Senator Paul, I Respectfully Disagree

Senator Rand Paul has reportedly written a letter to Republican Party of Kentucky Chairman Steve Robertson in which Senator Paul expresses his "concern over efforts by some Republican Party officials in Kentucky to exclude certain individuals from participation in leadership roles in our local GOP organizations."

To the extent that his concerns are based upon what he says were violations of the rights of republicans to "due process" by arbitrary actions of others, I agree with him in principle that it is vitally important that the party and each of its county committees play by the rules.

In fact, it should be noted, that I was hired as a lawyer to attend the reorganization of the party in Boone County by people who were concerned about the same things.  I met with the newly elected party leadership and many of their supporters within the TEA party to advise them about proper process.  I even helped put together a brief seminar for the Northern Kentucky TEA party to educate them about proper process.

In his letter Senator Paul quotes newly elected Boone County Chairman Rick Brueggeman.  Though he is himself a lawyer, Rick and I spoke more than once in advance of the county mass convention and I am confident that his interests were in using the established process to accomplish a fair and proper goal of electing people he and his group wanted to hold office.  That is the American way.

But in his letter Senator Paul goes too far.  In his zeal and carefully written letter he has done two things with which I disagree.  And for the record, let it be remembered that I supported Senator Paul, consider him a friend and have often openly admired and spoken favorably of his service thus far in the United States Senate.  But in keeping with my long established policy, despite the power he holds, our friendship or my admiration of him, I will speak freely and openly when I think it is required, even if we disagree.

I would not speak openly to him about this, but would probably communicate privately save that it was Senator Paul's letter which first became public on a weblog, and was later circulated to me by his supporters in an email.  Inter-party concerns expressed by a sitting senator which rail against the sitting Chairman could have been dealt with privately.  They weren't and neither then will my disagreement.

Senator Paul says "it is obvious that disqualification decisions have been directed at conservatives who signed a ballot-access petition for Mr. Ken Moellman to be placed on the ballot as candidate for Kentucky State Treasurer. My position on this is very clear. Signing a ballot access petition is not an act of disloyalty.  In fact, it is a fundamental right of Americans to have and pursue access to the ballot, and Republicans should not be punished for helping a potential candidate in this way."

While Senator Paul is entitled to his opinion, I believe he is wrong.  I know Ken Moellman and have no problem at all with him seeking to be placed on the ballot either as an Independent or as a candidate of the organized Libertarian Party where he has served as an officer.  This is not about Mr. Moellman, it is about honor, and duty for those who are elected to office, whether public office or party office, under the banner of the Republican Party of Kentucky.

The goal of the Republican Party of Kentucky is to elect republicans to office.  Those who seek the party's nomination, hold office under its banner and serve as party officers must be devoted to the party's principles and loyal to its candidates.  That is clearly expressed in the preamble to the rules.

Does this mean that if an individual office holder is not in favor of a particular republican candidate that he or she is obligated to support that candidate?  No, of course not.  But some new members of the party have taken this right to remain silent to a new level.  They believe that party officers are free to support whomever they want, even those running against republicans.

It is clear that the Republican Party nominated a candidate in last year's elections to run for State Treasurer.  Loyalty to that candidate did not require financial or other support for her from party officers or elected officials.  However, any candidate on the ballot running under any other banner was trying to defeat her.  While I detest the use of military terms to describe domestic political contests, by analogy, the other candidates were "the enemy" so to speak.

Republicans as private citizens are of course free to do as they please.  But once a person becomes an elected republican official, whether to public office or party office they become bound by duty to not give aid and comfort to "the enemy".  This is where I disagree with Senator Paul.  Elected republican officials and party officers who sign a ballot access petition intended to pit another candidate against a nominated republican candidate have indeed engaged in an act of disloyalty.

I agree with Senator Paul that if the private citizens who did this are excluded from participating in the future on the basis of their prior actions then the established process for challenging that decision as having arising from a mis-application of the rules should follow and run its "due course".  Like the Trayvon Martin matter, there is a time, place, process and forum for resolving disputes and it should be followed to the letter of the law.  That's why I was hired to be in attendance in Boone County to help protect those interests.

But to write an open letter to the Chairman of the Party and to state boldly that the act of signing a ballot petition is not an act of disloyalty is in my opinion an overstatement which incorrectly gives cover to those who want to act from within the party to advance the candidacy of others against the party's nominees in the future should "their candidate"  not win in a fair primary contest.

