No Republican Pledge Required For Primary
By Greg L | 1 December 2007 | Virginia Politics | 42 Comments
The “pledge to support the nominee” idea is dead, following a vote by the Republican State Central Committee meeting at the Huffman Advance this weekend. My thanks to the SCC for helping rescue the Republican Party from proving the accuracy of the “stupid party” moniker.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
42 Comments
Views: 1102
Loading ...
Common sense wins! While not an expert on the subject, I’m not sure I see anything wrong with crossovers voting for someone they would like to see run in the Republican primary. It’s a good way to expand the “big tent” and pick up the independants.
oh, but Old Soldier, it would limit the ability of a few party leaders to control the outcome.
Wow, this is a great move forward. I wonder why the S C C went this way?
Someone needed to wake up as the way it’s been for 5/6 years now we were losing our best candidates right at the beginning. Any one could see the wrong person was getting in as the nominee and most Repb. were not behind them. There has been many who have become Independents.
So maybe someone is starting to wake up. Let’s hope so.
Why let the proletariat choose who the nominee should be? Why our esteemed local and state-wide leaders would NEVER abuse the power we gave to them, would they? Our politicans have ensured of fair, honest elections, conventions, etc. because they are NOT in this for the money, power, or fame…rather, they are but mere public servants who, by sheer fact that they have access to information that we don’t (or previously did not) are MUCH better informed to make an opinion than us, especially those of us who take but minutes out of our day to post musings on current events (Mr. Whipple dying, for example).
This must be a blow to the likes of JY.
Oh, “CONVA,” it is certainly entertaining that you would speak of “the likes” of me, while scrupulously hiding your identity so your record (or perhaps, lack thereof; other than your nihilistic rantings here) is not subject to equal scrutiny. My guess is you’re not a Republican at all, and that, if your identity were known, it would be revealed to those who read your comments that your goal is not in accord with the GOP, but is more closely in alignment with those who seek to destroy it.
In fact, when I chaired the committee to write the PWC Party Plan (go ahead, [redacted]: attack anybody who doesn’t agree with you who speaks with some authority on a point), we were quite adament in our efforts to ensure that the grassroots controlled the County GOP (barring things like slating and instructing), something that John Light seems to have forgotten with his irresponsible and inaccurate reference to “the proletariat.” Wasn’t he one of those who complained when some unwashed proles dared to sign up for and vote at a recent GOP Convention?
I don’t care whether the pledge is required or not. I’d much rather see that result achieved by the device of party registration, but not so much that I am willing to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good and discard any effort to ensure that Republicans select Republican nominees available under current law.
What I DO care about is the conspiracy-theory rantings and nihilistic efforts which seem to be the coin of the Realm here. Most from people scrupulously hiding their identities. It causes those of us who actually have built something to question whether they come from those who have ever built ANYTHING (other than a giant case of phallus-envy, that is). I don’t know much about HSM or its operations, but one has to wonder whether it would retain as a member an individual who regularly hired illegal aliens, or who publicly advocated amnesty or other things opposed to its stated goals.
The SINGLE purpose of the pledge is to ensure that Republicans selected the Republican nominee. It has nothing to do with “the ability of a few party leaders to control the outcome,” or barring participation of “the proletariat” (other than those who aren’t Republicans, of course). Those are the plaintive whinings of those who find themselves in a minority. All of the sound and fury offered here never really addressed that point, but instead, suggests that having Republicans select Republican nominees is some sort of bad thing. Likewise, it sanctimoniously and inaccurately suggests that primary voters are somehow more likely than convention-goers to become actively involved in party operations. From whence that assumption arises is something of a mystery. Convention-goers have already demonstrated their commitment by going to the time and, frequently, expense of showing up to support their candidate or candidates. What to primary voters do? Stop by their local schools for 15 or 20 minutes? Which demonstrates a stronger commitment to the process or to the Party (any party)?
The single reason to eschew such a device is to remove any impediments to those uncommitted to Republican goals and principles from participating in the GOP nominating process.
Congratulations. Your goal is achieved.
[Ed note: comment edited.]
CONVA, have you noticed that lately it seems that when the likes of Jimmy Young and his fellow “insiders” support something, whether it be a policy or candidate, it’s the kiss of death? You’d really think that it would tell them something.
