Those Damn Republicans!
I received word that the Shelby GOP Steering Committee will vote to pass a resolution that will prohibit Republican clubs from endorsing in the primaries. This should happen during the September 7 meeting. If you would like to attend the meetings are held at the East Gate Shopping Center at Park and White Station. The meetings start at 7:00 PM and everyone is welcome to attend.What does the party not want to control? Who is it that decides who will represent us in elected office? The party wants to control everything and the party wants to decide who represents us in office. I know some of you will say of course the party wants to decide who represents us in office. I argue that it is the people that are supposed to decide who represents them in office. The party is there for the sole purpose of providing a platform for candidates and voters to relate to. This is not the case and we all suffer from it. This is not to say that the Republicans hold a monopoly on this practice.
I ask everyone to educate themselves on all candidates for any given office. Don't vote for a candidate because a someone or some group endorses them. This goes for me and everyone else. You may find out information that would dissuade you from voting for this person even though a certain group endorsed them.
Austin
posted by Austin Farley Your Hero @ 4:59 PM
8 Comments:
The party wants to control everything and the party wants to decide who represents us in office.
On the contrary, I would say that a resolution prohibiting primary endorsements means just the opposite -- that the party wants to leave the decision to regular people.
At the same time, I believe that a political party should be free to protect its brand by refusing its label to candidates who do not adopt the party platform, such as in the case of James Hart. But I suppose you could make a decent argument saying that such a move would constitute a "primary endorsement."
So perhaps the decision to deny the party brand to a candidate should be put to a county-wide party vote to prevent possible abuses that could, in effect, violate that resolution.
Sorry Mick, I disagree. That is the purpose of clubs. Each of us represent a different segment of the Party and that is what Primaries are all about. For the Party to exercise control over who a club supports during a Primary is simply unacceptable. They did not seem to have a problem when East Shelby endorsed Bryson and humiliated Albertini.
No, it is just an effort by "country club" Reps trying to take the only real lower rung Party tool to exercise influence. Grassroots endorsements are the most effective tool they have, because they certainly don't have the financial resources the other Clubs have.
I'm going to be perfectly clear about my opinion on this one. If this is what the Republican Party stands for Mick, then I want NO part of it. In one sentence you say let the people decide, and the next the Party should decide. You can't have it both ways.
Clubs are not the Party. They are specialized groups of Republicans who come together for a special cause or agenda. And after the Primary battle has been fought they circle the wagons in unity and fight for whoever the nominee is. But it is the Primary when the clubs get to exercise their agenda's. That is why we have the Primary.
So what you are saying is, let the candidate with the most money win!
I gave my interpretation of the resolution (regular people decide), then offered a case where I would take the contrary view, then offered a potential workaround for that exception involving a county-wide vote (regular people decide).
How you've taken that to mean I "want it both ways" or that I want "the candidate with the most money" to win is really quite befuddling.
Well, I am glad I finally got something good started here. We need to have this discussion because if we don't we will be dealing with the Republican Dictatorship instead of the Republican Party.
I think both parties are overstepping their bounds. We hear "we need to do what is good for the party" instead of what is good for the people. Hell, I am guilty of some good of the party crap that I am ashamed of.
Austin
No Mick, I'm just arguing the logic you used. I have been one of the most loyal Republicans to come down the pike since Ronald Reagan. But what I have learned this year about the process and my Party has made me sick to my stomach. There is a certain "elite" that want to decide who the nominee is, not the people or "republicans-at-large".
The only buffer against that is the ability for "republicans-at-large" to use the primary season to advantage to impact the dynamic and get any chance at all of having their needs and agendas addressed.
Why do you think there is only 25% voter involvement in off elections? You might double that to around 50-60% during Presidential years, and that is of registered voters.
Most people sit on the sidelines because they feel they have no voice in the process. Out there among the masses is a growing discontent that I hear almost every day. There are elements who even are talking armed revolt and civil war.
Both Parties are more concerned about their "elite" and the money folks than about the people-at-large. The only voice they have is the Primary, and when they start to have an impact the "Party" moves to shut them down. Or should I say those who show up at some “executive meeting” that most “republicans-at-large” don’t even have a clue exists or meets. So the question is should an executive meeting decide if a club should endorse during the Primary and should James Hart be “permitted” to run as a Republican, or should “republicans-at-large” decide. You have opted for the “elite”, I stand with the “republican voters”.
People are tired of being treated like children who cannot decide these things for themselves.
There is, however, an inconsistency with your argument that clubs should be allowed to drop primary candidates from consideration according to their standards, yet that the party at large should not retain this same authority. That affords individual clubs a power greater than that of the party itself -- leaving the party as basically an empty rah-rah body with little to no authority or purpose whatsoever.
More importantly, the class warfare arguments you both seem to be promoting is leaving me rather cold. I'm not so sure the vast country club conspiracy exists -- i've been to the East Shelby Club and the steering committee meetings both, and I have yet to identify the type of folks you're invoking here.
Mick, I’ll always love you guy but your last comment is simply devoid of any understanding of historical or sociological realities. There always has, and always will be a class struggle in the arena of political power. The Republican Party is no exception to that. Different groups simply have different interests, and what makes our system work is a balance between those opposing interests. That is why our founders created a Republic of three branches of power. They understood men and the lure of power and control over the masses. When those in power (whether political, financial, or other) are left unchecked, individual freedoms and interests become subject to abuse.
Mick, a fact you are leaving out of your analysis is that the Party operates from a position of power. The clubs do not; they operate only from a position of representing various interests within the Party. This is demonstrated by the mere fact that the Party CAN vote to limit the ability of a club to endorse candidates.
I will use the governor’s race as an example, but there I could pick many others. We had a large field of candidates, but the Party decided they were not suitable, so they solicited Bryson and “anointed” him. You may want to stick your head in the sand but East Shelby DID endorse Bryson. I have never argued against their right to do so. The SCCRC endorsed Albertini. Bryson won simply because he came from a position of power and by virtue (and you can say whatever you want) of his “endorsement” by the State Party and participation by certain clubs and Party faithful. And that is okay, Bryson is now the nominee and I will support him. However, that whole fiasco was not our finest hour.
And you used James Hart as an example. He was nominated to the process by Republicans who knew who he was. You and the Party argue that they do not have the right to nominate who they so choose. Somehow the Party elite know what is good for us better than we. That sir is not democracy or representative government.
Regardless of what action the Party takes this week, we are not going to stop. You can call it class warfare if you want, but it not. It is a clash of interests, and the desire of one interest group attempting to silence another. If left unchecked, those who control and represent corporate interests will overrun the interests of the people. Pick up any American history book and you’ll find that has been the case for several hundred years. The ONLY power the people have to keep that dynamic in check is their numbers and ability to influence the system in numbers. Clubs represent that dynamic at the Party level and during the primary phase of the elective process. Limit their ability to serve that function and all they become are cheerleader groups for the Party. If that is what the Party wants, then that is fine too. It just means that those who come together to exercise their rights as citizens to influence the process towards the interests of the people simply will need to find another venue.
But then again the reason I am a Republican is because it claims to represent those ideals. The arrogance of the Party this year has me really concerned that by 2008 we will once again be the minority Party. Ronald Reagan rejuvenated the Party by bringing all interests to the table. Now we wish to insist that some who came to the table sit quietly like good little children. It ain’t gonna happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home