Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

We Do Get Letters

For those who listened to this week’s Red Maryland Radio (and we know many of you did listen) you heard us discuss a response we received regarding my article on MDGOP Chairman Diana Waterman’s actions with regard to the District 36 vacancy.  If you missed it, you can listen below:

Below is the full exchange between myself and Wicomico County GOP Central Committee Chair David Parker.  It is emblematic of the arguments made by the critics of our reporting and the level of discourse of those who are supporting the Chairman. Judge for yourself and please share your feedback with us.

Greg, I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but I’ve heard directly from Diana.  Nealy everything you said below contradicts what she told me.  She had NOT attempted to pressure anyone into supporting a particular candidate for Pipkin’s seat.  She did NOT call anyone 12 times in one day in such an attempt.  She has NOT inserted herself into the process.

I’ve known and worked with Diana for several years.  To my knowledge she’s never lied to me.  Who told you differently?  Do you actually have somebody saying this to you?

You are doing an incredible disservice to the MDGOP by this sort of public attack, full as it is of misinformation, and I’m afraid, complete fabrications.  If you hut bave witnesses to some of what you claim, tell me who they are so that I can talk to them directly.  But publicly undermining the chair of the MDGOP only benefits the Dems.  Don’t you realize that?  Or don’t you care?    


Dave Parker
Chair, Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

Mr. Parker,

I recognize that you are a long time close friend of Chairman Waterman.  Your reaction is as unsurprising as it is disappointing.  I do have multiple witnesses who are every bit as credible as yourself or Chairman Waterman who have related the information in my story.  Many of the facts they related to me are corroborated by other reporting. So your histrionics are out of place.  I also spoke with Diana.  I told her I was doing a story and I asked her to comment on the record about whether she has advocated on behalf of any candidate.  She categorically denied this and I posted her denial verbatim.  I took her denial back to my sources who rebutted her claims with additional facts beyond those I reported.  

While your personal relationship blinds you to an objective view, I have reviewed the contradictory facts and the surrounding circumstances. Chairman Waterman has personally admitted 1) she still thinks of herself as a member of the QA central committee 2) she spoke with central committee members about the “pros and cons” of specific candidates and 3) that she spoke with Ms. Dietz after her recantation. This alone is questionable conduct by someone asserting strict neutrality. 

But the facts go much further.  Ms. Dietz stated publicly before 20 witnesses that she was pressured to vote for Audrey Scott and was misled about Ms. Scott’s views on the issues.  That is not in dispute.  Three witnesses stated to me that Ms. Dietz identified Chairman Waterman as the source of the misinformation and pressure. 

Of course, Chairman Waterman denies this but if you allowed yourself to view this objectively you would see, as many do, that Ms. Dietz’s story makes much more sense than the Chairman’s.  Multiple sources have reported that the Chairman has advocated on behalf of Ms. Scott, including other candidates in the process.  

You would have to believe that Ms. Dietz lied before a room full of people and to my sources in pointing out Chairman Waterman in order to believe Chairman Waterman.  On the other hand, Ms. Dietz’s story is consistent with the facts that are undisputed.

I recognize logic may be lost on you in this but nothing I have written was done lightly or without the facts to back it up.  My sources don’t want to speak on the record precisely because they know that people like yourself would attack them.  They are not enemies of Chairman Waterman, just the opposite. They are respectable members of our party who feel that the truth needs to see the light of day and they trust me as someone to expose it.

As to your insistence that this only helps the democrats, this “dirty laundry” lament is tired.  The simple fact is that Chairman Waterman is lying to us both by saying that she was neutral in these proceedings.  Her denials are demonstrably false.  People like yourself don’t care about the truth or the dirty laundry which exists in our party, you simply want to silence people like myself willing to expose it.  Chairman Waterman’s actions have directly contributed to the bad blood and dissension (and yes there are plenty of others to share that blame) that is part and parcel of this current debacle.  That is what helps our opponents.

I recognize that this message is a waste of time and nothing I could ever say to you would move you from your belief that I am the enemy but I respect you enough to respond in detail in the undeniably vain hope that you may think a bit more critically.


Greg Kline

Greg, I assure you that I will consider all of the evidence (if I’m given an opportunity to do so).  However, in my experience, those who attempt to remain anonymous often do so not because they are afraid of what will happen to them, but rather because they have stretched, twisted, or manufactured what they state as being true.  My questioning what they are alleged to have said is hardly an attack, but if that reflects the fragility of their opinions, I find it hard to believe them.  “People like me” are
not “the enemy” – unless we are forced to be.  If asking questions scares people, then my assumption is that they are less than truthful.

What is “reported” is not necessary factual, and in fact is all-too-often the opposite.  I consider both the report as well as the one reporting before I decide if truth has emerged.    

“Airing dirty laundry” may be tired, but that doesn’t make it useful or helpful.  In fact, as in this case, it is very often destructive.  I have repeatedly learned that anonymous allegations are almost always false, and I simple cannot accept such allegations at face value – or believe them.  People of character do not fear to express themselves; liars hide behind the words of others.  Spreading such allegations damages everyone involved.  

Finally, accusing anyone of lying, as you have done, is really questionable – unless one can cross-examine the conflicting witnesses.  Moreover it makes the accuser more likely to believe whatever led to that conclusion, making additional evidence get ignored.  Until I can talk to people directly involved, I’ll withhold judgement about the veracity of the things you’ve reported.  In the meantime I’ll continue to trust people who have been honest with me before.  Everything you’ve reported could easily be exaggerations and misinterpretations, not reality – particularly when those making the claims are not doing so openly.  I do not trust people who are unwilling to answer questions – period.  And I do not allow others to interpret reality for me, expecting me to adopt their views.  If that makes “people like me” frightening, so be it.

Dave

Dave Parker
Chair, Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

Mr. Parker,
In my experience, those who wish to remain anonymous often do have the truth of what is going on, especially in our party.  You know full well the extraordinary efforts made to keep so many things about our party a secret.  My sources may go public if they choose but they are credible people.
Your response only demonstrates everything I said.  Nothing in your response correlates the facts as I outlined them.  Nothing rebuts them.  You simply dismiss the sources in my story out of hand and assume they are lying because they did not go public. Is Ms. Dietz a liar in your mind as well? Your response is not the considered explanation of the facts that I outlined for you.  It is the emotional reaction of someone who has made up their mind and refuses to change it.
Greg Kline






Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend