Not No, But Hell No
A commenter on the Conservative Refuge posted this comment:
There is absolutely no reason for the Central Committees to take sides in contested primary elections. What the hell business is it of the Central Committee to determine which candidate is more Republican than the other? Can you imagine if this kind of scheme was alllowed what kind of people would get chosen if the Central Committee fell into the hands of either faction of the party? You'd could wind up with a group of zealots on one hand, or a group of left-leaning RINOs on the other.
We'd wind up with the same problem as the GOP did in Rhode Island, where in a contested primary the NRSC swooped in and propped up Senator Linc Chafee against a conservative challenger. Cost the NRSC millions of dollars that could have been spent against Democratic candidates.
The party needs to worry about building the party to support whomever the nominee is in taking on the Democrats. Party building does NOT mean taking sides and poking its nose where it doesn't belong. We are all on the same team at the end of the day. We don't need bitterness because the Central Committee tried to dictate from above. I sincerely hope that the commenter took those remarks out of context...
The weekend before the convention the head of the AA Republican committee came to speak at our club. Nice guy, middle of the road all the way. Floated an idea out there about the Central committe picking who they wanted to run and leaving everybody else out in the cold. I can say from personal experience that a lot of good Republicans get disenchanted and don't feel like their voice is being heard. Take the guy I helped out last election cycle for example. A good guy, maybe a little too idealistic, but if the party would work with him and made him feel a part of the team he would be a great candidate in a couple of cycles. Instead he got left out in the cold and it ended rather bitterly.Now, I'm not certain if Mike Collins said what Randy says he said or not. But this idea has been floated before and I can never be amazed that it keeps getting resuscitated.
There is absolutely no reason for the Central Committees to take sides in contested primary elections. What the hell business is it of the Central Committee to determine which candidate is more Republican than the other? Can you imagine if this kind of scheme was alllowed what kind of people would get chosen if the Central Committee fell into the hands of either faction of the party? You'd could wind up with a group of zealots on one hand, or a group of left-leaning RINOs on the other.
We'd wind up with the same problem as the GOP did in Rhode Island, where in a contested primary the NRSC swooped in and propped up Senator Linc Chafee against a conservative challenger. Cost the NRSC millions of dollars that could have been spent against Democratic candidates.
The party needs to worry about building the party to support whomever the nominee is in taking on the Democrats. Party building does NOT mean taking sides and poking its nose where it doesn't belong. We are all on the same team at the end of the day. We don't need bitterness because the Central Committee tried to dictate from above. I sincerely hope that the commenter took those remarks out of context...
Labels: Anne Arundel, Republican
posted by Brian Griffiths at 10:26 PM
42 Comments:
I have no reason to doubt Randy but I am also willing to give Mike the benefit of the doubt that maybe he does not really advocated such an idiotic idea.
First, the bylaws would prevent the central committee from getting directly involved in primaries, just in case common sense is not enough.
Second, as Jim Pelura is fond of saying the party (he was referring to the state party) sticking their nose in and picking candidates did not work so well. Ron Elfenbein is good example. Since Mike was on the short end of that deal I am suprised (albeit mildly) that he would now think it was a good idea. Obviously, if true he must think he will be the beneificiary.
Last, the central committee does not have the power to pick the candidates even if they wanted. They are just not that influential, especially when half of them will be running for office themselves. They can only sow dissent.
Competitive primaries are a sign of strength and force candidates to work harder, raise more money and be accountable for their actions and opinions.
These are good things.
Primaries don't build parties.
Winning builds parties.
And hard fought primaries leave candidates battered, volunteers weary, and resources scarce for a general election.
In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a primary where the party grew as a result.
Greg, how many doors did you knock on for James King in the general?
One need only look at the most important race in 2006, the governor's race to see that MD Democrats get this.
I wonder how long it will take for MD Republicans to catch up?
Steve,
The problem is the alternative.
