Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Party uber alles?

Yes, it's time for me to set some folks straight again.

Let me begin by saying that I'm quite aware Audrey Scott, as MDGOP Chair, is paid to elect Republicans. But is this the right message to put out?



Sometimes you have to stand for something besides not being the other guys. Oftentimes we make our decisions based on the letter after the name, not realizing that there's supposed to be underlying principles inherent within.

I think Brian Murphy understands this too. He criticized Scott in a blistering radio interview message:


For the last 100 years, the Maryland Republican Party has been irrelevant, and so they’ve just said, ‘Well, the only way to win is to look like Democrats.’ No, the way to win is what Ronald Reagan did: to stand on principle.

[The GOP] is really having an identity crisis. Over the weekend, there was a telling video, and it was really pretty disgusting, quite frankly. The reason I’m running is because we’ve lost sight of our principles in our party. If the Republican Party is one thing, it is a party of principles. It is a party of conviction and passion. Our Founders were all men and women of principle and passion.

There was this Rule 11 thing, where the Republican Party, most folks don’t know about it, they don’t really care. It’s this little group that decided to endorse Ehrlich, even before he filed. It was basically a vote against me. But that was a symptom. And this video, this weekend, was the real disease. It was the Chairman of the Republican Party… she said, ‘Party first. Party over principle.’ Which shows she doesn’t understand the Republican Party is the party of principle. That’s why we’re losers in Maryland.

Now, I already have heard the argument about Brian being a Democrat for awhile, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps what attracted him to switch was the fact our party has good conservative principles and he felt he was the best person to lead us in that direction? To dismiss him is to dismiss a number of other leaders on a more local scale who simply were fed up with politics as usual. A church wouldn't turn away someone who wants to convert, so why should we?

Unfortunately for establishment Republicans, I give a damn about principles too. One thing I demand is a fair shake for all candidates and let them stand or fall on their own merits, not being Obamalike and clearing the playing field for a chosen candidate. Yes, I'm proud to be a Republican but the "R" next to the name doesn't guarantee a vote when I think they fall short on principles. That's why I am unabashedly a Murphy supporter - on the other hand, Wayne Gilchrest was one of those types who wasn't what I considered a good Republican to be. Fortunately Bob Ehrlich has just enough good points that I can support him in the general election if he doesn't lose the primary. Chances are he won't.

That being said, though, in the next term the GOP is going to need to have the whip handy in order to corral Ehrlich in the right direction and make sure he follows through on those areas conservatives supported him for. That means crossing the aisle to accomodate Democrats is verboten - let them come to us. If Ehrlich wins he makes the budget and that's part of the political Golden Rule - he who has the gold, rules. So screw the Democrats - they're more than happy to do it to us when they're in power. It's our contention as conservatives that following our philosophy of limiting government will lead to more prosperity and freedom for all, not just chosen special interests.

More than likely it's too late for Murphy's words to make much of an impact for this election - votes are already being cast and, with our party (led by Ehrlich) now hypocritically embracing the early voting we fought against, Brian Murphy has fewer minds to change. But there is still hope for the next cycle, and if Bob Ehrlich wins and becomes the titular leader of the Maryland GOP he shouldn't be allowed to just expect the party to back his every move or become a vehicle for his re-election. We already tried that once and we see where we were led.

(On a side note, perhaps it's time to consider something our neighbor to the south does and limit governors to one four-year term. While we're at it, 12 years in the General Assembly is more than enough.)

It's what makes your local Central Committee elections almost as important as choosing the best Republican candidates to follow the party's conservative, limited-government philosophy through to a seat in the General Assembly.

But it's more important that our party conveys a message that principles matter and the people should have their say in electing a candidate. This Rule 11 fiasco wasn't quite as covert as my birth state's practice of regularly trying to avoid contested primaries in statewide races by cajolery but it still has the stench of a backroom deal written all over it. In an era where more people than ever are fed up with 'politics as usual' and don't think there's a significant difference between the two parties, there's no need to make my job as a Republican harder by providing more evidence those perceptions are correct.

Crossposted at monoblogue.

18 comments:

Martin Watcher said...

Hmmm... should an un-elected party boss make decisions about what policies are enacted or pushed for by elected members of the General Assembly and the Governor's office?

My position is no. I don't want a party chairman getting involved in policy making or principles. That should be left to the voters and the people actually elected.

Yes you can argue that a Republican Chairman is appointed by the elected Central Committee members, but it is one thing to be responsible to a small cabal of central committee members, as opposed to the voters of the entire state.

Remember the failure that was Jim Pelura and his attempts to get involved in policy making? I don't want the party bosses (whether they are central committee members or a party chairman) telling me or any elected offical what to think and do. That is a determination that should only be made by the people elected to serve in that capacity.

streiff said...

I find it hard to criticize someone for saying they will loyally do the job they are paid to do.

The MD GOP Party leadership is there to elect Republicans regardless of their principles. If they don't like the candidate they should resign and let someone else to do the job.

As to your critique of Ehrlich. If he was in the House or Senate he'd be one of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus.

Mark Newgent said...

How about the unedited video, rather than the self serving edited clip?

Greg Kline said...

I guess you did not get the memo Mike that we take our orders here at RedMaryland from Audrey Scott.

Remember, we are the "Republican Establishment Gatekeepers."

By the way, what conservative values were being demonstrated in 2005 that inspired Mr. Murphy to become a Republican? Sounds like Schwarzeneggar saying he is a Republican because of Richard Nixon.

