The 'Grok agrees with Fergus on this one
We don't see eye to eye often with Fergus Cullen, Chair of the NH GOP. On this issue, we do!
Laws exist for a reason; some make sense and some do not. In the large scheme of things, one needs to obey them ALL (as best as possible, as some do conflict with others from time to time or are so poorly written as to create more problems than solve). It matters not that you like them or not - they are there via our democratic process, it is how we govern ourselves. Don't like them - well, you can't leave but you can try to persuade others to change them.
Rules are just laws for private entities. Belong to that entity, agree to follow the rules. Don't like them? Leave or change the rules. In the mean time, be adults and follow them. Or, being adults, take the punishment meted out when you break them. There is no gray area here as it is a binary situation - follow or break.
Political parties have rules. The Democrats, with respect to their National Convention with their rogue states of Michigan and Florida, have proved that rules don't matter. They moved their primaries upwards against the DNC admonishments. Then squawked like little kids when the consequences were applied and they got a lot of their voting rights back. Being the kind of Rule of Law folks they are, the DNC caved. Lesson learned - don't like the rules, ignore them (the DNC acted like bad parents that refuse to discipline their kids for breaking the rules without consequences).
NH moved their primary, too, against the wishes of the RNC. Penalty - lose 1/2 your votes (24 down to 12) at the convention.
From the Union Leader:
State Republican Chairman Fergus Cullen says New Hampshire Republicans should not fight the sanction imposed by the national GOP at the upcoming party convention and should hope that "taking our medicine" this year helps protect the first-in-the-nation status of the state's presidential primary in the future.
At the time, I agreed with Fergus. 24 votes are puny in comparison to the large states votes. In keeping the larger prize in sight, the loss of 12 votes is a "cost of doing business". In my opinion, that "cost" pales in comparison with losing the first-in-the-nation primary. I still agree with him.
But it also demonstrates a mature outlook towards the Rule of Law and the willingness to abide by that fundamental pillar of our society. It also demonstrates that there are still people, when knowing they are wrong, stand up and take their punishment like adults (yes, I did just say that about Fergus!). Whining about the 12 votes is showing childishness; accepting the consequences shows maturity (that seems to be lacking nowadays in our society).
What's the rule that was broken?
A Republican National Committee rule for the 2008 primary/caucus calender held that no delegate selection event could be held prior to Feb. 5. The rule held that the convention delegation for any state that broke the rule and moved up "shall be reduced" by half.
Five states ignored the rule and moved up their primaries and caucuses. After Michigan jumped up to Jan. 15, Secretary of State William Gardner reacted by setting the date of the New Hampshire primary for Jan. 8.
When the national Republicans imposed the sanctions, Cullen said at the time, "If we're being asked to choose between protecting and preserving the first-in-the-nation primary or being a delegate to the national convention, we'll give up our delegates."
He said he is willing to sacrifice half the delegates, saying, "We place protecting and institutionalizing the first-in-the-nation primary ahead of having 12 or 24 delegates," he said. "Taking our medicine enhances our chances of earning support from the other states."
Good choice, and the best choice.
State Democratic Chairman Raymond Buckley accused McCain of "abandoning New Hampshire," saying he has "broken his pledge to New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation primary." He said even a compromise to allow 24 delegates to be seated but only 12 voting would be "word games, a sham and a flip-flop."
Mr. Buckley should be more concerned with his own party - don't like the rules, just break them (as we have seen them do in Congress over and over again with their own House rules. There, it is raw power that matters; it seems that Dem Pelosi believes rules are to be obeyed only when they help).
Delegate Jim Merrill said all 24 delegate names should be submitted for certification because "it sends an important message that we're unified as a party and no one is cutting anyone out."
Nonsense. Unified has nothing to do with it. Besides, unified over what? Again, for breaking and ignoring the rules? That life should not have consequences for bad decisions (what the heck am I saying?)?
Tangent: Of COURSE bad decision are no longer shameful - look at the boondoggle of a housing bill that just got passed. I pay my mortgage every month - Do I get something? No! The guys across the street bought a house well beyond their means - they can get a new mortgage for 3% (a little more than half the going rate). And my tax money is going right to them to do so - AAarrrgggghhhhh !!!!!
At the end of the article, I found this from the leader of the NH Reagan Network, Fran Wendelboe:
How can the RNC "rightfully" punish a state party for COMPLYING with state law? Our state party has NO CONTROL over when the primary is. Mr. Tarr says rules are meant to be followed, but when those RULES violate state law, guess which ones take precedent? Shame on the RNC for putting NH is such an awkward position.Our state has a long held tradition supporting our first in the nation status that is protected by the laws of our state.The RNC and the other states should be expending their energies on working on getting Republicans elected for the good of our country and economy and not beng childish and wasting time about "who goes first".- fran, New Hampton
Same thing as in Michigan and Florida where the law was changed to move. If the NH GOP had wanted to, as a private entity, it could have done its own voting. Expensive, yes. Hard to do, yes. But doable if the principle of not moving the primary was your utmost concern.
I notice that the law was not changed ahead of time nor hear anyone advocating changing that law (in fact, consensus seems to be that the law would "protect" us). As head of the NH Reagan Network, and as a lawmaker by virtue of being a legislator in the House, I did not see you leading any charges to change that law so as not to incur the penalty. You had the chance - you remained silent.
Comments
Posted by: Doug | August 2, 2008 2:00 PM