A lot of candidates who lost in the primary, including me, did go out and help Republican candidates. I worked a poll for McConkey in November. (Of course, neither needed any help as they coasted to victory.)
Ask Nora Keenan about working for Lauren Parker and helping win one of few countywide Republican victories.
If it cannot be competitive, who should decid our candidates? You? Me? The State Party? The county party?
Would it really be better for Mike Collins to choose our candidates? You want people to take their ball and go home their is your recipe.
BTW, I seem to recall that Bryan did not take too kindly to "the party" telling him he had to step aside for "more qualified candidates" in his primary.
Besides with a September primary much of the resources spent especially with name recognition continues to pay dividends in November so it is not a waste.
Right, but there was an equal number of primary candidates who went out in the general and endorsed the Democrat or did nothing at all.
Yes, Bryan received resistance but we pushed back and in the end, the party "choices" didn't run.
It also made Bryan a lot stronger as a candidate. It was one of those victories that strengthened the entire campaign.
It's just a necessary part of the game and eventually the party comes around to support the primary nominee.
As for who decides, that is the area that needs to be worked on...
I believe that a well thought out plan could actually grow grassroots in the party while promoting a healthy, productive dialogue.
I hope I heard Mike wrong, but I don't think so. It was a trial balloon he floated out there, and he took off before I could ask him about it.
I know I'm not going to say this right, but in my mind there has to be a way to "control" (a bad word but nothing else comes to mind) who gets the support of the party and when that support starts. There's some guy off of Route 1 that runs a used appliance store and occasionally runs for Senate. Does he get the backing of the party if he's unopposed in the primary? Or does the party put somebody "viable" up against him?
I don't know, but I do know that sure primaries don't build parties winning does, but you have to have a good candidate to win with and I don't think we do enough recruiting and development to win. I know a candidate in District 32 who didn't even have a Campaign Manager for Christ's sake! We don't know how to win and we don't know how to recruit and train people who'll work these candidate's campaigns.
Glad you're back, Brian.
Steve, you can't have it both ways. You can't say it made Bryan while at the same time advocating for it all of the same. The fact of the matter is that in a Republican, the elites don't get to tell the plebians who their candidates are....
BS was a piss poor candidate that most people that really knew something of him recognized. After the primary BS did everything he could to kiss ass and make nice with all the people who opposed him in the primary because they knew what type of person he is. Having a strong choice in a primary is healthy and shows that the party has strength. It shows a lack of strength id you can’t even get people to run in a primary. Look at all the places that the Democrats go unchallenged, that shows weakness and gives the people no choice. Even if the Republican could not win the numbers that are generated could tell the Democrat that people don’t like what he is doing and maybe make them think about how he is voting.
Steve tell me why you would support a candidate in the general that you believe is unfit for office just because he won the primary. That to me shows a lack of principles.
Brian,
What made Bryan a better candidate was the dialogue we had with the state party and the Ehrlich campaign regarding our candidacy in May/June.
I didn't say that the primary made Bryan a better candidate because it didn't. It forced us to spend about 50,000 and put us in a race where we got outspent 2 to 1. In the final three weeks of the campaign we bled support because we couldn't afford to go up dollar for dollar against the Mike Miller and his money. Worse, the party didn't come in with a dime of help against Shandrowsky.
If we had had the $50,000 in the general we would have been able to give ourselves a comfortable margin of victory on Election Day free and clear of the absentee ballots.
The current system is an incumbent protection program for the Democrats.
Rather than using the system Democrats want us to follow, we need a better one. We need to have our "primary" sooner than September because it handicaps us severely.
To win, Republicans need to begin operating outside the box the Democrats have put us in...
That means, we need to define our primary on our terms and we need to reward the grassroots on our terms, rather than the antiquated central committee system.
Hopefully, with a state party specializing in grassroots mobilization, state Republicans can make great strides towards this end.
David,
I believe I am arguing that the state/local party should step in and make sure only fit people run for office. Those people who have the fundraising and grassroots mobilization prowess to put a winning organization together.
