GOP Insiders In Delaware Violated GOP Rules And Caused Republican Losses In Nov. Elections

RED STATE ^ | November 27, 2010 | Jon Moseley

[Moseley]

Delaware’s Republican Party both violated its own Bylaws and caused the Delaware Republican Party’s losses in the November 2, 2010, general election, a new analysis reveals.

The Bylaws of Delaware’s 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, Delaware’s 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, Delaware’s 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, Delaware’s 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 O’Donnell 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 O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart campaigns.

Not only did the Delaware GOP actively join the campaign against O’Donnell and Urquhart, but Tom Ross took the extraordinary step of filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Christine O’Donnell and the Tea Party Express. Tom Ross’ attack on the Tea Party Express and O’Donnell before the September 14 primary prompted a firestorm of national criticism by seeming to validate false smears on O’Donnell.

The Delaware GOP’s 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 Christine’s 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 Delaware’s 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 don’t 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 GOP’s 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 O’Donnell was the official nominee of the Republican Party for US Senate in 2008. She was considered qualified to run side by side with the Party’s nominee for President and the Party’s nominee for Governor in 2008. Having run Christine O’Donnell as its nominee in 2008, Republican insiders cannot argue that Christine O’Donnell was not qualified. Therefore, under the Bylaws, the Delaware Party was obligated to help elect her to office.

[GQuagmire]

Big Daddy zots a repeat offender ping

[Diogenesis]

The NRSC withheld money from the candidate because
she did not BOW TO ROMNEY and his RINOS.

Romney used his pictures with the NRSC and the letter below
to raise millions of dollars.
It is no surprise he kept it for himself and Soros.

Mitt Romney: "Dear Supporter,
The Democrats will stop at nothing to cling to power in the U.S. Senate this year.
In addition to the millions of dollars President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid
.... Even the smallest contribution can help. The NRSC is less than 24 hours away
from the last end of the quarter deadline before the election. They need your support
now if they are going to reach their fundraising goals.
Please make a donation now of $25, $50, $100 or even $250.
Thank you for all the support you have given to this point. I am certain that with your help,
the NRSC and Republican candidates will be able to have the resources
to take the fight to the Democrats this November.
Sincerely, Mitt Romney"

Is anyone surprised that Romney has welched on the woman candidate(s)
whom his henchmen attacked? (SSDD).

[Cicero]

Thanks. I was just about to push the troll warning on that guy.

On what happened in Delaware, it seems to me that, while people can have differences of opinion about candidates before the primary vote, and while private parties have a right to say what they think, however stupid, party officials and Republican gurus have no business attacking official Republican candidates AFTER they have won the primary election. If they want to do so, then they should step down from office first.

Anyone who behaves like this should be fired. The Republican party apparatus in Delaware is obviously crooked and corrupt as well as far to the left. They would rather elect a leftist who will let them share pork with the Democrats than elect an honest man or woman who will serve their state and country.

They must go, one way or another. Or, if the Republican voters in the state cannot drive them out, the National Party should withdraw their approval to use the name “Republican” from them.

[eclecticEel]

Eureka! An obscure intra-party bylaw that no one’s ever heard of screwed the whole election! Wait till this gets out into the Delaware press, the great mass of the electorate will be furious as they storm the registrar’s office (tar and feathers in hand) demanding a do-over!

[meyer]

I bet if the digging goes a little deeper, Rove’s fingerprints are on this. No wonder he was so angry after Christine O’Donnell won the primary. He bet against her (and the people) and lost.

[50mm]

Mademan, AKA ZOTted troll domenad, has been reZOTted. See post 8 for details.

To be added or removed from the VK list, FReepmail Darkwing104.

[Las Vegas Ron]

IATRZ (In after the rezot)

[butterdezillion]

You totally ignored the whole substance of this article.

Does the rule of law matter, or not? Did the repug establishment break the rules, or not?

If you’re gonna play dirty against your own team members then pardon me if I have the audacity to say that maybe you’re not on my team after all.

[Wuli]

“Mike Castle would have won.”

Facts are not in evidence. A race that is never run is not a race with an assured outcome.

My bet is that the predominately liberal Delaware voters would have said - between Coons and Castle - why have a RINO when Coons is the real deal?

That guess is no more wrong than yours. Like yours, it’s only a guess.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

You've made some erroneous suppositions.

1. That a left-wing extreme RINO like Mike Castle could win given the ascendency of the Tea-Party in national politics and in Delaware itself.
2. That the airing of evidence showing the culpability of the members of the Elite in the GOP in Delaware with regards to Christine's evidence is internecine finger-pointing and is stupid.

You're wrong on both issues and sound more like Karl Rove than a conservative.

You're on the wrong side buddy!

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Great ZOT! :)

[Danae]

You know, deep fried anything is just flat out tasty... but not even deep frying can make this sort of troll palatable.

A nice ZOT! executed with extreme prejudice is the only recipe that works.

[Darksheare]

Hi Domenad.
You have far more expert knowledge of drinking Hamm’s than anyone else.
Have another mein freund.

[TBP]

“Mike Castle would have won.”

No, according to polls taken on and near Electrion Day, he would NOT have. You libRINOs know thais, but you insist on trying to MAKE it true to shut down any effort to run a conservative again. We’re on to your phony game.

[TBP]

Even iof a RINO wins, you win nothing. You might as well have elected a Dimmycrap.

[TBP]

Even if a RINO wins, you win nothing. You might as well have elected a Dimmycrap.

[TBP]

Once Chrstine was trhe nominee, of course they were trying to lose. I’d bet money that Castle and the state chairman both voted for Coons.

[Texas Eagle]

So, in short, there is no such thing as a Republican Party in Delaware. There’s two RAT Parties only one of them goes by the name of The Republican Party.

[TBP]

Do you remember the 1976 Republican National Convention, where Sen. Richard Schweiker was going to run with Reagan had Reagan been nominated that year?

When Sen. Schweiker, who was not known as a conservative, got back from the convention, a reporter asked him if he had “learned” anything. Sen. Schwieker’s response was: “Yes, I learned what party loyalty means. It means the conservatives have to support the liberals but never the other way around.”

[RedMDer]

IATZ but if he comes back...