And as I recall in 2010 there were a number of Rand Paul supporters, me included, who felt that Trey Grayson's former life as a democrat and his support for Bill Clinton were matters worthy of discussion as evidence of recent disloyalty to the party.  Wouldn't membership in ANY other party be deserving of the same treatment, including the Libertarian Party?

I appreciate Senator Paul's thoughtful comments, but I suggest that he has, in his zeal, gone farther in his arguments than where I can agree.

I know it is a break from tradition for a republican to openly disagree with members of his own party, but then again, we should never be afraid to speak our minds if what we say we believe to be the truth. 

I'm sure that what Senator Paul has said he believes to be the truth, but Senator Paul, I respectfully disagree.

Comments

[Virgil]

This is the perpetual corruption that will always exist as long as we have political parties.. There will always be very ambitious people who will always want things their way and to hell with the rules. Even so called conservatives cannot be trusted for many who call themselves conservatives do not conserve anything. Too concerned about what someone else is doing with their lives and narcisstically interject themselves in other people's lives to the point where they feel some how threatened or violated by the individual actions one might choose to take for themselves. Conservatives who claim to be Pro-Life but then support perpetual war efforts that send hundreds home in body bags every year. YES IM TALKING TO YOU SOCIAL NEOCONS!! You are more than willing to beat the constitutional drum until something comes up that doesnt quite sit well with what your preacher told you then you are just as liberal as the Democrats.

[James Madenson]

Marcus why do you waste your time debating these folks? They are only interested in using the GOP structure and its fundraising appeal to advance the Libertarian agenda incognito.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Thomas Massie and Phil Moffett have no interest in republican politics it's just that they get no traction at all for their goofy ideas when the are open and honest and tell people who they really are, social liberals masquerading as Libertarians who are trying to infect the GOP with their mind numbed ilk.

If their ideas were so good, then why can't Ron Paul get any votes? If you ask them they will say it all has to do with the press. Bravo Sierra! People know he's in favor of legalizing drugs, letting the Arabs take over Israel, repealing the Civil Rights Act, cutting our military, giving states the right to be pro-choice, and a bunch of other half baked ideas wrapped in his version of the Constitution.

They are nuts!

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

I want to add one final comment ...

If your intention is to dodge left for the primary and if successful parry right for the general ... More power to you.

But for that strategy to be successful, you have to throw some bones behind the scenes and in front of the camera.

As for me ... I trust you ... I whole heartedly endorse you. You would be a great congressman. Don't disappoint me.

God Bless.

[Marc's Reply: Thanks Mr. Scott Ryan, but I don't think I'm dodging at all. I actually think my views have been pretty consistent. Yes, I have a great deal of respect for the TEA party, but not for the way in which some people, with other agendas are trying to use it. Thanks for adding to the debate.]

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

Mr. Carey said ...

"Next you ask how Mr. Grayson became a republican. He registered as one. But that didn't keep many of us from questioning his loyalties, or those of his family, against whom we had worked to elect republican candidates for years."

My response is that despite your opposition, this did not disqualify him. Your opposition and the Party rules are separate. In Lexington last week, the Party disqualified delegates because of their allegiance to a Republican Candidate of which they did not approve.

With respect to my comments regarding state law vs. Republican rules ... The party, for the past year or so, has disinfranchised its members based solely on their candidate preference. If all else being equal, ballot access and state election law, I have no problem with that. But the state does not treat groups and people equal. Republicans and Democrats are treated superior to independants and third parties. Therefore, an argument can made that disinfranchisement within the Party is the same as disinfranchisement in general. Can a private school, regulated by state law, exclude students based on party affiliation or candidate endorsement?

You obviously do not like people being disloyal to the party or its candidates. What if your disagreeable comments about the second highest ranked elected Republican official in the state of KY can be construed as disloyalty? Should this disqualify you from running as a Republican official? Where do you draw the line? Because it seems you are being a bit arbitrary.

Finally, what if the Republican establishment financed an independent candidate to better position itself in future campaigns? Would that be considered disloyalty? Or is covert behavior different than transparent behavior?

[Mike Moreland's Ghost]

I agree with Bruce Layne who wrote:
It's outrageous that a Democrat or Republican needs two signatures to be on a ballot and anyone else needs 5000, which is really more like 8000 by the time those who can't be immediately verified are discounted. The two parties are now both two wings of the same big government bird, and they have a near monopoly on the political process, to the detriment of the voters and our country.

