[ncgop-exec]
Date of questions: Saturday, May 30, 2009
Answers were accepted May 30 thru June 9, 2009.

 
Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2009:  All six candidates have responded to the questionnaire. Chad, Marcus, Bill, Tim & David submitted written answers, which are reported here complete and without editing. Tom gave his answers verbally, in a phone conversation, which I've paraphrased as closely as I could, from my notes & memory.
 
This is the questionnaire they received:
 

Dear Chad, Tom, Marcus, Bill, Tim & David,

Thank you for your willingness to serve the North Carolina Republican Party as Chairman or Vice-Chairman!

I run an unofficial email list ("[ncgop-exec]") for discussion of NC GOP business; i.e., business which is likely to come up in State Executive Committee meetings or at the State Convention. I've added each of you to that list.

To help me decide who I should support, I composed a set of four questions to ask the candidates for chairman. Discussion on and off of the [ncgop-exec] list has led to two additional questions.

I would be grateful for your answers to these six questions. Your answers will help me decide who to support, and I will also send your answers to the [ncgop-exec] email list, to help other delegates make their decisions. I hope I can send your answers to the [ncgop-exec] email list by Wednesday morning (or sooner, if I get all six candidates' answers sooner). If that doesn't give you enough time, please let me know.

(Note to Tim & David, candidates for Vice-Chairman: These questions are written for Chairman candidates, but, since Vice-Chairmen often eventually become Chairmen, I ask that you please answer the questions as if you expect to become chairman.)

The first four questions are from me; questions 5 & 6 result from discussions originating on the [ncgop-exec] email list and continued off-line:
 

 
Question #1:  Please comment on "Project Houdini," and how we, as a State Party, should respond to it.

For a web page with only this question and the candidates' answers, click here.
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:
    The Houdini operation had success and failure for the Obama team. The project is modeled on the way the local GOP used to work with runners and central county operations. Observers would get a list of who had voted at various times, cross those off a list of potential voters and get HQ to start calling to get the rest of the voters out. We should do that at the precinct level IF we can rebuild our county parties and get enthusiasm and volunteers back into our part.
    Short answer, Houdini was an amazing concept but riddled with logistical nightmares. I think our party needs to focus on strong county operations is we with to win statewide. We are best when we are a ground up party operationally!

Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said (paraphrased):
    We need to invest resources, energy & intellect to regain our former technological supremacy.

Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
    We should teach our county Chairs and Precinct Chairs how to use our tools to accomplish the same results . In 2004 in Guilford County, I did two things in this manner. First we divided each precinct into areas of 150 republicans living on contigious streets, we then assigned individuals to contact these people. This resulted in at 77% turnout of republicans in our Rural Precincts with a 71.7% GOP Turnout overall in county on election day ( We now need to be doing this through out early voting) That is why we used runners to collect the voter sheets at each precinct at 10,2,and 4, following up with calls to those who had not yet voted. We know how to do it we just need the leadership to carry it out.

Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
    The "Project Houdini" effort by the Obama campaign was a good example of effective and innovative utilization of modern technology. If you notice in the article, it surpassed their expectations to the point of enabling them (in some cases) to finish in half the time. We, as Republicans, need to do a much better job at getting our constituency connected with techno-media tools. To that end, the 13 NCGOP districts should serve as technological training centers across the state. We need to:
a. Strive for 100% of our NCGOP Executive leadership to be "connected" with cell-phones and peripheral equipment that can utilize & exploit new media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
b. hold regular weekly seminars (manned by well-trained volunteers) accessible to registered Republicans,
c. provide reasonably-priced sources of computers and phone systems,
d. provide alternative recommendations to persons whose budgets are constrained to their not being able to afford the technology. We need to have a sensitivity to the fact that not everyone will be interested, motivated (or financially stable) enough to equip themselves with it.
e. develop a tactical document that addresses procedures, concepts and methodology for basic guidance.
f. create a new position within each county: Information Technology Liaison who will be the "go-to" person on matters relating to this increasingly important medium.
    But we should NOT forget that our re-explaining and re-articulating our conservative, Republican party platform in contrast to the fallacious, deceptive and dangerous policies of Democrats is paramount. If we don't do a better job at showing a clear distinction between the two parties, the Democrats will continue to dominate.

