I don't know what any of y'all do or don't know about those in the sea services (Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard), but if you're going to challenge the integrity of such a person, then you'd better have proof-in-hand that the challenge is valid . . . otherwise it gets unpleasant in a hurry.

Yes, Joanie, let's by all means continue to ask questions that distract from the truth.  That I'm on StratNat's payroll (because I have a family to feed) isn't exactly a secret, as anyone who's paying attention to my FB page would know.  But by your logic, you had no business being the moderator of the tea party forum back in August of 2010 . . . because you had personally endorsed a candidate in each of the three races being discussed in that forum.  Since you've gone to the trouble of challenging my integrity, should I return the favor by suggesting that perhaps your reticence to go after Saul Anuzis may be due to your endorsement of Clark Durant (a fact which is known within Tea Party circles), and taking down Saulius may be tantamount to shredding Durant's primary chances?

So, if someone's working for Strategic National, then which potential 2012 presidential candidate are they working for: Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, or Sarah Palin?  I'm just curious, do you honestly believe that calling the integrity of the messenger into question is going to benefit the truth any?  Or is it more likely that engaging in an ad hominem attack will benefit those who want the truth concealed?

First, I don't necessarily support who's on StratNat's client list; however, where our opinions differ I make a point of not publicly undermining my employer.  Second, for the record, I never have been a Santorum supporter, and am not now (something that my employer is well aware of).  That doesn't change the reality that now in seven-states-and-probably-continuing the hijacking of the process, all for the benefit of Romney, is just plain wrong.  Sweeping it under the rug is no different than ignoring domestic abuse.  Blaming the victim or going after those who would expose the villainy is likewise.

The evidence of the February 7th memo is plain, as is the evidence of the Feb 8th interview in which Bob Schostak explained how the proportional allocation is to be resolved.  What additional evidence do you need?  What reasonable doubt do you still possess?  Why do you see fit to personally contact people on both sides of the committee decision, and then publicly impugn those who do not speedily return your calls?  Who gave you the authority as final arbiter of truth?

How does who I work for on a part-time basis have anything to do with the evidence itself?  Could you explain that?  Can you explain why you insist on publicly undermining the people who are demanding an explanation from MIGOP with regard to an ex post facto rewrite of the delegate allocation rules?  By all means, feel free to plant the seeds of suspicion regarding the motives of people doing the right thing.  I'm busting my hump to keep the truth out in the open, and you're going overboard to make me look equal to the underhanded weasel responsible for this fiasco.