Two of the three Iowans who serve on the Republican National Committee say a petition outlining ten key G.O.P. policy positions is designed to help show “grassroots” Republicans that the party’s platform means something.
Steve Scheffler, Iowa’s Republican National Committeeman, is part of a “conservative steering committee” that has pushed for reform of the national party.
“We wanted the RNC to make a difference as opposed to being a mere social club,” Scheffler says. “We felt that the party needed to do some things, make some statements that would give our grassroots some faith that we were going to try to be accountable to them.”
First off, I would have preferred a title more like, "A couple of Iowans say", because this gentleman does NOT speak for me.
Further on it this missive he states:
“In my view these 10 points are not a litmus test and so we’re not saying you have to agree with all of them,” Scheffler says. “…But, you know, if you want RNC funding, then there ought to be certain standards and there should be a benchmark by which you ought to qualify for that money.”
Now isn't that cute? Not a litmus test but "there should be a benchmark by which you out to qualify for RNC funding?
Makes one wonder just what his definition of a "litmus test" is. Makes one also wonder what his definition of Democracy is.
In case it has escaped his attention, I feel compelled to answer Mr Scheffler, there is ALREADY a benchmark which qualifies a Republican Candidate for RNC funding.
It is called a PRIMARY, Mr Scheffler,
It is called the WILL OF THE VOTERS!
What gives YOU the right or idea that YOU can decide these things for US?
The Party Structure exists to express the Will of the Republican Voters
It does NOT exist to decide what our Will should be.
When the Day comes that the Party refuses to fund candidate that We the Voters select with donations that We the Voters gave the Party?
We should donate to the candidates of our choice and not a Party which thinks it can use that money to support candidates that they choose and not the ones we choose.
They have in my opinion misunderstood the lesson of NY 23, it was the Party's choice the Voters rejected and now we have those who want to make the Party's choice here superior to the choice of the Voters.
You may wish to read the rest of this article, I would not advise doing so on a full stomach.
Updated: Thursday, 31 December 2009 9:08 AM CST
Post Comment | View Comments (6) | Permalink | Share This Post