(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:
    There is absolutely no reason why the Republican Party can't improve upon Project Houdini in North Carolina. However, in order for us to be successful, we need to re-focus our efforts at the most basic level within our party structure, the precinct. What made Project Houdini so successful was the ability for volunteers at each polling station to relay information back to a centralize location and coordinate who had voted and who still needed to vote. We cannot afford to complain about the two weeks of early voting. It is a part of our election process and we need to not only copy Project Houdini but improve upon it.

David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
Preface to Responses
    Prior to responding to these questions, I would like to reiterate that I am running for Vice Chair of the Party, and not Chair. I understand the premise of the submission, that is, that the Vice Chair can become the Chair and I appreciate that fact. But, to me, it is important that persons reviewing the questions and responses thereto recognize that the Vice Chair's role is, among other things, to work with the Chair and implement the decisions and directions of the Chair and the Central and Executive Committee. I am not suggesting that these are the only roles of the Vice Chair but, by responding to these questions, I do not want to imply, in any way, that I would disregard the authority of the existing Chair or the Committees, or fail to honor the terms of the Plan of Organization.
Response to Question 1
    Often times, the difficulty in responding to written inquires involves identifying the meaning of particular phrases such that everyone is "on the same page". Here, my research indicates that the phrase "Phrase Houdini" means different things to different people. For purposes of this question, I will assume that "Project Houdini" refers to a concentrated, aggressive effort on the part of campaign activists to identify persons who have not voted on election day and get them to the polls. This was done using both campaign personnel at voting sites and high tech methods of communication to relay information. In some ways, it has been described as a response to the Republican 72 Hour program, but more focused at the voting precincts and involving a greater use of new technologies. To the extent that the question refers to this effort, Republicans should, likewise, be organized and aggressively attempt to get our voters to the polls. This would involve a greater use of new technology to communicate with regional command posts which, in turn, could direct the use of campaign resources to the best use possible. To the extent, however, that the question presupposes that "Project Houdini" involved efforts by persons to circumvent existing election laws, or use government funds or employees for blatantly partisan activities, it must be investigated and, if illegal conduct is involved, prosecuted.
 

 
Question #2:  The NC GOP is supposed to be the Party of "traditional values," one of which is simple honesty. However, a former NC GOP Chairman is in prison, and the NC Republican Party currently hires professional fundraisers to raise money from our Party's members by lying. Like many of you, I personally received a fundraising phone call for the NC GOP in which I was told that my membership in the NC Republican Party was up for annual renewal, and that the renewal would cost me $65. That is all blatant lies: NC GOP membership does not expire, and does not cost money.

For a web page with only this question and the candidates' answers, click here.
The six candidates' answers follow.
 

Chad Adams (for Chairman) wrote:
    100% yes!!

Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said:
    Yes.

Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
    Let me tell you my experence as Chair in Guilford County. A friend of mine called to tell me he had received a letter from "US" and he had made a donation. I asked for details and he said the letter was for the annual Guilford County Republican Party fundraising campaign. The return address was Washington DC for one of the election clubs. I took it to the 2004 convention but was told it would not be stopped. To answer your question, You Bet I'll make sure we be honest with our members.!!!

Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
    My allegiance and commitment is to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, consistent with God's will for our lives as penned in His holy Word. I will continue to strive to exhibit true Christian principles, and will not willingly misrepresent or deceive in any way (as outlined in the above question). As NCGOP Chairman I will lead in this regard by example, and will not allow our Party to lower its standards of honesty and integrity in any way.

