Note regarding Part Two of Raw Deal, a reflection on how Ron Paul delegates have been treated in Scott County: for ease of absorption and readers busy schedules, rather than one longer essay, elements will appear two or three times a week toward completing our analysis. Yesterday’s post regarding Brian Kennedy should be considered as part of this revised presentation format.
Most Recent Irony
There are many factors that can be offered in support of keeping Iowa’s first in the nation caucus status. Among them are its roughly average size and population, that its not a bedroom community for another state, its affordable media markets, that its population is comparatively well educated (although, regrettably, comparatively declining), an experienced political network, and a reputation for honesty, integrity and openness in the process. Certainly presidential preference camps have to feel they will be treated fairly or there will be no “loyalty” to Iowa.
This latter factor is so important that even the appearance of bias caused the Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa Matt Strawn to resign after jumping the gun in announcing a Romney “win” of the January 3rd caucuses when a few discrepancies existed in reporting vote totals that should have given him pause in such a tight race. In order to protect the integrity of the process and Iowa’s reputation, he resigned.
Keep in mind that the “process” in the Iowa caucus system is not just caucus night but extends to selection of county, district, state and ultimately delegates to the national convention. Presidential preference camps with the long view understand that all levels of delegate selection are important, whether they ultimately prevail with their candidate receiving the nomination, but also in having a fair chance at influencing the national platform and other matters.
Based on their caucus strength in Scott County, readers of these pages are well aware that it is my view that Ron Paul delegates, in appearance and fact, have been shortchanged of even a proportional share of delegates to the district and state conventions. Ron Paul delegates number perhaps one half to one third or less of what their fair representation should be.
The process of making a fair and representative official slate of delegates was under the control of Scott County Republican Chairwoman Judy Davidson. Appearances and results, in this writers opinion, indicate that she failed and that after the fact or along the way, has evidenced far less than a cooperative attitude and even vindictiveness rather than any attempt at leadership in pursuit of unity or fair play toward Ron Paul supporters.
As a result of the above observations and more, I find it ironic to say the least that Chairwoman Davidson was recently appointed to a committee formed by the Republican Party of Iowa “tasked to review and make recommendations to improve the Iowa caucuses. In addition to making improvements to the caucus process in Iowa, the committee’s larger focus is to make recommendations that will help Iowa retain its privileged First-in-the-Nation status for the 2016 presidential election and beyond.”
In commenting on the formation of the committee ,Craig Robertson, editor of the estimable political publication The Iowa Republican, while singling out no one in his critique of the membership of the committee, observed the following:
“There is little representation from people who were involved in previous caucuses. While most of the members have participated in multiple caucuses, including members who can speak to caucus practices from previous caucus cycles might shed light on things that were either over looked in 2012, or were implemented in the past and should be resurrected.” See the full article here at The Iowa Republican.
I do not suggest that Robinson in his publication had Judy Davidson in mind as to being an example of the committee’s shortcomings, or if he did, for what applicable reasons . . . however, this publication does.
1) The overwhelming reason is that, as chronicled in part herein, Chairwoman Davidson’s approach to district and state delegate nominations did not insure fair presidential preference representation on the delegate nominating committee or any reliable common approaches to insure fair play and unity. Ron Paul supporters have every reason to cry foul.
2) This is Chairwoman Davidson’s first caucus where she was responsible for appearances and to provide an image of fair play. Not in twenty years or more has there been any objection to the discretionary fairness of the Scott County leadership by any presidential preference camp. In a contentious year all the more reason that in appearances the Chairwoman “must be as above suspicion as Caesar’s wife.” She made no convincing effort to be, and failed in results.
3) Chairwoman Davidson’s was out of the country and did not attend the 2012 precinct caucuses. Others took the helm for timely decisions in her absence, something to this publication’s knowledge has never been publicly mentioned, not in any press release or SCR Web site, giving credit where credit was due to those who manned the helm in her absence. If so we will so acknowledge that part but continue to wonder about the committee membership as does Robinson. If not why not?
4) Clearly in Scott County and across the state there are political operatives with longer, wider and deeper experience with the caucus system from various aspects.
Coming soon . . . an analysis of the Scott County Republican blog posting “Guidelines Used to Determine District/ State Delegates,” the first we have seen in writing, promulgated only now with a date stamp of March 26, 2012, which is over two weeks past the time official nomination of delegates was fait accompli (perhaps I should say fiat accompli).
Clue — it is a document with enough mishmash of undefined loose and redundant criterion and no identifiable prioritization — just more evidence of the Raw Deal. By the way, we would love to see date stamped documents relating to the actual creation and application of these “guidelines” (you know “guidelines” two fingers on each hand extended and flexed a couple of times) that were distributed for all presidential preference camps to see on a timely basis. Same for the nomination committee’s membership and work product toward the final delegate roster.