See?
So, you redact my reference to AWCheney, but her belittlement goes unredacted.
Nice double standard, Greg.
Do I hear whining???
Actually Jimmy boy, I posted my comment before yours showed up…I guess yours was still in moderation. Heheh
Freedom, he ALWAYS whines. Isn’t that part of the reason we call him Jimmy?
Other than chairing a committee to write the PWC party plan, what else has JY did, espeacially in the past ten years? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, other than sit on the sidelines and whine. It won’t be long before the committee will comsist of JY, Daughtery, Gill, Kopko & Fitzsimmons. Then a quorum will be easy to reach. As I have heard, JY could not muster a quorum to vote O.P. out of the committee. As things are going they won’t have to worry about voting folks out as they are leaving in droves.
Ron Paul wins straw poll. 38% to 23% for Fred Thompson.
Smiling to AWC….well, as I’ve said before, “…act like a 7 yr old, be known as a 7 yr old.” …but the incessant whining becomes a bit much…:)
yes, and this is from “Fredo,” jimmy…:)
No, “Fredo,” you hear the appeal to Greg’s better angels.
Whining would be continually attacking someone without addressing his arguments.
You know. Like your posts.
One more thing. I note that the appeal to Greg’s better angels was in vain.
Well, less than I might have liked, but certainly more than you have provably done, “CONVA.” Unless you want to drop your shroud of anonymity, why don’t we just leave it at that? I could list my activities, but that would just be to invite the Old Whithered Wench’s usual attacks for daring to defend one’s self against attacks like that. You make a nice, effective tag team … is someone didn’t recognize your “have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too” tactics.
As usual, “CONVA,” or O.P., you know not of what you speak. But why let the facts stop you. Another viewpoint might be that O.P. couldn’t must a quorum to readmit him to the Committee.
Oh, and “Fredo,” I guess you didn’t get the reference to the weaselly Corleone brother. Fits you like a glove, though.
What a tool.
Republican Party
Paul Handily Wins Virginia Straw Poll
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) convincingly won a straw poll Saturday night at the Virginia Republican Party Advance, an annual conference in Crystal City that drew about 500 state party leaders and activists.
The poll followed a series of speeches by surrogates representing each of the GOP presidential candidates. Voting was open to any Virginia resident who paid $35.
Paul drew 38 percent of the vote after bringing in supporters from all corners of the state.
“It means we’ve got the strength to go the next step to take on the primary in Virginia,” said Dennis Fusaro, Paul’s national field director. “It shows our great organization. We won with a combination of people new to the process and the people who have been involved in the party a long time.”
Former senator Fred Thompson finished second, with 23 percent of the vote. Among his supporters in Crystal City was former Virginia senator George Allen (R), who told conference-goers, “Fred Thompson believes common sense is not very common in Washington D.C.”
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee came in third with 11 percent of the vote. Former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani finished fourth with 9 percent.
A Washington Post poll of Republican voters in Virginia, conducted in October, found Giuliani with an early lead over the rest of the GOP field.
Virginia’s presidential primary is Feb. 12.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/01/paul_handily_wins_virginia_str.html?hpid=topnews
I couldn’t figure out how Ron Paul won so handily, then I noticed in the post above that Dennis Fusaro is his Field Director. If anyone knows Dennis, he is an amazing organizer. While not on the same side in alot of contests, I have worked in the same election cycles as he has and have been impressed with his organizational skill and people skills as well. He is the far right wing’s secret weapon.
James Young, you could learn from him instead of spending all your time spouting off about your non-existent political success, insulting females, and exhibiting verbal behavior for the public to see that personally sickens me. You are disturbed.
What surprised me is how little political capital former Senator George “Macaca” Allen has left in this state. He campaigned hard for Fred Thompson only to have him place second behind Ron Paul, of all people!
I support the Iraq war but it appears to be ruining the Republican Party, in Virginia and elsewhere.
With JY’s ego, he would have listed his accomplishments if he had any.
[…] Black Velvet Bruce Li […]
“Clean it up,” you could learn from …well, virtually anybody, instead of spending all your time spouting off about non-existent conspiracies, insulting those who actually have a record and don’t try to hide it, and exhibiting racist behavior for the public to see that personally sickens me. You are disturbed.