David you are the only person who thinks the Democrat party in Maryland is weak. The display of Doug Duncan dropping out of the primary was not a sign of weakness but a display of strength and party discipline.
No David, crowded primaries with people who give half-hearted attempts, don't do the things they need to win and are all around horrible candidates is a sign of weakness.
And, I don't see Astle, DeGrange, Robey, Middleton, Stone, Dyson, Klausmeier, and Kasemeyer changing their votes anytime soon because their opponent did better than in the past.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve,
Bryan won the primary because he started running 3 1/2 years before the election. He certainly wasn't the best candidate. In fact, didn't Ehrlich endorse Dutch Holland?
Bryan won the general (only after absentee ballots) because many people blindly voted straight party. He didn't run a spirted campaign. Your pleas that your campaign was broke is bunk and you know it. Walt Shandrowsky got in the race around this time last year. He didn't have the time to raise the money like Bryan did. If I recall, at the time right after the primary, Shandrowsky had about a thousand dollars compared to Bryan's $80,000.
Likewise, the republican party assisted Bryan by lumping Walt's name in with Joan Cadden's in some mailers. That was totally and completely misleading. In fact, it was downright dishonest. The republican party offered no supporting evidence to link Shandrowsky to their beef with Cadden. They attacked votes of Cadden and put Shandrowsky on the mailer. When I got it in the mail, I couldn't believe. It was an attack piece on Joan Cadden but they lumped Shandrowsky in.
Stop pretending that Bryan pulled off a stunning upset. The cards were stacked in his favor. I hoped he has learned something. I suspect the democrats are coming out swinging on him in 2010. The republicans may as well.
"I believe that a well thought out plan could actually grow grassroots in the party while promoting a healthy, productive dialogue."
Can you really have a productive dialogue with Simonaire from the overpass on Rt 100? The only dialogue was from people yelling to stop holding up traffic.
I'm a registered Republican, and have been all of my life. Unlike Simonaire, I have a perfect voting record. I voted against Simonaire. I felt he was not as qualified as his Democratic opponent. When I spoke with Simonaire at several republican events, I got a weird vibe, almost like a used car salesman.
Republicans with good grassroot campaigns included Kipke, Schuh and Holland, all of which knocked on my door personally.
I didn’t say Democrats were weak. It shows weakness on Republicans not Democrats, if Republicans won’t even field a candidate. Just having a name on the ballot even if they do nothing is better than nothing.
Some people did nothing because they thought they were going to win with no problem. Fifty grand, how much of that went to out of state consultants who advised him to break the law?
Everybody I talk to says they get that weird vibe some however were willing to ignore it because he came to them early.
Steve,
I just pulled campaign finance reports. Your assertion that you were outspent 2-1 is completely bogus. In addition, your assertion that you received no financial help from the party is also false. As I combed through the reports, I did notice however that you guys failed to report the $200/ month paid to the property owner adjacent to Rte. 100. Was that an oversight? I also wonder if the that guy reported the income to the IRS?
Jenna, I'm not sure what your rant has to do with an alternative to competitive primaries which force candidates to the roadside.
I advocate a process for selecting candidates early in the year outside of the box that Democrats force Republicans to operate in.
And good grief, to read all of your comments about Simonaire how in the heck did he ever get past the primary and the general election?
As far as the reports, Bud do you have any of the mailings attacking Simonaire? Read who they are paid for by and then next to that, there will be a number MD-31-## (about 13). For the sake of this blog entry, we'll low ball the number to 10.
That is the number of mailings that the Democratic Senatorial Slate did on behalf of Shandrowsky.
Whatever the number is, then multiply that by $5303.69 (Shandrowsky used the same firm as the Senatorial committee and that is the minimum he spent on his mailings with them.
Now, add the number you just calculated ($53,036.69) to $116,593.25. That is how much was spent on Shandrowsky.
Simonaire spent 82,749.92 in the general.
But that only counts the money that was spent for mail on Shandrowsky or against Simonaire.