(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:
    I will make that pledge

David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
    Personally, I believe that honesty and integrity are integral components of a moral person and, indeed, the conservative philosophy. As such, they are very important to me and have formed a basis for how I have attempted to live my life and deal with others.
    Now, with respect to the question, as presented, it is based upon a premise that the North Carolina Republican Party is intentionally or knowingly making deliberately misleading statements as part of its fundraising program. This argument has previously been raised before the North Carolina Republican Party Central Committee and the Committee has discussed, at length, the Party's fundraising program in general and the accusations in particular. In so doing, the Central Committee did not believe that the Party's fundraising practices were, in any way, intentionally or knowingly untrue, or deliberately misleading. The Chair should honor and respect the decision of the Committee on this point. To do otherwise would render the role of the Central Committee meaningless. Should the Committee reconsider the matter and adopt a different position, the Chair, again, should implement that decision as well.
 

 
Question #3:  The Republican Party is America's "conservative" party. We are the Party of limited government, the Party of robust capitalism, the Party of strict & honest Constitutional interpretation, the Party of individual liberty, and the Party of strong national defense.

However, some factions of our Party want to tone down the Party's stand for traditional ethics and morality. For instance, the RLC takes no stand on abortion, and the Log Cabin Republicans & Richard Morgan factions want to make the Party "more progressive."

Do you support the NC GOP Platform's current strong stand for traditional ethics and morality, or do you think such issues should be deemphasized?

For a web page with only this question and the candidates' answers, click here.
The six candidates' answers follow.
 

Chad Adams (for Chairman) wrote:
    Equals rights for all, special privileges for none! But more importantly, in spite of our shortcomings as individuals, yes our party needs to be the one of traditional ethics and morality. There needs to be no de-emphasis. The platform is strong and should be upheld!

Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said (paraphrased):
    Yes, retain strong stand.

Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
    NO! NO! NO! WE MUST not compromise our principles! We must take a POSITIVE stand for the values we put forth. Be proud of the platform we have and stand on the solid foundation of our Party.

Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
    Yes, I support the NCGOP's platform emphasis and strong stand for traditional ethics & morality. Answer to Q-2, germane.

(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:
    Social issues are extremely important to me, but when it comes to our party platform, I get only one vote just like everyone else. Our Republican Principles don't change. Our Platform changes every year as we take a stand on issues based on the times. It should come as no surprise that in times of economic struggle, the priorities of many of our fellow Republicans will shift toward economic issues and new people will join our party out of a deep concern over the economic prosperity of our country. We should not be afraid of these shifts. When our country returns to prosperity, Republicans will likely change their focus again. I welcome all Republicans who believe in our Republican Principles even if they do not agree with me on every issue and I welcome their input on the platform or any other party business.
    Slavery is an interesting example because it involves two conflicting principles at once states rights (limited government) and social equality. Obviously I am very glad that the social issue won out in this case. Few would argue that the moral component of the slavery debate should have been deemphasized.

David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
    I support the NC GOP Platform.
 

 
Question #4:  The NC GOP Executive Committee, though officially in charge of the Party, is terribly dysfunctional. Some of the reasons are intractable; e.g., its huge size (nearly 600 members), and the great distance that some of its members must travel to meetings. Also, it meets only 2-4 times per year, and the meetings too often are curtailed by lack or loss of quorum, or (twice in recent memory) because the meeting room was reserved for insufficient time.

The members' phone numbers used to be listed on the ncgop.org web site, but were removed in early 2005. The members' postal mailing addresses are still available, but doing a 500-600 piece mailing is so burdensome that I know of only one person (me!) who has ever done such a mailing about "regular" executive committee business (i.e., when not campaigning for a position).

The easy remedy to the communication problem is for the State Party to set up a "closed" (private) email listserver for State Executive Committee members to use for discussion of State Party business (i.e., for discussion of matters which would be taken up in an official capacity at our thrice-annual State Executive Committee meetings). I will happily offer technical assistance, and more detailed suggestions. (Note: this email listserver would replace the unofficial [ncgop-exec] list that I run, which currently has less than half of the Executive Committee members subscribed.)

Will you commit to create such an email listserver, if you are elected chairman? Will you also commit to restore the Executive Committee members' access to the list of other members' phone numbers?

For a web page with only this question and the candidates' answers, click here.
The six candidates' answers follow.
 

