It seems that Steve’s post about the 50 RINOs for Peggy Gilmore, the Democrat running for the NH State Senate and my quick thought flashlighting RINO Susan Emerson has provoked some email traffic and I got tagged into one. The overriding question is “Why doesn’t the NH GOP vet its candidates” followed up by “an” answer, purported by NH GOP Chair Jennifer Horn that the NH GOP By-Laws prevented it.
Really? I didn’t believe that then – and don’t believe it now. Here’s how the thread went:
J certainly expressed a sentiment that a lot of folks within the NH GOP:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 3:17 PM, J wrote:
From today’s GraniteGrok:
[snip]
One name particularly stood out from the list of Republicans who have publicly endorsed a Democrat for NH State Senate that Steve posted: Hon. Susan Emerson, Rindge
[Once Again I Ask: Why doesn’t the NH GOP vet our own GOP pre-primary candidates? in fact, how many Democrats endorsed Republicans? Hmmm …J]
And that drew a reaction – and even though I am redacting names, I was quite happy to see this person responding the way they did:
From: J2
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: “Quick thought on 50 RINOs – Republicans for (Democrat) Peggy Gilmore & Susan Emerson”
To: JJ, You’re asking too much. The party has been clear that it does not vet candidates for the primary. I’ve urged Jennifer on this around worse candidates than Emerson, but she says that vetting a candidate is against the bylaws of the state committee.
Seriously? Really? Now I’m no parliamentarian that could quote the by-laws from memory, but I have read them several times. Not once have I ever read the words “vet”, “vetting”, or “vetted”. Of course, J had a response as well:
From: J
To:
Sent: 10/14/2014 5:32:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: “Quick thought on 50 RINOs – Republicans for (Democrat) Peggy Gilmore & Susan Emerson”I’m asking too much!!!
Are we all robots? Is it true that we’ve all been told that vetting a candidate is against the bylaws of the state committee. Sounds like the Politburo has spoken!!!
Change the ‘freakin’ bylaws, dammit!
Me? I do believe that part of the responsibility of both the NH GOP Chair and the Executive Board (and filtering down to the local Chairs) is to protect the Brand. Does the NH GOP stand for something, or does it stand for everything? And if the latter, how is that different from “nothing”? So, I decided to check out this apocryphal tale from the top:
Is vetting specifically enumerated from being done? Or do we see, once again, someone skirting the issue?
From: “skipdcm” <Skip@GraniteGrok.com>
To: J, J2 and whole bunch of
Sent: 10/14/2014 8:54:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: “Quick thought on 50 RINOs – Republicans for (Democrat) Peggy Gilmore & Susan Emerson”And this is part and parcel of the problem of their own making that they won’t own up to. They create these PR disasters by blithely taking the Republican equivalent of the “Privacy” dodge, thinking this lets them off the hook. But the general public sees this plainly – and even more plainly, these disasters voting like Dems.
Actually, there is no VETTING clause in the bylaws and the Establishment is OK with this even as they vote against the Party – only that Eboard members can’t get involved in a primary:
No officer of the State Committee as defined in Article II, Section 2, shall participate in any primary contest on behalf of any candidate for a Republican nomination. They shall remain strictly neutral in any such primary contest. Any officer of the State Committee must resign from his or her office to engage in activities on behalf of a candidate in a primary contest. No leaves of absence shall be granted for that purpose. In the event an officer resigns to participate in a primary, he or she will not be eligible to serve as an officer until the following biennium. (Also see Article I Sec. 4a)
But woe to us that raise the red flag and rightfully say “we don’t support them!”??? But I found this interesting:
4. Qualifications:
Members of a County or City Republican Committee shall be registered Republicans who live within the respective County or City.
The above COULD be the “no vet” clause IF ( and ONLY IF, and that’s pretty weak) interpreted that the limit to (an implicit but not explicit) vetting is simply a Republican registration. However, there is NOTHING in the by-laws that prevents a vetting of Republican candidates.
However, I did kinda look sideways at this from the by-law, having to with those Republicans endorsing other Parties and kicking them off the State Committee :
A. Any registered Republican who, at the same time joins or allows his or her name to be used in support of a political committee or a defined group of individuals, that in title or effect is intended to be understood by the public to be a committee or group comprised in whole or in part of members of the Republican Party endorsing a candidate for elected office from another political party, when there is a candidate nominated by the Republican Party for that office, shall be disqualified during the then present and the next biennium from holding an office of the State Committee or any County or City Committee, from being a member of the Executive Committee and from being a member of the State Committee.
This was put in a bit ago to punish people like Susan Emerson that crossed, not just the Platform, but the Party line in full roar for the opposition. But even HERE there’s an out:
The Executive Committee may waive this disqualification in the event that the Republican candidate is deemed to espouse beliefs or ideologies in direct contradiction with the principles or platform of the Republican Party, prior to the establishment of any such group.
Now look at the directly above statement – a get out of jail free card IF THE REPUBLICAN candidate has gone off the rails. Doesn’t this beg the question – withholding support from such a candidate from the get go? Like those that espouse and have actually ACTED in support of other Parties’ agendas?
Now, if they just left off that last clause, and most of the first, and left just the bolded part, and added “they may be hung out to dry and ridicule while residing in the stocks” (or some such stuff), that would probably work.
Except the crybabies would whine that even ridicule is too harsh.
Hmmm, sounding like an “EMail Doodlings” post in the making…
– Skip
GraniteGrok.com
GrokTALK!
And so it is an Email Doodling – and without being vetted.