Conservatively, there was a poll ($15,000), cable television ads ($10,000), and "id calls" ($5,000) made on behalf of Shandrowsky by the Democratic Senatorial committee.
Compare that to the ill-conceived attempt by the Republican state party to hit Shandrowsky with a bank shot off Cadden and Simonaire was easily outspent 2 to 1.
BTW, this just outlined exactly what Miller does in competitive races and what the Republican Senatorial slate should have done.
Finally, maybe Jenna, David, or Bud can enlighten us to how many mailings the received directly from Simonaire in the general election.
This comment has been removed by the author.
How he won either the primary or general still baffles me. I got approx. three mailings from him and a door hanger. How come Simonaire returned $20000 to Alex Mooney and the republican slate? So much for no help. I haven't had a chance to comb through the numbers this morning. If I had some time, I could post a lot more on this.
You are looking at the wrong report.
Simonaire's campaign account is NOT the Republican senatorial account.
Steve,
Again, you pleas of a frugal campaign are false. Simonaire spend well over $100,000 this election cycle.
As for the senatorial commitee, I looked at the wrong report. Simonaire did have money flowing in from elected republicans though.
Bottom line, we'll always disagree on Simonaire. Your connection to the campaign will ensure your spinning for Simonaire. My overall impression of Simonaire will not change either. He got lucky. You guys better do better than you've raised so far. He's vulnerable from both sides.
In addition to what Bud said, I also recieved a bulk mailed letter from Simonaire's wife that Shandrowsky just about had the right to sue/seek legal stance against Simonaire on the grounds of slander. I wish I had a copy still just so I could show what a bastard Steve and Greg Kline like to support. Simonaire was not only the bad candidate, he was the worst.
Lets not overlook his spending too.. The claim is that Shandrowsky spent more than Simonaire did on his campaign. As Bud said, this couldn't be any further from the truth. I don't want to dwell on this too much, but what I do want to do is point out is that no where on the Simonaire's report was it reported that Gable Signs contributed to him when it was pointed out that a billboard was placed on Gable's front building, Gable's people were out in Gable truck putting out sign on election days, and Gable made him signs.
Lets not forget about Simonaire paying for the sign out on 100, and lets not forget his promise on that sign which we will never see during his term "Lowering your Taxes".... Should have been "Lowering your Hope" or "Lowering your Quality of Life"
Frank,
You're biased.
And wrong.
Frank, you need to learn how to do your own homework when you start throwing around accusations.
The Gable signs were paid for on 10.7.2006 for $1750. It's in the report if you had even bothered to look for it.
I’m not sure how Simonaire got as far as he did. He certainly wasn’t the best candidate, and did not have a huge win. I received several mailings from him during the election, including the one from his wife.
Winning doesn’t build parties. Looking at District 31, I know of at least 1 delegate who did not want to join the ticket with Simonaire, but felt forced to due to party obligation.
As for the Gable signs comment, I have to say I’ve worked with them in the past and $1,750 is a bargain, so I would doubt that number is accurate if he did as much work as Frank claims.
Keep in mind, if work is done at reduced rate, it must be reported as an in-kind donation.
But Steve, you still never addressed paying the guy who charges $200 to candidates who want a sign on his property. Because of its clear ommission, will it be reported in a future disclosure?
I'd like to see the copy of the campaign report you have. Its surely not on the one I have. And if that is the case, there is no $1750 that will cover the amount of work that Gable did for the Simonaire Campaign. It needed to be cited as a donation from Gable. Was this another Simonaire oversight? I think not.
Steve, I am not biased, I just know when I smell bovine fecal matter.
Yes, The committee paid for many things for the democratic senate race, but Shandrowsky did not. His independent spending was a little over a thousand dollars. Simonaire's independent spending was over eighty grand.
Simonaire (or wifey) should have been held legally accountable for the letter that "Mrs. Simonaire" sent 3 days before the elections. It was slanderous.