Chad Adams (for Chairman) wrote:
    This is a good idea that should also be married to having all exec members having a Tritter account and the party holding more tele-commuting type meetings. It is legal to have elected officials attend meetings via teleconference, why not our party?
    Our state is huge, geographically and making meetings in a single location is tough. We must embrace more modern communication abilities if we are to embrace the modern world and the modern political environment.
    We must adapt and evolve. If we master communications within our exec committee we will also be able to better assist our local parties and auxiliary organizations as well.

Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said:
    Yes.

Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
    I would see no problem with this, the only caveat I would inject is to give a member the ablity to op out if they choose.

Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
    I like the idea of our having ready-access to Executive Committee members throughout the state. But I don't like "reinventing the wheel." A very effective system already exists in Wake County (developed by Mr. Bill Bryson). It is called: "Volunteer Support System" (VSS). This is a secure-access website that is effective all the way down to the Block Captain level. Mr. Bryson shared this idea with Mecklenburg County, and they are now up & running (without a hitch). I believe it can be adopted and spread across the state in rapid-fashion.

(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:
    I think listserver is one of a number of ways to effectively improve our statewide communication. To that end, I would also suggest that all members of the executive committee have an email address @ncgop.org which can be forwarded to their personal email addresses or checked as a separate email address.

David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
    It is my recollection that the NCGOP Executive Committee previously addressed this issue and either rejected, or otherwise refused to adopt, the use of a listserv, as it is described herein. Again, the Chair should honor the decision of the Committee and, should the Committee direct otherwise, that decision, too, should be honored..
 

 
Question #5:  (This is related to Question #4.) There is a widespread feeling of irrelevance among State Executive Committee members. That's one of the reasons we have trouble meeting a 25% quorum requirement. The Executive Committee is supposed to be in charge of making policy for the Party (within the confines of the Plan of Organization and Platform), but almost never does.

• Trim out the "fluff" (like Five Star Reports) in our meetings to make time for more substantive questions of Party policy.
• Plan for an "open discussion period" with the Chairman, after formal adjournment of each meeting, for those who want to stay around.
• Accept that the Executive Committee can't really do its job, and give the smaller Central Committee "backup authority" to do the work of the Executive Committee. (This would require a Plan of Organization change; it was defeated last year, but has been proposed again by the PoO Committee this year.)
• Shrink the Executive Committee, perhaps by making County Vice-Chairmen voting members only in the absence of their Chairmen, and/or eliminating all or some of the at-large positions. (This would require a Plan of Organization change; it has been defeated several times in the past.)
• Change the quorum rules, so that the Committee is never unable to do business due to lack of a quorum; click here for one way to do that. (This would require a Plan of Organization change; ironically, it was defeated by a quorum call a couple of years ago at the State Convention.)

Do any of these ideas seem good to you? Are you satisfied with how the State Executive Committee currently works? What else could be done to improve it?

For a web page with only this question and the candidates' answers, click here.
The six candidates' answers follow.
 

Chad Adams (for Chairman) wrote:
    Yes, I think most all of these ideas should be brought up. Again, we need to adapt and debating such ideas is a way to start. Moreover, I think our party should truly identify the systemic problems we might have. 90% of solving any problem is identifying it first. I'd also like to see the idea of closing our primaries be debated. Such an idea would rapidly make the importance of the local party increase. But again, let's BE the party of ideas and not be afraid to change how we operate without giving up our principles.

