Primary Leadership

There has certainly been a great deal of discussion about litmus tests and Party Leaders supporting (or not supporting) Republican Candidates. Here in Iowa, the Pocahontas County Central Committee is working on amending their constitution to direct the committee to:

... reject a nominee we find to liberal ...

In a comment on this blog, Michael Ryan, the Pocahontas County Chair explained that the amendment:

Simply means we won't knock doors, call or help the candidate and make theme do it themselves without our help.

[I am not sure that I understand all of the local dynamics but Pocahontas is the county where former Republican Tom Shaw is running a campaign for HD8 as an independent.]

In this post, I want to discuss the other side of the issue. I want to discuss our party leaders and whom they choose to support, particularly in contested primaries.

The Constitution and Bylaws of the Republican Party of Iowa do not prohibit members of the State Central Committee from endorsing or even even serving on the staff of campaigns during primary elections. Just as I want to keep the RNC out of our local primaries, I also want to keep RPI out of our primaries.

I resigned my position on the SCC to keep my promise to my district. I did not want my support for Christian Fong to become a conflict of interest. Even though, Fong has dropped out of the race I have no regrets about keeping my word.

In September, I went to the District Executive Committee meeting that elected my successor on the SCC. I thought that all three candidates had promised to follow my lead and remain neutral in primaries. Perhaps my recollection is faulty because according to the Gazette, my successor has chosen to endorse a candidate in the gubernatorial primary.

In 2010, we as a party will be electing new members to the State Central Committee. All district representatives will be up for re-election. (National Committee reps will be up for re-election at the 2012 state convention and the chair, co-chair, secretary and treasurer are elected by the SCC in January of the presidential election year.)

In order to prevent even the appearance of conflicts of interest. I believe SCC members should not endorse nor accept paid staff or consultant positions with campaigns during primaries. I would encourage my fellow Republicans to elect members to the SCC who will pledge to remain neutral in our Republican primaries.

Comments

[Yoda]

Well stated my friend! Your successor should be ashamed that she has already broken her campaign promise. Although it could be worse. Its not like she's pushing a PLA or prevailing wage as a "republican". Still, she needs to be replaced none the less.

I greatly admire your strict adherance to integrity in all aspects of your life David. I wish more people would follow your lead!

Cheers!

[HawkeyeGOP]

Yoda,

I am not calling for my successor's replacement. I honestly do not remember whether she specifically promised to remain neutral.

What I am suggesting is that in the 2010 District Conventions, we in the grassroots only elect SCC members who promise to remain neutral in primaries.

[Yoda]

David, the candidate you and I supported (Sarah) pledged to the delegates in attendance in My. Pleasant that she would not endorse anyone in a GOP primary. Trudy and Joni then followed suit and said they would not either. Joni has some "splaining to do".

[Robin Tucker]

David, I appreciated your view points on the Purity Test issue, Pocahontas County and Primary Leadership. Further, I would encourage not only SCC members, but also County Chairs around the State, including those that serve on the LCRCC. How many SCC members around the State have stayed neutral?

[HawkeyeGOP]

Robin,

As far as I know, of the 15 elected district reps on the SCC only my successor and one of our 3rd District reps have endorsed candidates in the gubernatorial primary.

[Yoda]

I agree with Robin. No county chair should be endorsing anyone.

[Michael Ryan]

As a county chair I myself do not stay nuetral, I view primaries as RINO hunting season in which I like to bring the biggest gun to it. I would love to have a primary verses Dr. Steven Richards who announced last week he's running again. But as it stands right now there will be no primary. If Tom were to run as a Republican (which I tried as well as others), I would have back him unconditionally.
But in a meeting I am willing to have both candidates if there is a primary then I would have a third party person outside the district moderate a forum.
Personally I have no problem with Joni(Branstad) and Wes Enos(BVP) (from the Third District) endorsing anyone just as long as they aren't using their party travel checks to help the candidate pay for gas. As a county chair and also for those on the SCC they also have a first amendment right to voice their opinion as private citizens. With Wes and Joni they are both private citizens outside their office. Theirs or everyone's world doesn't revolve around the Republican Party, and we should respect them enough to allow them to have that right.

[HawkeyeGOP]

Michael,

You are absolutely correct that SCC members have a 1st amendment right to support whom they wish. What I am asking is that they set aside that right in order to be effective in their leadership of our state party.

You will notice that I am not calling for a change our party constitution. I am suggesting to my fellow Republicans that in our district conventions, we only elect members to the SCC who will voluntarily agree to remain neutral in primaries.