I’m just curious, “Clean it up”: When were you ever paid for offering your opinions? What political organizations have you ever led? Have you ever been more than a pimple on a flea complaining about those who actually have accomplished or tried to accomplish something productive?
BTW, I don’t “spend[] all [my] time spouting off about [my] non-existent political success,” though I certainly seem to have to spend a great deal of time here responding to inaccurate personal attacks. Perhaps your misimpression would be cured if you bothered to view such comments in context, i.e., that they appear AFTER personal attacks. It’s certainly an odd world which you inhabit, one in which you view self-defense as “spouting off.”
And I didn’t “insult[] females”; I insulted A female. Too bad you can’t tell the difference. Of course, I can’t account for your sickness, save to note that there are all manner of mental illness far beyond my limited knowledge of them (my degree is in law, not medicine), but I would suggest professional help, for what that is worth.
I agree with your assessment of Dennis, an old friend and ally, though I question the tactical wisdom of paying the $35 fee to participate in the straw poll to create a buzz about a candidate. One wonders whether that money will not have been better spent, in retrospect, in getting GOP voters to the polls for the primary. Time will tell, I suppose. I find it difficult to believe that the outcome will be sufficient to boost a second- or third-tier candidacy.
As someone in local GOP leadership, I am glad that the “loyalty oath” has been dropped for the primary. While I do agree that party nominees should be chosen by members of the party (and independents so inclined), I don’t think this oath would accomplish the goal. First, it cannot be enforced and like a law that cannot be enforced, it would be rendered meaningless. 2nd, it will have a negative impact on independents voting in our primary. Until we have party registration, there is nothing wrong with independents voting in an open primary. 3rd, it gave the media, talk radio and the Democrats something to crticize us about. 4th, since the GOP and Dem primaries are on the same day, there is less chance that the Dems will vote in ours. But, even if theirs was on a different date, an unenforceable oath can’t prevent them from voting in our primary.
Oaths do have a place. Conventions and Mass meetings are one. If a convention delegate is challenged because he or she has voted in several Democratic primaries, signs an oath, votes in the convention, and then supports the other party’s candidate in the General, then this should be the last convention of Mass Meeting they get to vote in. Another scenario would be the oath that a candidate takes. If they lose, and run as an independent, or endorse the opposition’s candidate, then they shold be removed from the party.
Bottom Line: We need Party ID Registration. Anything short of this just makes us look silly.
I wonder if Jimmy Young realizes that he is probably spouting off, on a continual basis, against people who doubtless have considerably better connections, and most certainly resumes, than he. The nature of the blogosphere being what it is, people in prominent or sensitive positions would in all probability be loath to comment under their own name, particularly with people as volatile as Jimmy Young demanding that everyone come out from behind their pseudonym or their anonymity. If anyone around here needs a check-up from the neck up it’s most certainly Jimmy.
I wonder if [she] would like to prove it?
“The nature of the blogosphere” is also that has-beens and/or never-wases make pretensious claims under the cloak of anonymity. And then there is the has-been/never-was who tries to attribute to them qualities they lack the courage to demonstrate themselves.
People with “better connections” or “resumes” than I don’t worry about a free exchange of ideas or having their names attached to the ideas they espouse. They are, in my experience, by and large men and women of honor, a quality of which the OWW has demonstrated herself woefully devoid. Witness her assertion that I “need[] a check-up from the neck up.” Nice. The last person to make such a suggestion was a [Jesse] Jackson delegate to the 1984 Democrat Convention. And there was once a place where such was resorted to against political enemies: the Soviet Union. Congratulations, Old Whithered Wench: you’ve just resorted totalitarian tactics. Despicable.
Of course, if they had “considerably better connections, and most certainly resumes,” than I, they wouldn’t have to bother with the kinds of attacks which characterize virtually all of their posts.
As for Steve’s comment, I agree with his conclusions (though only the fourth among his premises), and have fewer concerns than he about the impact upon “independents.” I am particularly disturbed by the second among his premises, because I believe that it would still be lawful, under existing Art. I of the Party Plan, to challenge any primary voter to “express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election.” Whether it is prudent to do so is, of course, another question.
The third among his premises presupposes that those entitles require a GOOD reason to criticize the GOP which, of course, they do not.
[Ed note: comment edited.]
“exhibiting racist behavior”
James Young…that’s a good one. Sick jerk…I’d love to know what rolls around your twisted mind to come up with one.
with that one.
Jimmy, don’t you realize that the more you rant, the more you confirm that your detractors are extremely accurate in their assessments of you? This last rant of yours only served to confirm that you DEFINITELY need that check-up…either that or you’re a complete idiot.
I want party registration for Virginia!
Loyalty oaths offend me. But being clear which side you want to hang with as part of registering to vote is a-okay with me.
James Young typifies what is wrong with the Republican Party in Virginia and why it will continue to suffer losses as long as people of his ilk control the internal processes. He also continues to tilt at the windmill that is blog anonymity/pseduonymity. Great archaic attitude there, Jimbo. And of course we all know how incredibly successful and well read his pitiful blog is. This stick your head in the sand attitude is paying great dividends - for the Democrats.
Jim Young writes: “I could list my activities…” but then, he would have to go back to 1995 to list anything of substance. What have you done for the Republicans lately, Jim??? Oh yeah, supported a candidate with VERY questionable ties instead of one who has done MORE LATELY for the Republican Party than you have in the past 12 years.
I am sorry that Julie Lucas does not live in your district, Jim, because I, among MANY readers of BVBL I am sure, would LOVE to see you and her run head to head. Last time I checked, her winnings this time were even higher than the last…and she had TWO opponents vice one!
I realize that you are hung up on people who post anonymously. On this, you and I agree, but I will say that the reasons are different. I am not too keen because when it comes to politics, I am of the belief that you ARE of one party or the other; whereas you, my friend, are of the belief that if you do not know their name, you cannot peronally attack them every chance you get either on your own blog, or this one.
You are like the soccer parent who is screaming about the bad call months after the fact. Get over it, move on, and TRY and be a bit more friendly - you will be amazed how many more people will actually listen to what you say if you are nice vice full of vitrol and vinegar.
James Young needs to take a writing course that specializes in effective communication. His style is so verbose that I grow weary by the second paragraph and move on to other comments. If he had something important to say, it would be lost on many readers who don’t have the patience to wade through that much crappy writing. Jimmy, we don’t need to be impressed with your vocabulary. Keep it simple. Faulkner, you are not.
Mr. Young,
I can appreciate your point-of-view. I am not sure what is so disturbing to you about my belief that a “loyalty oath” would prevent independents from voting in a Republican primary. Whether or not it’s lawful under our party plan really doesn’t mean that we shoul,d do it. Is it that you don’t think it right that a true independent vote in our primary, or that we won’t make them sign some pledge that they will support the nominee, regardless of outcome? If it is the former, I will say that we need independents if we are going to be successful. If it is the latter, all I can say is oaths do have a place, but this isn’t it. Conventions and Mass Meetings yes. Open primaries no.
As to whether or not the GOP will be criticized for taking actions such as these, I have to disagree. The GOP has been taking a beating in the press for the last two election cycles. There is such a thing as “bad press”. We don’t get the same treatment that the Democrats get. Not happy about it, but it’s a fact-of-life. The press that we were getting about the oath was almost uniformly negative. The VGOP was being portrayed as “exclusionary” and “paranoid”.
I have read many of your blog posts on multiple sites. I can understand your position. I do, however, believe that the oath is like body-armor with the plates removed, and provides a false sense of security. Anything short of registration by party will not accomplish the desired objective.
There’s no turning back on that racist comment James Young. You really stepped in it this time (bigger than you know).
Ok, on a LIGHTer note (grin):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm3CtlvMA90
No, JL, I wouldn’t have to go back to 1995, and you know or should know better. You quote the premise, but ignore the reason for ignoring the invitation. It’s certainly an effective tag team — one critic belittles me for not doing… well, something, and another attacks what is listed (probably out of jealousy that their resumes are comparatively thin) when I accept the invitation as somehow inadequate — if I don’t point out the strategy, but I recognize it, and call it out for what it is. Attack, attack, and attack, and never concede even the obvious. And, of course, it requires the reader to ignore the fact that I provably do for not fewer than forty hours a week in my professional activities on behalf of people forced to join or pay dues in support of labor unions’ far Left political activities more than these anonymous/pseudonymous, or even self-identified, critics do in an entire year.
Well, Mr. Thomas, to answer your question, I DO believe that “true independents” should not be permitted to vote in GOP primaries, as a matter of free association, and that’s why I defended the use of the pledge (more openly and arguably more effectively than RPV did itself). I don’t believe that those rights are diminished by the context (canvass, primary, or convention) in which the Party selects its nominees. While we may “need independents if we are going to be successful,” that is in the general election. As a matter of free association, the RPV should be (and is) permitted to limit effectively participation in nominating processes to geniune Republicans. “Open” primaries are the way to anarchy, and result in a Party which is less about ideas than it is about personalities, a result which I have always rejected and argued against. And I am not talking about an onerous burden: a simple declaration (of the type required by registration by Party) would suffice. But in the absence of party registration under Virginia law, the RPV must resort to the only device available to it under the Party Plan, in this case, the pledge.
Sadly, I think the evidence demonstrates the RPV applied this eminently defensible principle in a way that was not well thought out (see SCC member Rick Hendrix’s comments on my blog), and was unwilling to defend that policy when the far Left — like some here — do what they do: attack, attack, and attack some more. To paraphrase the late Jim McClellan (who ran as the GOP nominee against Wat Abbitt in 1985), as quoted by Judge Bork at the 1988 Federalist Society Student Convention at UVA law school, they’re “not Liberals. I don’t know what they are. Nihilists, maybe.”
Can’t back up the racist comment…didn’t think so.
In the past, I always preferred conventions for all the reasons mentioned, as well as others. Done properly, they CAN do much to build the party and find dedicated workers, leaders, and candidates for the future. The problem now is that Republican leadership has grown so thin that it is incapable of maintaining a process that cannot be subverted by a few people interested only in power for themselves, not interested in building the Party. This kind of corruption does nothing to attract new people to anything…it does much to turn them off. Primaries are less vulnerable to that corruption, so I guess that we’ll be stuck with them for awhile until we get our house in order.
Mr. young,
You make some good points, and I cannot fault your logic. However, as an old philospher once said; “There’s the way things should be, and there’s the way things are.” You have stated very succinctly the way things should be, and I don’t disagee. Unfortunately, as someone who spends a tremendous amount of time doing the grunt work required to facillitate the nominations process for GOP candidates, and then even more time working to get them elected, I learned long ago that there is a time to be principled and there is a time to be practical. Every action has consequenses and benefits. In this case, for this particular primary, I believe that the harm out-weighed the good. Apparently, the leadership of RPV agreed.
Now, if the GOP and VDEM primaries were held on different dates, then I don’t think the value of a loyalty oath increases. I prefer conventions. I think they are the purest form of selecting a nominee, and an oath should be part of the delegate application. Don’t sign the oath/Don’t get seated.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on the role independents play. I understand that you are worried that “moderates” and “liberals” who call themselves independents will support more moderate GOP candidates, and will disolve the electoral power that conservatives can muster. Very valid concerns from someone who is clearly a conservative. Please consider this point-of-view from another conservative: We have many citizens who are Federal employees, and are accutely sensitive about joining a party. Many of my friends and neighbors fall into this category. They are conservatives. They vote Republican. They often ask me who I am supporting for the nomination at the local, state and federal level, and they are usually supporting the same person. I have asked them to join the local committee. They won’t because they are worried that if their name shows up on some party membeship list, it could hurt them professionally. However, they care who the nominee is and want to participate in that process. Making them sign a document, that will end up in a file would keep the more reluctant at home. I want these people to be able to vote for Republican candidates whenever they can. I want them under our banner for the general election, so I want to include them at every step of the process in the hopes that when they retire or change jobs, they will join the party. We can’t afford to let the tent get too small.
Poor JY, always the “victim”.
Well, Mr. Thomas, that’s why I ALWAYS support conventions as the nominating process of choice. More fun, too.
And poor “CONVA”: always the cowardly lion.