At no time did Shandrowsky ever place his name on anything that even came close to politically slamming Simonaire, and as far as I'm concerned, we as a whole would have been better off with him representing the 31st. We have a joke for a senator, and thats just scratching the surface.
Frank,
You should be quite familiar with the smell because you emit it in nearly every one of your posts.
Here's the link of Shandrowsky report.
http://mdelections.umbc.edu/campaign_finance/sumprocess.php?fsk=A00000514620060004
His campaign independently spent just over $92,000 in just one report. There are two.
Again, do your own damn research before you go out and start throwing stones.
Maybe you should follow your own "old Chinese proverb". BTW, if you had researched this, you would have known that it isn't a chinese proverb at all really. It's English dating back to as late as 1385 (that would be late considering the age of chinese proverbs).
As for the Gable information. Simonaire paid (check Simonaire's expenditures) more for his sign with Gable - there was only one, than any other candidate who received help from him.
Bud,
How do you omit something that never happened? I mean, just because you heard from somebody who heard from somebody who said doesn't necessarily make it true.
If a payment never existed, it would never be reported.
There is nothing wrong with Simonaire's reports except what exists (or doesn't exist) in your little fantasy world.
Frank,
As for the letter, again get your facts straight. The letter never mentions Shandrowsky and was a defense, not an attack.
Talk about BS, you are just making stuff up about Simonaire and people like Bud are believing it.
Steve,
It's no secret that guy charges for his sign location. Whether you guys have a wink and a nod agreement that no money was exchanged may or may not be true.
And another thing Steve....I don't rely on what person says before I make a judgment on someone. I am not sure I've ever met Frank. Thus, I would not take his opinion alone. I will say that some of the stuff Frank says has been widely talked about. I will also say that ever since I put my email on my blog, I have gotten numerous negative correspondences regarding Simonaire. If I can't independently validate the credibility of the allegations, I can't give it any weight.
Steve,
I don't think you get where I'm coming from.
Simonaire spent almost 80 grand out of his own pocket to get his show on the road, as where Shandrowsky spent a little over a grand out of pocket.
Simonaire (almost proudly) let this be known at quite a few republican functions right before his election. I'm sure none of the brown nosers on this forum would admit to hearing that, but I have more than one witness to the event, including myself.
As for the letter, way to try a downplay. Yeah, it did target Shandrowsky.... "My husbands opponent has continually tried to (bash...etc) Brian". Do tell me Steve, what other opponent did Simonaire have in the General? And lets not forget, it was an outright slanderous lie because Shandrowsky and his campaign never published any piece of literature that in any way lowered Simonaire. If he/she wanted to point fingers, they should have done it at the democratic senatorial committee, not stooped to slandering a good politician.
You settled for less, now get what you settled for.
Frank,
You've got your head stuck so deep in the sand, you refuse to look at the FACTS.
Shandrowsky didn't "get the show on the road" with a couple of a thousand. He did it with tens of thousands (into the hundreds) of Mike Miller's money.
And Simonaire's opponent in the general was not Shandrowsky. It's the person/people attacking him.
It was Mike Miller.
Mike Miller's money;
Mike Miller's message;
Mike Miller's strategy;
Mike Miller's tactics; and,
Mike Miller's Senate seat.
Ultimately, the people of District 31 would have gotten a mike miller rubberstamp.
Shandrowsky was just the puppet.
No Frank, I'm not going to let you have it both ways and you are trying to have it both ways - Shandrowsky was the "opponent" when it comes to Simonaire's response to untrue attacks on his character, but Shandrowsky wasn't the "opponent" who did the attacking on Simonaire?
Either he was the opponent or not. If he is the opponent, then all the things in the letter are true. If he isn't the opponent doing the attacking, then the letter doesn't talk about Shandrowsky.
Opponents in an election are not limited to just candidates on opposite sides. They include anybody that takes the opposite side in the debate or contest.
In an election, the opponent is the person/people who attack.
