The Disgruntled Republican in Nashville: Tim Rudd evades the question. Criticizes Matt Hurtt and 9-12.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Tim Rudd evades the question. Criticizes Matt Hurtt and 9-12.

Following my post Who does Tim Rudd work for and is that the reason for the 9-12 letter? I wrote Tim and asked him, "would you care to comment to the charge that you are a paid consultant for Dawn White and that, that is the reason for your letter urging Republican candidates to boycott the 9-12 group?"

I received a reply and am printing it below. As you can see from his response, I did not really receive a response to the question I asked. Instead of addressing the issue of the appropriateness of being a paid consultant for one of the candidates and if that was the motivation for his attack on the 9-12 group, I got a response which was a criticism of Matt Hurtt and the 9-12 group.

Despite feeling he did not actually answer the question I asked, not wanting the throw more gasoline on the fire I was going to just let this issue die, but after the recent revelation that Tim Rudd sought third party vetting, including supporting a 9-12 debate when it benefited the candidate he was supporting, I thought his response to my inquiry was relevant.

His response is posted below.

Rod,

I have made my position on vetting and the Republican Party's right to carry out the selection process of its nominees very clear for years. In the past I took that position to prevent Democrats crossing over to effect the outcome of an election or running rouge candidates to take away votes from another candidate. Since I'm on record for supporting closed primaries for this reason long before the Tea Party or 9/12 came into being, I think it would hypocritical to change my position now. The seasoning is sound. My position on this issue had nothing to do with any candidate I am currently working with since I've held this position for nearly two decades.

I have no objection to any group hosting a debate as long as that group is open, unbiased, fair and not intending to endorse. When the news media, Chamber of Commerce or the League of Women Voters hosts such events they do not usually endorse candidates. The specific problem I have with the Rutherford County 9/12 group is its leaders have been very open that they are supporting one candidate over another. Just as Republican candidates differ in their views and actions, so do organizations like 9/12. I think Lee Douglas and 9/12 groups throughout Middle Tennessee have done an excellent job and have been a pleasure to work with. The local Campaign for Liberty has been neutral and fair and has gone out of their way to be ethical. The same can be said regarding the local John Birch Society and the Middle Tennessee Tea Party (Volunteer Tea Party).

The local GOP has actually worked very well with members of the local 9/12 and Tea Party. It is the leadership and their tactics and siding with one campaign or another that has caused friction. If you disagree with them on any one issue you are the enemy, a Rhino or a part of the establishment. My differences are with the 9/12 leadership in Rutherford County only. I sincerely feel they have lost all credibility. The local 9/12 group is trying to make this more than it is. A local matter.

I took a personal position on an issue that I have long and publicly held. Now I find myself, my Party and those I work with under assault. Just for the record, I've not heard a single derogatory or negative comment from any Republican candidate I know regarding the 9/12 Project or Tea Party or their members.

Matthew Hurtt and I have a long, long antagonistic relationship. When he was in the MTSU College Republicans, he came to the local GOP and asked for us to help him raise funds for an alternative campus newspaper. He then used those funds to buy a laptop and printed a couple of issues. He used the issues to attack local elected officials and then did not understand why those same Republican officials would not give him more money to continue attacking them. I chastised him for attacking the Party for welcoming former Democrats who publicly and proudly embraced our conservative GOP principles. I pointed out that if we had rejected all Democrats that switched Parties, we would have had no Ronald Reagan.

He has attacked me ever since. I remember a day he came into the GOP office and set down in the corner twitting as a group of us were talking about issues and family. He spoke up and asked us about a rumor regarding a local elected official. We said we did not know and went back to our discussion. He then left.

Later that day I got a call from that elected official asking why I was meeting with Mr. Hurt and talking about her personal life. Matthew had tweeted he was in a meeting the Republican leaders and myself talking about those rumors. The lied and mislead people then and continues to do so to this day. Mr. Hurt has a long history of attacking anyone and everyone he disagrees with. It is a shameful waste of talent.

Hope this answers your questions.

Tim Rudd

I still think Tim needs to answer the question: Was his attack on the 9-12 group motivated by his being a paid consultant for one of the candidates?

Also, I think we should ask the State Party: Is it appropriate that a member of the State Executive Committee is allowed to be paid for work they do on behalf of a candidate in a Republican primary? Should not members of the State Executive Committee refrain from openly supporting candidates in the primary?

For more information on this controversy, see the following post: