In the emerging Republican civil war, it’s difficult to root for either side. The Establishment is sick and tired of losing elections, while the Tea Baggers are done with empty rhetoric and broken promises. In Virginia, the Establishment is striking back in an interesting way. Their problem has been that the state’s GOP likes to nominate their candidates in a convention dominated by looney-toon freakazoids. The result has been candidates like Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson. So, how to get rid of these damn conventions and let the voters decide?
The answer is to make it all about the troops. Troops deployed abroad or lying injured in Walter Reed cannot attend the convention and, therefore, cannot have a say in who is nominated. And the nominee may get elected and one day vote to send them to war. That’s not fair!
So, the Virginia legislature is pushing out a bill that would disallow any nominating procedure that would deny the participation of “activity-duty military, reservists and other defense personnel.”
Who can vote against that? In Virginia?
The Tea Baggers are understandably disgruntled:
Backers of the legislation say the bills are designed to prevent the disenfranchisement of service members. But critics argue the measures are trying to put a stop to grassroots activists from nominating conservatives like Cuccinelli and Jackson.
“Outlawing conventions is really about a class of political insiders, consultants and career politicians who want to control the process,” Susan Stimpson, a 2013 lieutenant governor candidate, said in a recent email, according to the Pilot.
“They believe by outlawing conventions entirely, they will have eliminated all ability for the people to really hold them accountable,” she said.
It’s a strange logic that “the people” are best represented by a coterie of buffoons in tri-corner hats.
In any case, I’m torn between my desire to see the Republican Party return to sanity and my desire to beat the tar out of them.
Help me decide if I want this bill to pass.
Parties should be allowed to utilize whatever methods they see fit to nominate and select candidates without interference such as this from the state. The bill is antidemocratic, really.
If the Republicans want to nominate someone who’s not a fucking loon, then let the party change their rules for nominating a candidate; don’t rely on the state to push your bullshit.
I guess you could also oppose this bill because Republicans are losing clout in statewide elections anyway, and the Republicans will NOT return to sanity until they lose consecutively and are out of power to the same degree that FDR put them out of power.
My thought exactly. Would such a law force minor parties like, say, the Libertarian Party, to hold primary elections too?
While seabe is generally correct in principle, in this case you want this bill to pass so that you have the joy of watching the GOP establishment and Tea Party tangle over how to best avoid having a party primary.
Quite right; but what I’ve never understood about this situation is why anyone thinks that primaries would have different results from conventions.
At the Presidential level, primaries — a relatively recent innovation — are widely thought to have empowered further-from-center candidates (McGovern, Reagan) who would never have been chosen by the proverbial “smoke-filled room”.
Considering how close Cuccinelli came to winning (close, that is, in terms of the fact that he ought to have gotten about seven votes, including two from members of his own family and four cast by mistake), I cannot see the argument that he would not have survived a Republican primary.
It’s a strange logic that “the people” are best represented by a coterie of buffoons in tri-corner hats.
It depends on your definition of “the people.” If you’re talking about Virginia voters at large, they’ve already been passing judgment on that – the buffoons have a sizable following, but not a majority of voters, let alone a majority of residents. But if you’re talking about who best represents Virginia’s Republican Party in 2014, it’s hard to argue with her. They represent the party, and its behavior in the state legislature and public statements, quite well.
And: while switching to a primary may allow the establishment candidates to pour a lot more money into the election than the loons can, in the end there’s almost no evidence now that they have enough support, even among casual Republican voters, to win a primary. More likely they’d try to find candidates to do what Romney tried in 2012: people who will act aggressively on behalf of the one percent, but who are willing to say the same batshit crazy stuff as their tea party opponents, and hope that it fools enough of the base to put them over the top. That type of candidate has a better chance of winning a primary than a convention, but except for fundraising s/he is just as disadvantaged as the true loons come the general election.
So how do the establishment and Tea Party GOP agree on a non-primary method that conforms to the intended law? That would be fun to watch. Neither wants the expense of a primary IMO.
If you want the GOP to return to sanity, the two sides are going to have to beat the living crap out of each other first, and then they’ll need to get stomped by Democrats for a while. Hopefully the legislation will kick up a shit storm of outrage amongst the wingnuts and cause it to derail. The alternative is some Republican intended to look and seem moderate, all the while appealing to the sensibilities of the Koch brothers.
Cuccinelli lost only narrowly. Do we want that risk again?
How cute that the tea party fuckwads don’t want to lose their ability to vote!
Ultimately, I think anything that makes it harder for conservatives to nominate pseudo-sane candidates is for the best. They lend an air of moderation and competence that just isn’t there. See: Christie, Chris.
First they came for the Democrats, and I did not speak out…Because I was not a Democrat.
Then they came for the Liberals, and I did not speak out…Because I was not a Liberal.
Then they came for the Progressives, and I did not speak out…Because I was not a Progressive.
Then they came for the Teahadists…and there was no one left to speak for me.
Crazy candidates don’t help. Here in Illinois I will have a choice between Durbin and Oberweis for example. So my choice is to vote for Durbin or not vote. As a result the Democratic Party becomes less and less responsive to the people.
So you would prefer to have a pseudo-sane Republican to choose from so that the Senate can switch parties if enough people are fooled by a pseudo-sane Republican.
Does not compute.
Yes, I would prefer a Republican that I could live with. Thompson, Ogilvie, Dirksen. They all had policy faults but they didn’t consider the common man to be dirt beneath their feet like Durbin or Rahm Emanuel.
I don’t know the system for Virginia Republican conventions, but aren’t the delegate elected? If not, they could be, with probably similar results. That could easy allow active-duty military participation.
In any case, this seems a slam-dunk violation of freedom of association. The Supremes have long been suspicious of regulations on party primaries.
In cases like this, I root for injuries.
A wise man once said “Be careful what you wish for .. you might get it”
There are innumerable stories of the interference of one party with the other. In MA such interference lead directly to the election of Scott Brown (the D’s changed the process of replacing a senator 3 times, pissing off everyone including me). In MO, the outcome was different with Claire McKaskil winning. But think of the utter disaster if Akins had managed to scrape thru.
Stay out of this. Let the bastards fight it out. Sooner or later it will sort itself out. By intereference, you are picking the lessor of two evils. Screw it. Let them work it out.