We’ve posted before on the second slate for CCR, Red State Rising, headed by University of the Pacific’s Adam Ellison. As of last night the final slate is up on the Red State Rising Facebook group. Our previous list was pretty accurate, but here is the full slate:
Adam C. Ellison (Pacific), Chair
Ben Meyers (USC), Co-Chair
Wade Holden (Pacific), Administrative Vice-Chair
Lydia Mazuryk (UCLA), Secretary
Misty Ann Tienken (Grossmont), Treasurer
Nick Pagnucci (SF State), Bay Area Vice Chair
Nick Veder (CSU Stanislaus), Central Valley Vice-Chair
Brenna Miller (UC Irvine), Southern Region Vice-Chair
Daniel Church (UCSD), Executive Director
Marshall H. Roe (Pasadena), Chief of Staff
Taylor Strand (Saddleback), Communications Director
There are only a few changes compared to our last list, Mazuryk is taking the spot previously thought to belong to Alvaro Day, Marshall Roe is Chief of Staff designate instead of LA Vice-Chair, and no LA Chair is listed; many other slots have also been filled. This story will be developing as we move closer to CCR convention in April, stay tuned.
What ever happened to the 2 other slates that the Red State Rising supporters went around talking about? And why the change in positions? I’m not saying it is bad, just curious, what gives?
I heard there were going to be two slates, one with myers at chair and one with ellison at chair. A month or so before the election they were going to “combine” to build momentum i guess. Problem is, red state rising already has no chance….two slates with even less support would be a joke. I think people see Red state for what it is, a bunch of CRs looking for a title to put on a business card. What really frustrates me is that Red state has some legit talent, but they’ve been wrapped up in a campaign that focuses more on the personal lives of their opponents rather than the future of CCR.
What I heard, I have to agree with you on some of the things you are saying here. I agree that personal attacks arent good for anyone, no matter their slate. Its about time we get away from that, while we are still molding ourselves as the future leaders of our party and set the new example.
also as for two slates, I think it was wise for them to combine. What I saw this weekend was horrible Cr behavior from some and it became personal at times. I think that we should remember that we are all republicans and we are a family. With that being said does it really matter if there’s three or two or One. what matters is that we Cr’s have a choice to choose from at convention.
I also have faith that the Cr’s on the slate aren’t after business cards. I talked to them and they really did have great ideas and were truly interested.
“I also have faith that the Cr’s on the slate aren’t after business cards. ”
Usually if you don’t want to be labeled a “title chaser” you offer up clear and distinct ideas that are different from your opponent. The red state facebook group is painfully vague about their vision and they don’t even have a website up. They’re already dropping endorsements from the facebook group and after being up for a few days it has less than 200 members. It’s clear to anyone keeping tabs that red state rising is in a downward spiral that they wont be able to recover from. Just look at the hospitality suites at CRP….RevCCR had three members of the state assembly take time out of their evenings to come and speak on behalf of revccr. The vice chair of the party not only enthusiastically endorsed revccr at their party, but actually stayed at the party because it was one of the best parties that night. Red state rising had some streamers and balloons….whoop dee do. I’m not opposed to multiple slates running….but when the other slate is running on ego and not on ideas, it’s rather pointless.