not supporting her."

Not at all.  Again, Lew's paranoia inhibits his ability to see cause and effect, and to distinguish the truth. This later flare-up is a result of lies posted under the guise of journalism aimed at directly discrediting a conservative candidate.  To quote:

"And we see it when a strong Republican candidate is undermined behind the scenes by party operatives in favor of an inexperienced novice because someone carries a personal grudge against the stronger candidate."

Fact: There is no evidence that Ms. Crain is or was a "strong" candidate.  That is entirely a subjective opinion, and not an opinion shared by 59.42% of the Republican votes cast in the Aug 5th election.

Fact: No "party operatives" had anything to do with the election outcome.  "Party Operatives" implies that someone is operating with the approval, support, endorsement and assistance of the party. Yes, members of the party publicly campaigned for Lisa Ross.  That is their right to do as individuals, and I guarantee that anyone who did so was very careful to convey that their endorsement was a personal endorsement, and not a party endorsement (As if anyone really cares who the party endorses anyway.  From my experience talking to people, they're so sick of the Republican brand, thanks to Boehner and friends, that a party endorsement is a kiss of death).  I should point out that members of the party also campaigned for Carolyn, in exactly the same fashion. Where is the outrage that "party operatives" were undermining Lisa's campaign?  It's politics, Lew. 

Fact: No one undermined Carolyn's campaign, except perhaps herself. The mark of an adult is someone who can take responsibility for success or failure and deal with it realistically, instead of casting around for someone to blame.  We at LWW are willing to bet that the majority of votes cast in the election had been subjected to no influence from either campaign, and simply chose what they saw as the better candidate. Lisa ran a better, smarter, more effective campaign, and was a more qualified, more electable candidate. The elections results definitively confirm this. Get over it, and support the Conservative in November.  You certainly have the right to disagree with that and say so publicly, and we at LWW have the right to publicly challenge you when you do so.  The only thing Lew has his panties in a wad over is that he's used to being able to silence dissenting opinions and control the dialog, which is why he's so worked up about this blog and throws such a temper tantrum every time we say something that calls his opinions into question.

Fact: No one carries a personal grudge against any candidate - at least not on the part of Lew's mysterious "party operatives."  Carolyn Crain is a passionate conservative with an encyclopedic knowledge of issues who could be very very useful to any campaign or political cause to which she lent her abilities.  Just because some people chose to support a different candidate does not reflect a personal grudge.  We can look through the PDC records, and many of the people castigated in Lew's blog are on record financially supporting Carolyn's campaign of 2012. Nor are we aware of any action on the part of any candidate that would foster any sort of grudge.  It seems the only people holding grudges are the ones who failed to achieve their election goals. 

So this latest flare-up has nothing to do with who Lew supports or doesn't support. We have just identified four factually incorrect assumptions from a single sentence of the Clark County Conservative blog, which were made with malicious intent to discredit the Republican nominee for the state legislature.  The escalation of this flare-up is the further result of the original author throwing a temper tantrum that someone would challenge him in a forum he doesn't control to the point of publicly slandering the candidate by suggesting she sleeps around - a suggestion that will buy you a knuckle sandwich in many social circles.

"Lisa Ross has remained completely silent throughout the entire smear / attack campaign on her behalf which indicates to me she is even more unqualified to hold public office than previously believed."

That or she has more class than to get down and roll around in the mud with an irrelevant troll with a blog who has publicly repudiated the Republican party . . .

"How silly that not supporting her is considered “attacking” her."

Lew's memory seems to be failing.  How is calling the elected candidate "an inexperienced novice" not an attack? 

"endorsing incumbent Republican 3rd Congressional District Representative, Jaime Herrera Beutler was “spurned,""

Factually incorrect.  The issue never came to the floor, not for Jaime and not for any candidate. There were no motions to endorse of withhold the endorsement of any candidate.  Any PCO can bring a motion to the floor. Is it Lew's position that not one of the more than 90 PCO's present supported Jaime?  Preposterous.  Again, Lew needs to do better research before throwing insinuations around.

"Yet, it is DEMANDED of Independent voters to get behind Lisa Ross?"

Nope.  That also never came to the floor.  No one has demanded Lew or anyone else does anything.  When Lew publicly makes factually incorrect statements that undermine the conservative movement of Clark County, under the guise of "Clark County Conservative", those statements deserve to be challenged. We don't even demand that Lew refrain from making factually incorrect statements, although we find it astonishingly funny that he would demand that we quit pointing it out when he does.  Nor do we demand that Lew quit acting like a spoiled child when he stands corrected, instead of discussing his specious statements on their merits. The readership is quite capable of discerning that Lew has yet to actually challenge what's said here at LWW on its merits.

"He may even issue another call for me to be visited to be “spoken to in no uncertain terms.”"

Lew's mouth seems to have a habit of writing checks his ass isn't prepared to cash. Lew Waters Watch does not endorse, condone or encourage any sort of violence.  Let it be known henceforth that if anyone takes umbrage at Lew's slander and cold-cocks him, that they did so on their own recognizance, and have no association or endorsement by Lew Waters Watch.  For Lew's own safety, I would strongly advise he refrain in the future from speculating about who candidates sleep with. Especially if they have very large husbands.

Lew Waters Watch also maintains its public call for Lew to retract that statement, and issue a public apology to Lisa Ross and all her male campaign workers.  To do any less shows that Lew Waters has no integrity and is unwilling to take responsibility when he crosses the line of propriety.

This blog will continue to exercise its freedom and liberty to point out factual errors and omissions made by a public blogger who claims to speak for Conservatives.  No one is asking anyone to "toe" any line.  Just be sure, for your own peace of mind, that any public offerings can be justified on their merits, and please be prepared to make such justification if challenged, instead of crying like a spoiled brat because someone had the temerity to say "Hey!  Wait a minute!  That's not right!"

So far Lew has yet to actually answer any of the criticisms made here on this blog, except to cry that he's persecuted, and invent fantastic conspiracy theories to try to explain the simple fact that someone finally got tired of his unnecessarily divisive BS and decided to call him on it.  If you think about it, when the Columbian uses your blog as the source for a story to discredit the Republican party, somewhere along the lines you may have detoured from the path of conservatism.

It's really quite hilarious the lengths to which Lew has gone, and the energy he has expended trying to discover the identity of the "cabal" behind Lew Waters Watch.  Effort and energy that would have been much better spent trying to ensure his public offerings were objective and factually correct.

Again, it is our sincerest hope that the level of objectivity and journalistic dedication to reporting the facts increases so as to make this blog irrelevant.  Such an outcome would be a credit to Lew Waters, a service to all conservatives of Clark County, and win-win for all concerned.