In the previous election cycle, an officer of the SCC spent nearly two years attending SCC meetings across the state. While that is laudable, the problem is that each time I heard this officer speak on behalf of RPI, it sounded more like a stump speech for a particular candidate in our Senate primary. Ultimately it caused another candidate to complain that RPI was showing favoritism. That complaint got into the media an caused a fair amount of confusion in the grassroots.

I don't think it was reality, but the perception of bias on the part of RPI was discouraging to many in our party.

This is the ethical standard I set for myself and promised my district.

Michael, I appreciate your input and candor. I think this is a healthy discussion. I suspect that if you and I were to sit down over coffee we would find that on issues we are largely in agreement. (I hope we get the chance ;-)

When people ask me about 'principle or party', I tell them that it is precisely because of my principles that I am in the Republican Party.

[Bill Dahlsten]

Does that meet the Republican Party of Iowa should stay out elections for County Republican Officers as well?

[Michael Ryan]

Bill,
To the best of my limited knowledge RPI does stay out of elections for County Republican Leadership selection. They only want to know who got to be the officers in the election.

[BIll Dahlsten]

Mr.Ryan:

Watch the heavens for a sign.

[Bill Dahlsten]

http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2009/11/17/iowa-coservatives-promise-to-continue-gay-marriage-focus
The President of the Iowa Christian in Name Only Alliance and Iowa Republican National Committeeman is already enforcing purity in Iowa. "Legislators who don’t support that effort could find themselves facing opponents recruited and financed by the alliance, Scheffler said." Interesting, how do 501(c)4 outfits do this without losing their tax exempt status.
http://www.thehawkeye.com/print/Money-funnel-102109
All this purity, is it enough to distract people from an ongoing investigation into money laundering through a Burlington church?

[Michael Ryan]

Bill,
I would let the IRS continue to looking into the allegations, odds are it will be dismissed when everything is looked at.
But as for the 501(c) 4 status I can answer that a little bit. Most people who comment are ignorant of what non-profits can do. They can put up a certain percentage of their budget to help causes or candidates who agree with them on the issues. I can guarantee you that Steve Scheffler and those who run the 501 (c) 4's have lawyers who know how far they can go and give without breaking the laws. It's just sad that people will jump to conclusions without looking for facts on these issues.
But I personally like Steve, and voted for him and would do it again. As for the purity issue look at my opinion on a previous thread to see where I stand on that issue.

Michael Ryan

[Bill Dahlsten]

Mr. Sheffler has a long history of self before party. Talk about conflict of interest, do some research. If he wants to promote self and cause before all else, do it not from a positon of party leadership. When it comes to lobbying for an issue, the wise avoid party leadership. They work both sides of the street picking up the few who agree in the other party.

[Michael Ryan]

Bill,
People elected Mr. Scheffler knowing where he stood. People elect leaders who show their principles either good or bad. People like myself and my county who knew Mr. Scheffler voted for him knowing this. It seems as some people say The Party first then everything, just set your core beliefs aside and say all Republicans are good.
We stood as party of principles for years until we started selling out to be pragmatic and less offensive to people.

[Bill Dahlsten]

Beware of false prophets.There are Pharisees in temple.

[Mark LeRette]

David, I agree with your opinion that county/state officers should remain neutral, in as much as they should not accept positions on campaign staffs, voluntary or paid, that give clear indication of endorsement.

That said, it is up to the individual to decide, since our constitution and bylaws do not prohibit it. I'm not sure I would want to provide a "litmus test" on this issue for potential SCC members, as it could preclude individuals from serving who might do an excellent job.

While I would prefer Joni did not endorse or serve on campaign staffs, I would hate to eliminate the opportunity the district exec. committee was given to add her wonderful enthusiasm and work ethic to the committee based on this one issue.

I personally have favorites in each race, however I have already let one know that I would not openly endorse. It is, IMO, my job to direct voters to information/events on whichever GOP candidate they are interested in, rather than attempt to influence vote toward a specific candidate.

That said, I'd hate to think Muscatine County Exec. Committee would institute such a policy, or I know of at least one extremely valuable member who we would disqualify. Effective, active members and leaders are hard enough to come by. In this case, I'd rather not make it even more difficult.

[Yoda]

Mark, what is important here to remember is that yes we are ultimately responsible for who we choose to represent us, but its even more important that we not forget who promised to remain neutral in order to get elected and then broke that promise just a few short weeks later.

We have entireley too many "leaders" in our party that wear multiple hats from party positions, special interest groups to campaigns positions and or GOP auxilary positions like republican women, college republicans etc. Wearing three hats is too much in my opinion. There is not a shortage of people who wished to be involved, there is however a shortage of principled leaders like David Chung however.

Enjoy the this beautiful weather! ;)