We're trying to imbue the empty vessel that is the Republican party with values, but they aren't interested in our values. They want to keep pushing party over principle, even to the extent of ignoring the party platform to promote party insiders who are very poor representatives of the party's stated values.

For the record, Ken Moellman was a far superior candidate to KC Crosbie. I signed Ken's petition and I voted for Ken, because it's immoral to vote for an inferior candidate based on party loyalty. Unfortunately, most of the establishment Republicans don't see it that way. They want obedient mindless followers who vote as we're told. Sorry, but this isn't your father's Republican Party. We're making some changes. They use dirty tricks to fight us, but those dirty tricks are ultimately their undoing. We're on the right side of this issue and we will prevail. We'll elect REAL conservatives, and not the RINO pretenders.

Now that I've publicly admitted to voting for Ken, I'll probably be disqualified as a precinct captain. No big deal. I was already black listed so I had no chance to be a Fayette County delegate, even though delegate slots were given to those who have done far less for Republican candidates, and in fact, delegate positions were awarded to those who didn't bother to show up at the precinct elections or county mass convention. Fayette County didn't seat about 60 alternate delegates, because they ran out of insiders. From what I could see, the delegates were those who worked on the losing campaigns, and those who worked hard to elect our junior Senator were excluded. It's shameful.

To the RPK - If you want to win elections, run better candidates.

To Senator Rand Paul - Thank you speaking out... for decency, and for common sense.

[Ernie Bunkle]

You are exactly right Mr. Carey. In fact, I'd expect Rand to clarify his letter in light of your commentary.

I'm sure he didn't mean to say that elected officials of the republican party have the right to support the candidacy of others who oppose republicans.

If so he would stray pretty far from his promise back in 2010 to support the nominee in that race should he have lost.

It might be tough for him to do this considering that his father might run third party, but unless he really wants to be quoted as the guy who led a mutiny, I think he will re-consider.

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

Two points …

First, it is ironic that you mentioned Trey Grayson. As a former Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton, based on your logic, how was it possible that Mr. Grayson ever became an elected official within the Republican Party, especially given the timing of his first campaign as a Republican and the close proximity to his status as a Democrat.

Second, given the nature of state law regarding ballot access and the special status that state law places upon the Democrat and Republican parties, would it not be an argument of merit that Republican rules and procedures must be subordinate to state law when it comes to elections, the right to vote, and ballot access?

And finally I wish to pose a question …

Can people be acting in the best interest of the Party by endorsing an independent candidate? Obviously, you seem to think the answer to that question is no. I, however, along with Rand Paul and many other Republicans and Tea Party members think the answer to that question is yes.

I do not wish to accuse you of pandering, but I wonder if your written words would be the same if you weren't running for office.

You have chosen your position on this and it will likely be a campaign issue. I, for one, think you have chosen unwisely. Far be it from me to claim my opinion superior to a seasoned partisan veteran.

[Marc's reply: First, thank you Scott for you comment.

Next you ask how Mr. Grayson became a republican. He registered as one. But that didn't keep many of us from questioning his loyalties, or those of his family, against whom we had worked to elect republican candidates for years.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your argument about subordinating party rules to state law. They are two separate things. Ballot access is governed by state law and not discussed in the RPK rules. But ballot access was not the issue in my comment so I admit to being a little lost here.

Lastly you assume that I think supporting an independent candidate can never be in the best interest of the party, then you go on to say that Rand Paul and many others do think so.

Well, first of all, remember my words correctly. I have no quarrel with a private citizen with no elected or party office endorsing whichever candidate he or she wants to endorse. My comment was only directed at elected officials.

Second, if your comment was properly limited to elected officials, then you are correct in only one context. If the party has nominated or is expected to nominate a person for a particular office I do indeed think it is disloyal for elected officials (public or party) to endorse an independent candidate. If the party does not put up a candidate in that race, then this would not apply.

What I think you are missing is that signing the petition put another soldier on the battlefield so to speak whose intention was clearly to beat the republican nominee. In my view those elected to serve as officers of the republican party who would do such a thing have given assistance to "the enemy" as I defined it in my original comment.

Oh, and lastly, you did question whether I would have this opinion if I wasn't running for office. The answer is yes. In fact, I wrote a number of comments around the time of last year's primary expressing very similar sentiments. Unlike some candidates who just recently popped on the scene, my views have been publicly visible for a long time now.

Thanks again for the comment.]

[GH]

I sense a bit of a hypocritical stance here with Senator Paul's assessment !