Greg Kline said...

"To dismiss him is to dismiss a number of other leaders on a more local scale who simply were fed up with politics as usual. A church wouldn't turn away someone who wants to convert, so why should we?"

Mike- he can join the church but we wouldn't make him the bishop. That is the problem with your support of an unqualified candidate.

tpelura said...

"Hmmm... should an un-elected party boss make decisions about what policies are enacted or pushed for by elected members of the General Assembly and the Governor's office"

I thought the Chairman of the MDGOP was elected.

streiff said...

are you obtuse or do you not understand the point Martin Watcher was making?

Martin Watcher said...

tpelura, the Chairman of the MDGOP is appointed by the local Central Committees. They serve strictly at the pleasure the Central Committees. Would you consider the U.S. Supreme Court as elected because the President and the Senate chose this person?

tpelura said...

First of all, you can get off you high horse and talk to me with some respect. No, I am not obtuse (big words); it was a question. The MDGOP chairman is voted in by the committee, so they are elected. One person has to get more votes then the other (this is not the same as the Supreme Court). I'll leave you bloggers alone since you all are so smart.
And I don't agree with the fact "this is what they get paid to do." The problem with the gop is they don't stand for anything. As long I have an R or D, I'm in. Now wonder nothing gets done.

streiff said...

Respect is earned. You made a silly statement and were called on it. The fact that you can't comprehend "elected" indicates that you probably should avoid political blogs in general.

The decision to move on is yours.

tpelura said...

Streiff,
Are you serious with this "respect is earned." That wasn't a silly question. The chairman actually campaigns for votes (or am I wrong). The chairmann is considered an elected official of the MD GOP-and I think you got my point. You don't know me, so get over yourself. I know more about what goes on and what went on then you will ever know; so I think I can hold my own on a Maryland political blog.
P.S. Your response was very tough sounding. Bravo

tpelura said...

By the way, just to let everyone in-I am Jim Pelura's son. Forgive my dismissal of what you say, but for a couple of years I've read sites like this from bloggers like you who know nothing of what is actually happening. Have fun with your site.

streiff said...

First, your second claim is nothing to brag about.

Second, making a silly claim then claiming superior knowledge would be demeaning to anyone with a sense of shame.

Third, the MD GOP Chairman is an elected official in the way the president of the Rotary Club is. He is not on a ballot that Republican voters see.

Bye.

Martin Watcher said...

tpelura,

Perhaps a better scenario for you to see about the election of somebody would be the selection of U.S. Senators prior to the 17th amendment. Prior to that amendment, Senators were chosen by the legislatures of each state, which were in turn elected by the people. That is a Senator being "chosen" as stated in the U.S. Constitution. The 17th changed it so that they were "elected" by the people thereof.

Central Committees serve a vital purpose in this State and Country, but I disagree that it should be to develop principles and policies. Principles can only be held by the people and people should elect a person that has the principles they want. The job of parties is to fill vacancies, and to help elect the people chosen by the primary voters. That is accomlished by switching voters, rasing money, pointing out the faults of the Democrats, and organizing volunteers.

Chester Peake said...

Audry just blew it for us, now we can no longer make fun of Lisa "Party-Over-Race" Gladden!! Ms.Scott just took away one of our talking points!

The party to set policy? Not in any legal way, the elected office-holders do that.

Sure, they may come out with statements condemning Democrat policies, and touting Republican ones, but should they actually be MAKING policy? That's evidently what what Ms. Belcher wants. Others want to stay away from that.

Kevin Waterman said...

Micahel,

If you're so heavily concerned with supporting a candidate who is principled, why are you only going halfway?

Susan Gaztanaga has as good a chance as Brian Murphy of beating O'Malley (and for the record that's not a positive endorsement of her chances) and her commitment to limited government is much stronger and more credible than Brian Murphy's.

I can respect a commitment to principle, but the fact is, a vote for Brian Murphy is still a vote for compromise on limited government. And if you're willing to compromise, it's stupid not to compromise for the best chance to beat O'Malley and replace him someone who is at least marginally better.

Michael Swartz said...

All right, let me jump in here.

First of all, the MDGOP chair and other executive officers are elected during our organizational meeting at the beginning of the new term - those of us elected to Central Committees will hold the next one around the first of December. Of course, whether votes will be counted equally is also going to be up for discussion.

As I recall, Audrey Scott was not planning on seeking a full term although that is obviously subject to change. I'm not asking the party chair to dictate policy but it would be helpful to explain that the GOP does have principles and good candidates stick more or less to the party line.

Now, as for my support of an "unqualified" candidate - is that because he didn't come up through the political world and comes from the private sector? Seems like that worked for some guy named Reagan (who was once a Democrat too.) What did Bob Ehrlich run before he became governor and how did he become so expert at being an executive?

By the way, Strieff, I actually took the time to look up ACU ratings and Bob Ehrlich's 83 lifetime rating would put him way over into the moderate category, with the vast majority of House members well to his right. That's pretty far from the "conservative" category if you ask me.

Phoebe said...

Michael you lost me when you said the Chairman was PAID to...do anything.

The Chair of the MDGOP does not get paid att all by the party, candidates or any other entity unless they have an outside job.

Seriously, Audrey has given her all to supporting Republican principles and oh yeah, she's done it for YEARS.

I seem to see alot of critical analysis from you about Audrey. Am I not recalling this correctly?
Do you think she's done anything right or does her merely breathing bother you?

ShareThis