The Kentucky Republican Party
executive committee voted over the weekend to approve a “caucus” instead of a
primary election for one office—and one man.
That’s a huge mistake—for the
party and even more for democracy in the commonwealth.
The vote to allow Sen. Rand
Paul to run for president, evading state law that you cannot run for 2 federal
offices at the same time, was done by less than half of the committee’s
members...even though this was probably the most important vote of the decade. And
of the fewer than half who voted, Paul got less than half of those voting..all
he needed...but still NOT a real ringing endorsement.
Among the problems is
this…while details are far from set, early reports are that many counties will
have only one caucus site. Larger counties, such as Fayette, may have 2
or 3. That’s in contrast to the approximately 285 precincts where Republicans
will vote in the May primary for all the other offices. That’s more than an
inconvenience; it means a very, very, very, very, very low turnout in an election
that often sets records for low voter turnout. It will give his party
opponents a great talking point: "Even in his home state, only 0.3% vote to
support Sen. Paul’s candidacy!” OK, maybe he gets 9%, but you see the point.
To me this is far more
important than the cost, which Sen. Paul has agreed to bear...an unknown cost
which has already gotten him into big problems with his party. We shall see if he
finally pays for it. If not, the caucus will be cancelled. And good riddance.
Beyond this are some thoughts
about organizing principles. Why would you warp party traditions, procedures,
and history to support one man? Hardly a good idea. Parties are supposedly
founded on principles, not on “the cult of personality.” But with this
precedent, what will happen next time? Caucuses versus primaries inevitably
mean a lower turnout—not to mention in this case, two elections next spring
with whatever confusion that causes.
And, dare I say it, it opens
Paul to a charge of being a “professional politician”—truly an “establishment
man," so much so he ran in not just one but two elections...opening the door a
tad wider for a Democrat to defeat him in his run for the Senate next year.
What irony!
I'm just sayin'!...
No comments:
Post a Comment