Simonaire Steve,
Keep in mind, not one single anti-Simonaire mailer went out with Shandrowsky's name on it. On the other hand, you and I both know Simonaire attacked Shandrowsky under his authority ( and I assume your name as treasurer???).
District 31 wouldn't have got a Miller clone. Unlike Simonaire, Shandrowsky isn't a follower. He doesn't need people to hold his coattails and tell him what to think. Simonaire takes his marching orders from likes of Andy Harris, John Leopold and Janet Greenip. Shandrowsky needed party money because, unlike Simonaire, he didn't have 3 1/2 years to campaign, raise money and build name recognition. Keep in mind, Phil Jimeno would have trounced Simonaire up one side of District 31 and down the other. His delusion that he would have knocked off Jimeno is unbelievable.
Personally, I think Shandrowsky was the more conservative one in the race. He certainly had a better resume. I voted for Shandrowsky. I will vote for the democrat in 2010. I would even consider switching parties to vote for Schuh against Simonaire if Steve decides to go that way.
Let me add that although I am democrat, I wouldn't have voted for Shandrowsky unless he was conservative. I am often turned off by my own party. Although I said I am inclined to support the democrat for senate in 2010, s/he will need to earn my vote.
"Simonaire takes his marching orders from likes of Andy Harris, John Leopold and Janet Greenip?"
Why Andy Harris?
Surely you haven't forgot the $5000 donation.
http://mdelections.umbc.edu/campaign_finance/ctprocess1.php?pagenum=5&acctno=A4287
Wow!
So let me get this straight.
Simonaire receives $5,000 rom Andy Harris and all of a sudden Simonaire is going to be taking marching orders from him.
But...
Mike Miller gives Shandrowsky $95,000 dollars cash and Shandrowsky would have remained independent.
Miller ran Shandrowsky's campaign. Shandrowsky followed his strategy and tactics. He proved that he was a follower by his actions in the general election.
On the other hand, Simonaire was the only Republican candidate for State Senate who DID NOT follow Andy Harris' strategy for the general election. He also happens to be the ONLY Republican in the Senate to pick up a seat in 2006.
So just to recap - Miller to Shandrowsky, $95,000 and complete control over the campaign.
Harris to Simonaire, $5,000 and no control over the campaign.
Do you understand how ridiculous you look right now?
Yet somehow you maintain that despite ALL the facts, Shandrowsky would have been "independent".
Do you know how ridiculous you look right now?
I am merely countering your argument, Steve. I can turn the tables on you just as easily. And, I don't look nearly as ridiculous as a puppet for Simonaire who's reduced to posting in these blogs to tell us how great Simonaire is. Face it, Simonaire is a follower (and a wimp) by nature. Real men don't allow their wives to fight their battles for him. He thought this senate gig would bring him instant celebrity status. Boy, did he got a rude awakening.
Again, Miller likely poured money into the race to level the playing field. Simonaire campaigned and raised money for 3 1/2 years with delusions that he'd knock off Phil Jimeno. Thus, he had more money.
Was Phil Jimeno a pawn of Mike Miller? Hell no. Ed Degrange? Hell no. John Astle? Hell no. Eve
Exactly what am I "facing"?
You have offered no shred of evidence that Simonaire is a follower.
His actions on the elected school board run contradictory to your position and you disproved your own argument that money influences one's actions.
I dare to say that you probably cannot provide one piece of evidence to back up your claim that Simonaire is a follower of people rather than a follower of principle.
Principled? Do you call what he did to Dwyer principled? Do you call what he did to Jacobs principled? Do you call exaggerating military service principled? Do you call not proposing a single bill to right any of the wrongs he railed about during the campaign principled?
Bottom line is Bryan is in over his head and he knows it. That's why he's contemplating walking away. It's why Schuh is seeing that senate seat as wide open. Bryan was born on 3rd and thinks he hit a triple.
OK I'm bored with this, you guys can take it somewhere else now.
Post a Comment
<< Home