GOP State Committee Follies

As I mentioned previously, I attended State Committee this past weekend.

A movement arose out of the Central Caucus, of which I am a part, to preserve an open primary; that is, to permit the candidates to battle it out in a primary without the State party taking sides.

Anybody who thought that there was a race somewhere sometime that State would not stick its nose in was doomed to disappointment.

I'm from Berks County. I came from Montgomery County. There, I experienced the "wisdom" of the party leaders thinking they had better judgment than the people. By the way, when was the last time a real Republican won in Montco? (Well, there's Jim Matthews but I rest my case). So, when I came to Berks, I was firmly entrenched in an "anti-endorsement" mindset.

The Central Caucus voted to support an open primary for Supreme Court. When we got to the floor, unfortunately, the rest of the lemmings didn't see it our way. I liked all the candidates for Supreme Court for different reasons, and was not willing to replace the judgment of Pennsylvania GOP voters with mine. The supporters of endorsement kept telling me that this was the way we show "leadership." Not when money goes with it. If the people want our advice, they have but to ask. But to make a choice in the name of leadership among very equally matched candidates and then throw significant money and support behind one candidate is attempting to undermine the free choice of the people. I can show "leadership" every day of the week by supporting my candidate and defending my choice when people ask. They don't need the Communist Party Central Committee....oooops....I mean the GOP State Committee to tell them how to think.

I was browsing on GRASSROOTSPA, and there seems to be a concern that the roll call on the endorsement is not published or public knowledge. Actually, that issue came up. Our first vote was whether to have an open primary for Supreme Court. That vote was a roll call, and I will tell you now that I voted for it (just to not keep you in suspense).

The actual endorsements were carried out by standing vote so no record was officially kept (it only happens when there is a roll call). Joan Orie Melvin won on the first ballot approximately 2-1. I abstained.

I abstained from the others for different reasons. In the case of the Superior Court nomination, even though there were three candidates for three slots, I did not want to vote for Sally Opdyke Mundy. Her resume is sparse (at least for that office), and it became apparent that she intended to use her husband's contacts for advancement in spite of a modest resume (her husband is former head of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, James Mundy). I don't vote for people because hubby wants to get wifey a unique Valentine's Day gift.

In the case of Commonwealth Court, it was a contested primary, and I do not like voting for an endorsement in those, at least not at the state level (locally, I might if the race is across county borders so as not to put a favorite son candidate at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other candidates whose counties have more robust endorsement procedures than Berks does.

The fact is, Joan Orie Melvin and Sally Mundy got the endorsement for reason other than qualifications (Sally Mundy because of hubby, and Joan Melvin because her sister is a state senator).

I don't support people for these reasons, and because endorsement processes lead to the wrong people being supported for the wrong reasons, I don't support those, either.

So sue me.