Linn County and the Loyalty Oath
Last Tuesday night the Linn County Republican Central Committee passed a resolution containing the following text:
The resolution was authored by Brent Oleson, a Republican Linn County Supervisor and Branstad supporter. The resolution of course is a response to Iowa Family PAC and Kent Sorenson's endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats and un-endorsement of Terry Branstad fueling speculation that should Vander Plaats not win the nomination he might even run a third-party campaign for governor.
While I did not support the resolution, I would not go as far as Al over at the Iowa Defense Alliance and call it madness either. In debate, I led the minority opposition and the resolution passed by a relatively narrow margin. Now, I do believe that we as Republicans should support our candidates and the primary process — my problem was that this resolution was an attempt by a Branstad supporter to embarrass Vander Plaats and I did not want my county central committee to insert itself into the process in this way.
At our Caucus both Rod Roberts and Bob Vander Plaats gave speeches. Afterwards, Linn County Chairman, Tim Palmer (editor of the Hawkeye Review), spoke about the resolution. He said that the loyalty pledge had been sent to each of the campaigns and that Branstad, Rants and Roberts had responded that they would support the eventual nominee. The Vander Plaats campaign said that they would have a press release clarifying their position soon. Tim may have given more detail but that is my recollection.
It puts Vander Plaats in an interesting position. If he agrees to the pledge, he runs the danger of alienating some of his strongest and most vocal supporters who have said that they will not support Branstad even if he wins the primary. On the other hand if he does not agree to the pledge he runs the risk of alienating others in the party who consider all four of our candidates to be a better choice than re-electing Chet Culver. People seem to forget that in 2006, Vander Plaats played the good party soldier and suspended his campaign to run on a Nussle/Vander Plaats ticket. It will be interesting to see what he does this time.
Well played, Brent, well played.
Thanks for leading the opposition on that resolution, David. I'm sorry I missed the vote.
Posted by: Jason Steffens | Jan 25, 2010 8:24:03 AM
Dave, here's the problem I have with candidates like Vander Plaats and his supporters that don't want to support the GOP nominee if they don't like them. They are more than willing to use our primary process - our structure, our network, our efforts, our money, our resources, and our votes - to try to get themselves into office, but then not support the nominee if the general if they don't like them, or worse split off and run independent. I have a real problem with that.
Whether people like it or not, when your candidate loses a primary it's by a vote of and therefore the will of the people. That your candidate didn't convince people to vote for them isn't a conspiracy or collusion, it simply means your candidate didn't make their case. It was done within the free system of election within the constitution govt we're set up under. Better luck next time.
I think there are some integrity issues with piggybacking onto someone else's organization when it's convenient for you then abandoning it when you don't get the results you want. If you aren't on board with that organization then form your own and run with it to the end. All that's getting done now is electing Democrats when we split after the primary and go our separate ways, or fight for the same votes.
Posted by: Matt Green | Jan 25, 2010 9:47:20 AM
Matt,
I agree with you , but I did not say that BVP would not support the nominee. While you are right that some of his supporters have said so publicly.
What I said is that now he is in a position where he needs to make his intentions known.
--Dave
Posted by: HawkeyeGOP | Jan 25, 2010 11:21:24 AM
Yeah, I wasn't clear. You are correct, BVP hasn't actually ruled it in or out at this point. And I agree, he needs to make it known now so the voters can factor that into their decision.
Posted by: Matt Green | Jan 25, 2010 12:15:45 PM
Here's my take on all this.
This is something that quite frankly we should EXPECT our candidates to do..unfortunately that's not always the case. Hence why Mr. Olson felt it necessary to go this route.
BVP's campaign already has some high profile supporters who have made it clear that if a particular candidate is elected as our nominee...they will not support them.
That's disappointing to see out of these folks. The will of Republican voters is sacrosanct in my mind. When our folks go to the polls on Primary Day and decide who our nominee is...as Party activists we must respect their decision.
If I don't want to support the nominee of my party..I have one option before me as an activist..leave the Party.
There have been numerous occasions where I may not have liked a nominated candidate's stand on an issue or for a personal reason or whatever.
Still doesn't change the fact that since they're the nominee of our Party..our job after the primary becomes electing them to office.
Now, after they get elected..my job becomes 1. holding them to our principles and 2. working to convince them to "see the light" if you will if they hold a position on an issue I don't like.
Posted by: Todd Versteegh | Jan 25, 2010 1:30:01 PM
I agree with the preceding but want to add a reminder about 2002, when the party was split in thirds after the primary. Bob helped with Doug's campaign after the primary, especially out west. Many supporters of Bob also helped Doug that fall.
Posted by: Eric Rosenthal | Jan 25, 2010 4:31:27 PM