The flyers and robo calls will be in full swing this week in anticipation of the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman positions. The very bifurcation of the positions based on sex is unbecoming Republican principles in many ways, but so it goes.
One such flyer from Scott County Republican Chairwoman and candidate Judy Davidson prominently places among her qualifications, in a scroll at the bottom, the statement Pro-Life – Traditional Marriage – Second Amendment Rights – Fiscal Responsibility. They are placed there, we are to presume, as an indication of relevance to how she will approach her responsibilities and how presumably she feels any person vying for a high level central committee type position should approach their responsibilities. If not then why include any such mention as a personal quality and presumed qualification?
Certainly in this writers opinion support for conservative approaches to those crucial matters are qualifications for leadership rolls in the Republican Party as they have been enshrined in the Party platforms at the county, district, state, and national levels for years.
What Ms Davidson does not mention is that she championed none other than Maggie Tinsman to be a Republican Party of Iowa Central Committee member just a couple of years ago. So if the qualities scrolled on her flyer are supposed to be operative why would she champion someone for a similar roll who was not pro-life, not pro- protecting traditional marriage, hardly a champion of second amendment rights and whose alleged dedication to fiscal responsibility was dramatically eclipsed by votes increasing social welfare costs, education spending boondoggles, and a lot of other feel good special interest and big government programs . . . in other words a RINO? Championing notorious opponents of key Republican platform positions into a position of power and influence is not bridge building, it is compromising structural integrity.
If the commonly understood implications of those personal qualities is important to seeing to the implementation of Republican policies, which is what political parties are supposed to be primarily about, not merely electing anybody with an R by their name, can that credibly include supporting the likes of Maggie Tinsman in a policy making role when known conservatives were pursuing the same position? And if such positions are not policy making then why bring it up?
Stating ones personal feelings is gratuitous (Maggie Tinsman insisted she was “pro-life” and “for marriage” ) unless there is some credible demonstration of leadership pursuing such policies. One cannot champion candidates for internal Republican office whose desire is to remove key policies, and credibly claim the mantel of protector of those policies.
While “name dropping issues” for purposes of obtaining another office, in reality Ms Davidson has been absent or anemic using her personal or official status as regards those issues in the public square or in Republican spheres. She promotes Republicans, unimaginatively I might add, but has extremely little to say defending Republican policies. But we are to believe she will be an effective voice for those core issues all of a sudden?
As Chairwoman of Scott County Republicans, Davidson opposed the mere facilitation of the promotion of those issues by dedicated groups whose only request was mentioning their occasional activities as a mere posting on a calendar of events promulgated in a once or twice a month e-mail or on the Scott County Republican Web site. No one was suggesting the communications mechanism be turned over to any other group, full content control would be maintained. Under her “leadership” groups pushing matters consistent with the platform, fiscal and social, helping Republicans in their own way, are not helped, not facilitated, Republican issues are not defended aggressively. Time and talent was certainly available to merely list a occasional activities of interest to Republicans. Hers is not the track record of someone who has pursued issues, articulated or defended Republican principles aggressively in the public square nor one who facilitate others in doing the bidding of the Republican platform.
As to various candidates’ claim to be the one to protect Iowa’s “First in the Nation Status,” one only has to review the caucus to convention history in Scott County to see that Ms Davidson is probably not “the one.” Her repeated distribution of incorrect “rules” prior to the caucuses and highhanded approach to delegate selection to the District convention, not to mention the preposterous use, given the circumstances, of alphabetical order to determine seating of alternates is set forth in these pages. A chronicle of those events and more can be viewed by selecting at right the category Scott County Republican Matters and read the RAW DEAL posts contained therein.
Unity, integrity and fair play, proportional results, which should be the hallmarks justifying our continued status as “first in the Nation” in the presidential selection process, were severely damaged under her leadership. Regrettably Scott County under her leadership could be used as the poster child for the denigration of our state’s position.
Kim Pearson, a soon to be former one term state legislator is also running for the position. Between Pearson and Davidson it is hard to determine who would be more ineffective in terms of leadership abilities, along the scale of insisting on everything from Republicans (my way or highway) vs insisting on nothing (whatever) . . . or be more of a tool. In this writer’s opinion they both have the deserved reputation of being lightning rods for disparate elements of the Party, to neither’s credit. We cannot support either one.
Tamara Scott has a track record articulating conservatism, a devotion to issues, and is an experienced statewide organizational leader with more years of Republican Party involvement. By all measures she should be the consensus candidate for National Committeewoman. R Mall
PS The bulk of this article also appeared in The Iowa Republican as a reader’s comment by yours truly.
PPS Coming soon: observations regarding the contest for Republican National Committeeman. Hint, Steve Scheffler deserves to be re-elected. Conservatives in the Republican party owe much to his dogged determination over the years.
