Answers to Question 6 (of 6) by the 2009 candidates for NC GOP Chairman & Vice-Chairman
[ncgop-exec]
Date of questions: Saturday, May 30, 2009
Answers were accepted May 30 thru June 9, 2009.
Question #6: A frequently heard complaint within the GOP is that it is hard to tell the difference between many of our Republican candidates and officeholders and the Democrats. To put it bluntly, we have a "RINO problem."
The question is, what, if anything, can the State Party and Chairman do about it? Picking our nominees is the job of primary voters, not Party leaders (except when a nominee quits or dies before the general election). The party leadership should stay neutral in primaries except in the most extraordinary circumstances (e.g., a David Duke nutcase, or a Richard Morgan traitor to the Party).
When the primary is over there needs to be a neutral broker of Party resources who can pull the opposing sides back together, to go on to defeat the Democrats. That's the job of the Party Chairman, but it is only possible if he has been uninvolved in the primary.
So what can be done about our RINO problem? One delegate had an idea. He wrote (this is paraphrased), "The question I would like to ask the candidates for Chairman concerns our primary process. In NC, unaffiliated voters can vote in the Republican primary! Why? Our arms are open, so join our Party if you want to vote in our primaries. Unaffiliated voters should have no right to vote in our primaries. Would you support restricting our primaries to registered Republicans?"
I'm not sure what to think of this idea. What do you think of it?
The six candidates' answers follow. The four candidates
for chairman are listed first (alphabetically), followed by the two candidates
for vice-chairman. (Each candidate's name is a clickable link to his web site.)
Chad Adams (for Chairman) wrote:
I addressed part of this in the previous question. YES, we need to consider closing our primaries and elevate the importance of our local parties. In so doing the local parties will have a great deal more input into the recruitment and selection of candidates. Those candidates, with a strong local party, will likely be more conservative and thus more exciting to the base in the Fall elections.
We have a great deal we can do on this front. And yes, the state chairman is there to SERVE the local parties, not dictate to them. That includes primaries.
Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said (paraphrased):
We should have closed primaries. We should also do a better job of vetting prospective candidates when doing candidate recruitment.
Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
I believe we should close primaries to Registered Republicans only. Allowing independants and unaffiliated to vote in our primaries allows them to choose our candidates, ergo RINO's I believe the Chairman should stay out of primaries and interparty elections period. We are Republicans, each one of us should be able to think independantly and not have someone tell us who to vote for. There is a resolution coming to the floor to require candidates to uphold our Platform and be held accountable. The delegates must decide. The Chairman has the obigation to uphold the Party Plan of Organization and the Platform. We have failed to uphold our priciples and this has resulted in the Republican party being defined as "Democrat lite", we must stop this now!
Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
I intend to be involved in the "vetting process" of:
* identifying qualified candidates
* screening the background of prospective candidates
* ensuring that the District and County Chairmen are involved in the vetting, and
* assisting qualified candidates in their efforts to promote their candidacy.
The vetting process need not have leadership officially "endorse" one candidate over the other. Highlighting the distinctions between candidates is a matter of honesty and integrity, and it is my opinion that the NCGOP Chairman as well as County & District Chairmen should objectively make these distinctions. The obligation to convince the voters for WHOM their vote should be cast rests with the candidate. It is when we remain "hands-off" in screening & vetting beforehand that we have an "OOPS" moment with so-called "RINOs." As Chairman, I believe in preventive maintenance more than corrective measures. As far as closed primaries (restricted to Republicans only), I'm STRONGLY in favor of that idea.
(Note: Tim & David are candidates for Vice-Chairman, not Chairman, but since Vice-Chairmen often eventually become Chairmen I asked that they answer the questions as if they expected to become chairman.)
Tim Johnson (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
While I think your question is a good one, it is not a question the party itself can change. The question about who gets to vote in the primary is a legislative question, which would be better answered by candidates for the General Assembly. I think a more pertinent question would be - How do we, as a party, recruit candidates for public office who believe in our party's fundamental principles, and then financially support those candidates without trying to control them and campaign and get out the vote for those candidates? That will result in quality Republican candidates, more so than changes to election laws. We are supposed to be an organized party dedicated to getting good Republicans elected. Unaffiliated voters are not an organized group. I do not believe they are the real threat to our party or our candidates. It is the apathy and inefficiencies within our own party that we need to focus on fixing.
David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
I would like to hear additional arguments from both sides on this point. On the one hand, I believe that the Open Primary system opens the door to great mischief in that it gives non-Republicans an opportunity to choose the Republican candidates for various offices, especially in the smaller communities where a few votes can make a major difference in the outcome of an election. On the other hand, by closing the Primary, it gives the Democrats a golden opportunity to say that the Republicans do not care about the unaffiliated voters and that, as a result, they (the unaffiliated voter) should vote for the Democrat candidate as only they "care" about the voter's positions. (Unfortunately, oftentimes, perception is reality, and the perception of a party which is not interested in a voter's opinions often leads to fewer votes for that party.). You may recall that, several years ago, the Republican Party Primary was the only Primary which was open to "unaffiliated" voters and the Democrats, feeling that they were hurt by that arrangement, subsequently opened their primary as well. Personally, I would be hesitant to close the Republican Party primary unless the Democrat Party primary was likewise closed such that the Parties were on a level playing field. This is my thought at this time, but I am not strongly committed to this position. To reiterate, I would like to hear additional arguments regarding the matter.
The other five questions can be found here:
http://www.mooregop.org/chairman_questionnaire.html
Dave Burton
Cary, NC
H: 1-919-481-0098
M: 1-919-244-3316
|