Skip to comments.GOP Insiders In Delaware Violated GOP Rules And Caused Republican Losses In Nov. Elections
Posted on 11/28/2010 12:09:24 PM PST by Moseley
Delawares Republican Party both violated its own Bylaws and caused the Delaware Republican Partys losses in the November 2, 2010, general election, a new analysis reveals.
The Bylaws of Delawares Republican Party require in Article X, Section 1 that: These rules of the Republican Party of the State of Delaware shall be in compliance and consistent with the Rules of the National Republican Party .
However, Rule No. 11 of the Rules of the National Republican Party states: (a) The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing deadline for that office.
Therefore, the Delaware GOP must remain neutral until the actual nominee is chosen by the voters in the actual primary. The State GOP may not contribute any kind of in-kind aid or money to one primary candidate over another candidate. Until a candidate becomes the nominee of the Republican party, the Delaware GOP may not take sides.
The Delaware Bylaws not only require the Bylaws to be in compliance with but also much more broadly consistent with the national rules. Thus, to be consistent with the national rules of the GOP, Delawares GOP may not openly campaign for a primary candidate before the voters have voted in the primary. By requiring its Bylaws to be consistent with the Rules of the National Republican Party, Delawares Republican Party prohibits the Delaware GOP from supporting any candidate for the Republican nomination in a primary.
After all, who is the Republican Party in Delaware? ARTICLE I. Section 1 of the Delaware GOP Bylaws requires: All residents of the State of Delaware who are registered as Republicans on the voter registration lists of the respective Boards of Election within Delaware are members of the Republican Party of the State of Delaware. The Republican party exists for Republican voters not for the Republican insiders.
The Preamble of the Bylaws also require: These rules establish the framework in which our mission can be accomplished. They preserve the fairness and integrity of our system and allow the voices of many to be unified as one, for the benefit of all.
To preserve the fairness and integrity of our system requires allowing the Republican voters to choose their nominee in the primary election, free of manipulation and interference by party insiders. Tom Ross and the party elites sought to destroy the opportunity of GOP voters to freely choose the nominee. The Delaware GOP was required to allow the voices of many to be unified as one, for the benefit of all. By trying to silence one candidate and rob the voters of a choice, Tom Ross violated the Delaware Bylaws.
Now, it must be acknowledged that Republican traditions in Delaware are contrary to this conclusion. Over the years, Republican insiders in Delaware have often actively intervened in primary contests. This conclusion is different from what is accepted practice in Delaware. Yet insiders depriving Republican voters of a free choice is illegal under the GOP Bylaws as modified by the national rules required by Article X, Section 1.
In an extraordinarily vicious series of attacks, Delawares GOP State Chair Tom Ross and other Republican Party insiders took sides in the 2010 US Senate and US House campaigns. Rather than allowing Mike Castle to run his own campaign after 40 years of elected office, the GOP establishment openly campaigned against Christine ODonnell for the US Senate as well as against Glen Urquhart for the US House. Thus, the primary campaign consisted of (a) the Mike Castle campaign, (b) the Delaware Republican party, and (c) the National Republican Senatorial Committee all campaigning together against the Christine ODonnell and Glen Urquhart campaigns.
Not only did the Delaware GOP actively join the campaign against ODonnell and Urquhart, but Tom Ross took the extraordinary step of filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Christine ODonnell and the Tea Party Express. Tom Ross attack on the Tea Party Express and ODonnell before the September 14 primary prompted a firestorm of national criticism by seeming to validate false smears on ODonnell.
The Delaware GOPs complaint to the Federal Election Commission triggered a copy-cat complaint by the George Soros-funded organization C.R.E.W. Not to be left irrelevant in their own field, C.R.E.W. then rushed in to follow Tom Ross example and join Tom Ross in the news media spotlight.
C.R.E.W. immediately began nation-wide fund-raising off of their Tom Ross-inspired complaint. The C.R.E.W. complaint is based upon an affidavit from a relative of Christines former boyfriend Brent Vasher from 2008, a Republican who had worked on her campaign. Given the other activities of the Delaware GOP, it appears likely that Tom Ross or the Delaware GOP introduced the Republican Vasher relative to C.R.E.W.
Even if a State party may openly campaign for a candidate, filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the Tea Party Express and its own Republican candidate is a radically different step. What in the Bylaws authorize Tom Ross to attack a Republican candidate in this way?
The Delaware GOP attacks were almost unprecedented in the nasty and unprofessional comments, smears, and mud-slinging by the party against one if its own Republican candidates.
Now, it is true that the Bylaws of Delawares GOP do prohibit the use of any GOP resources to help or promote a primary candidate who has not been endorsed by the GOP Statewide convention. A non-endorsed candidate is prohibited from even attending Republican meetings or events for the purpose of campaigning or meeting voters.
However, the prohibition in the Bylaws against helping a non-endorsed candidate does not necessarily authorize active intervention in support of a different candidate. Such an idea might seem to be implied. But the explicit requirement that the Bylaws by consistent with national rules over-rides any such unstated implication. The Bylaws prohibition on helping a non-endorsed candidate does not authorize the Delaware GOP to actively campaign in favor of any candidate. Standing alone, that might be considered to be implied. But it is rebutted by compliance with national rules.
Again, a rule that the Party may not support a non-endorsed candidate does not authorize Tom Ross to file legal complaints against Republican candidates that the insiders dont like.
This un-democratic, elitist rule may even be illegal under State and Federal law, because Delaware does allow a primary. While a Party may choose its nominees either by a convention or primary, once a primary is allowed, the voters casting their votes in the primary must be allowed to choose the nominee without interference. Although the Delaware GOP could choose its nominee at a convention, once the voters are allowed to choose in a primary, they must be allowed to vote without manipulation of their votes. Thus, the Delaware GOPs rules frustrating the opportunity of Republican voters to freely choose the nominee may be illegal under Federal election laws and Delaware State laws. Again, a party may endorse a candidate. A party may choose its candidate in a convention. But if a primary election is held, the voters themselves must be permitted to vote without having the election rigged. Preventing candidates from meeting voters at party events and meetings may be illegal manipulation of the primary vote.
Finally, the Delaware State GOP Bylaws also set as a mission of the Delaware Republican Party: to promote the Republican philosophy and to endorse those principles of government by electing qualified republicans to state and Federal office.
However, Christine ODonnell was the official nominee of the Republican Party for US Senate in 2008. She was considered qualified to run side by side with the Partys nominee for President and the Partys nominee for Governor in 2008. Having run Christine ODonnell as its nominee in 2008, Republican insiders cannot argue that Christine ODonnell was not qualified. Therefore, under the Bylaws, the Delaware Party was obligated to help elect her to office.
Wow, I thought we had wised up but then I see an article like this. The choice was clear: run a RINO and win, run a conservative and lose. People chose the latter. Now, that’s fine, and I will not second guess their choices, so long as they don’t second guess the results. Mike Castle would have won. Christine lost. End of story. Was it worth it to run a candidate more in line with conservatism and lose? Or would it have been better to run a RINO who may or may not be in your corner? Not sure, but it is what it is. This internecine finger-pointing is stupid beyond measure.
This rule has been broken before, has it not?
What makes you think that they weren’t trying to lose?
And you know for a fact that Castle would have won?
that’s not quite what the article says. it’s more like run our chosen candidate and win or run your candidate and we will not help you win.
Dishonorable retread troll zot!
To: Jim Robinson
AGREE WITH ME OR GO AWAY! JAWOHL, MEIN FUHRER!
Piss off, redneck. Go drink another Hamm’s, it’s only two o’clock, you want to finish that twenty-four pack by the time your wife gets home so you can get to the beatings by five.
77 posted on Mon Nov 15 2010 10:46:21 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
It proves again that RINOs @/or dems don’t care what is written on paper. That’s for people of character to go by rules & never do these liberals suffer any consequences.
Castle is a rampant RINO. Will you be telling us how great Mikey Bloomberg is next? Maybe if we had treated him better he wouldn’t have left the party. Are you going to invite him back for another shot at us?
The Elites and RINOs, to borrow Kerrys favorite phrase, “would not have” someone like Christine O’Donnell elected to the US Senate. They simply would not have it!
Not necessarily so, according to this analysis of voter registration: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2631149/posts
What did you want us to do, ratify Castle’s cap and trade vote? Time to let them know they’ll be held accountable.
that’s exactly the RINO game. if our candidate wins support us. if your candidate wins good luck (if only it were just “good luck”; they actually do everything to make sure the conservative doesn’t win the general).
"..According to a Center for Responsive Politics review of the most recent
personal financial disclosure filings, eight members of Congress --
three Democrats and five Republicans --
owned at least $2,000 worth of stock in L-3 Communications, which
is one of the two main contractors involved in the full-body scanning machines.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) disclosed possessing the most stock
with a minimum investment of at least $500,000 and a maximum value of $1 million.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).............$500,001 to $1,000,000
Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del)...........$16,002 to $65,000
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)......$16,002 to $65,000
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.).................$15,001 to $50,000
Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.)...................$1,001 to $15,000
Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.)...............$1,001 to $15,000
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)......................$2,173
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas).......$2,086"
I saw no finger-pointing in this post; only a well-documented, well-reasoned expose’ of the establishment GOP in Delaware undercutting their own nominee along with Rove-led beltway gurus.
How have your first thirteen days on FR been?
Well, one good thing to come out of all this is that another squish bit the dust. Mike Castle would be an impediment to everything we’re trying to accomplish. At least with Coons you pretty much know what you’re dealing with up front.
Both sides of the aisle need to be cleaned out.
Can I sue the GOP to get back the $100 I donated to ODonnells campaign?
Your argument is faulty. The NRC rule prohibits the NRC from backing a candidate in a primary. The Delaware rule saying it follows the national rule does NOT mean that the delaware committee can’t back a candidate in the primary — that would require the RNC rules to state that STATE committees can’t back candidates.
I think it’s stupid for a state party to back candidates in the primary, but it’s not a violation of RNC rules.
I also believe you are wrong that their actions cost them the election. There was nothing the state committee could ever have done to get O’Donnell a victory, and there are even some who now say Castle couldn’t have won either.
I don’t think COD’s almost 51,000 vote loss can be attritubed to anything more than the voters of DE chose not to vote for her in sufficient numbers for her to win in 10 just like they didn’t vote in sufficient numbers for her in 08 and 06.
It’s not like a 30 mile wide by 96 mile long state can’t be covered if one has a good organization....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.