Tom Fetzer (for Chairman) said (paraphrased):
    When I was mayor of Raleigh we had a public comment period at each meeting. We should do something like that.
    Philosophically, Im a believer in streamlining to get the routine matters handled quickly, perhaps by use of a consent agenda. We should be respectful of peoples time.
    One idea to improve the effectiveness of the Party is to accelerate the convention schedule, so that we don't lose 3 months awaiting the outcome of the chairman's race in the next election cycle.
    [Note: because this was the longest question, I saved it for last in our phone conversation, and we ran out of time before Tom could address each bullet specifically. -DB]

Marcus Kindley (for Chairman) wrote:
    The State executive Committe represents or should represent the Grassroots of our party. As a member since 1999 I have watched it shrink in participation through fustration and lack of interest. We should work to make the function of the Executive Committee one of relevance. I do not want to give the Centeral Committee anymore power than necessary. We should be careful NOT to concentrate power in the hands of too few people. that is part of our problem now. there are the elite in and around Raleigh dictationg to the rest of the party. many County chairs feel the executive Committee is a waste of time in that they feel their voices are not heard. this must stop if we want to defeat the Democrats in this state. I think that we should shrink it to reflect the grassroots. I agree that by making County Vice-Chairmen voting members only in the absence of their Chairman, and/or eliminating all or some of the at-large positions we could have a more viable and productive commitee. In addition I think there should be an Open discussion period after adjournment. this will allow those in attendance to ask questions and allow the chairman to define or suggest ideas and plans.

Bill Randall (for Chairman) wrote:
    Agree with item I. Item II is a "given," and is just plain good leadership. Items III & IV describes an ostrich with its head in the sand; we don't need any "defeatist" attitude. Item V slaps Parliamentary procedures in the face. The purpose of a quorum is to maintain the integrity of the process. Anything short of a quorum casts a shadow of doubt about the validity of any decisions made (even if they are valid); it's a matter of perception that would undermine the Executive Committee's credibility and authority). As Chairman, I'd look to ascertain what the motivation and morale level is in each of our 13 districts. Any real or perceived problems/issues would be addressed head-on, and I would work with county party members to work towards satisfactory and equitable resolution of the same. Once this is done, the lethargy and apathy would be replaced by enthusiasm, energy and an engaged grassroots base of the NCGOP.

(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:
    We have to do a better job of communicating with all of the stakeholders rather than just a select few. "We, the people" is not reserved only for the Constitution. I believe every county chairman deserves to be heard at the state level before we make decisions and obligate everyone to the decision. Looking at any successful board of directors, our meetings should be used to discuss relevant issues, debate those issues when required and come away with a consensus on how we should move forward. It is unfair to direct from the top down and wonder why our grassroots efforts are ineffective. Whatever we do moving forward, we must make every effort to include the elected chairmen in all 100 counties.

David Sawyer (for Vice-Chairman) wrote:
    It strikes me that a majority of the suggestions outlined in your question involve fundamental changes which require modification of the State Plan of Organization, and the Chair would not be in a position to unilaterally implement the changes without action by the Convention. Having said that, I believe that there are some things that can be done to improve the functioning of the Executive Committee. I believe that a discussion period can be a good thing, if the participants address substantive issues in a professional manner and do not use it as a forum for pushing a particular agenda to the exclusion of other thoughts. I do not believe that "fluff" is appropriate agenda material for the Executive Committee, and I would take the action necessary to insure that the agenda involved only substantive issues for which Executive Committee action would be necessary or, additionally, for which the best interests of the Party would be served by presentation of an informational item to the Committee. (I would caution, however, that one person's fluff is another's important matter.) I agree that the size of the Committee can, at times, create issues. However, again, the Executive Committee is supposed to be representative of the Party throughout the State and I have been repeatedly told by people in the Eastern and Western portions of the State that they vehemently oppose a reduction of the size of the Committee because they feel that it would reduce their voice in the Party's operation. I do believe that the Executive Committee can delegate certain duties as it sees fit, and should do so when the best interests of the Party would be served.
 

 
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."

For a web page with only this question and the candidates' answers, click here.
The six candidates' answers follow.
 

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.
 

 
I would be grateful for your answers to these questions before Wednesday morning. If that doesn't give you enough time, please let me know.

Gratefully yours,

Dave Burton, Cary, NC
H: 1-919-481-0098       M: 1-919-244-3316

P.S. - I found another questionnaire that was sent to the four candidates for chairman by someone else. I had nothing to do with it, but I think it is interesting, so I linked to it on my web site, here:
http://www.mooregop.org/cpo_chairman_questionnaire.html