GOP loyalty
Christian Morgan
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
MUCH HAS BEEN written about the Kansas Republican Party’s Loyalty Amendment passed by the State Committee on July 28. Allow me to set the record straight and present the facts in response to the Aug. 9 editorial in the Gazette.
It has been said in the Gazette that the amendment is an attempt to rid the party of moderates. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. The amendment ensures that conservatives inside the party do not target party moderates and, similarly, to ensure moderates don’t target conservatives. Attempts to characterize the amendment as targeting moderates or moderate groups is simply an effort to smear the Kansas GOP and its leadership.
Here are the facts:
When the State Committee passed this amendment, we took the step of finally becoming the Republican Party. Not the moderate party or the conservative party nor a party of a particular ideological group. But rather we became the Republican Party, with the singular goal of seeking to enact the wishes of the Republican electorate in general elections regardless of ideological beliefs.
Following the primary, every Republican candidate in Kansas can trust that Kansas Republican Party officials will stand behind them and not aid candidates nominated by opposing parties. As well, the amendment is no different than many other state Republican Party’s have in their constitutions.
With the language in the amendment, the “big tent” of the Kansas GOP is guaranteed. It encourages (but does not require) conservative and moderate members to support the GOP candidate regardless of ideology; the amendment will apply across the board to all sides of the party regardless of ideology; further, it is a measure to reduce the influence of single-issue folks inside the party that have historically divided the party.
Let me be perfectly candid and clear: the amendment has nothing to do with whether you are a moderate or conservative — it has to do with whether you are a Republican and whether you value Republicans winning elections. There is no “litmus test” in the party nor is there any effort to quell any kind of diversity of opinion, especially moderate opinions and members. However, if you hold an office inside the Kansas GOP, this amendment calls on you to at least refrain from supporting the opposition party.
This is not too much to ask. For example: Emporia State University football fans expect and demand that ESU officials not openly support Pittsburg State or Northwest Missouri during the season or while on the road recruiting. If an assistant coach for ESU said in the Gazette that a prized recruit should go to Pittsburg instead of ESU, then I believe that Coach Higgins would have something to say to him, and it probably wouldn’t be nice and would likely result in some kind of discipline. The same logic applies with the Kansas GOP Loyalty Amendment. Our candidates need Republicans supporting Republicans — pure and simple.
2008 is an important election year. Our party leadership and outstanding Republican candidates are unified towards one common purpose — electing Republicans and bringing back the leadership and determination that makes Republicans great.
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
As lifelong Republicans, my wife & I agree with pretty much what you have written. That said, would it be possible to get a yard sign for Sam Brownback? Maybe one with a red circle around it and a red slash running across his picture?
August 18, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Wishful thinking perhaps, but I for one am ready for the two most prominent political parties to not be so bitterly divided against one another. Their actions (well, not all politicians) have become so venomous that they have negatively affected us, the voters. The result? I firmly believe we have become less neighborly, simply based upon our own party affiliations.
Admit it, we each (to one degree or another) have turned up our noses when someone states they are a member of the "other" party. It shouldn't be that way.
Sure, I may be registered as a democrat because I feel my beliefs are more in line with the party platform, but I never vote a straight ticket. It would be inspiring (too strong of a word?) to see more compromise between our elected officials on both sides of the aisle. In other words, if our elected officials could put aside their differences (and turn a deaf ear to lobbyists with distructive motives), we the people might actually see some good trickle down from the statehouses and DC.
Compromise. Such a novel idea. And, I understand the ability to compromise is not easy. But, that said, isn't that why we elect our representatives? Because we expect them to find common ground for the common good of all? I've seen children at play in a sand box, and they get a long better than most of our politicians.
With such obvious examples of bleeding division around the world (i.e. Sunnis and Shiites, Israelis and Palestinians, North and South Korea, etc.), you would think our elected officials would be wise enough not to allow America to become so excruciatingly divided.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
August 18, 2007 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Continued...
To Christian Morgan, please allow me to comment upon two points made in your editorial.
1.) "It is a measure to reduce the influence of single-issue folks." I applaud you and the Kansas GOP. Measures that halt (or at least slow down) that distruction caused by candidates (and voters) pre-occupied with a single cause or motive are worthy of implementation. Of course, somewhat challenging to enforce or monitor, but still the concept is a benefit and will flourish as you seek party unity by implementing compromise.
2.) "If you hold an office inside the Kansas GOP, this amendment calls on you to at least refrain from supporting the opposition party." I do not support this ideology. If the party advocates compromise within the party, should not the party advocate compromise with the party or parties of opposition? Referring to my previous entry, we the voters see very little productivity in the state and national legislatures, rather we see arguments. We (no matter our party affiliation) expect our elected officials to demonstrate the art of compromise.
So, I ask you, Christian Morgan, don't you believe these two statements of yours to be contradictory?
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
August 18, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )