Trump litmus test —

So, will the RNC encourage states to adopt platform loyalty pledges?

Will the RNC apologize for its disloyalty to Republican nominee Todd Akin?

Consider this article from Politico  and our humble annotations and analysis:

Party leaders in Virginia and North Carolina told Politico.com that they are considering a push to require candidates entering their respective Republican primaries to pledge their support for the eventual nominee and not run a third-party candidacy — a pledge Trump, the current frontrunner, would not make when asked to during the Fox News debate earlier this month in Cleveland

The Virginia and North Carolina parties are in discussions about implementing a new requirement for candidates to qualify for their primary ballots: that they pledge to support the Republican presidential nominee — and not run as a third-party candidate — in the general election.

In other words pledge support to an unidentified candidate now, no matter what, when nomination deadlines are not even closed and when there is nothing to stop the Republican National Convention from adopting rules allowing a draft of someone that has not even run in the various state primaries and caucuses. And what provisions will their be as regards nominees who are exposed as reprobates? One wonders if this trip is necessary.

The procedural moves are clearly aimed at Trump, who pointedly refused to rule out a third-party run during the first GOP debate. . . .

“Clearly aimed at Trump?  OK but later in the piece we see this :

If implemented, Whitbeck said, the provision would be similar to ones the party adopted for statewide races held in 2013 and 2014.

So in fairness to Virginia Republicans on that score one might think they are trying to be consistent with their other provisions, but more on consistency later.

In an email sent after this story was published, Cuccinelli sought to clarify his feelings about the billionaire businessman. “Donald Trump is an important candidate in the race for the White House and I don’t think he or anyone else should be blocked from running as a Republican,” he said.

What the hell does this mean? Again, Cuccinelli is proposing essentially blocking anyone from running unless they pledge support to any theoretical Republican nominee that theoretically also may not have run in all of the states.

“But,” he added, “once the primary is over, that’s it.” Cuccinelli also noted that Virginia’s existing “sore-loser law” would prevent any candidate who lost a primary from mounting a third-party bid afterwards.

It remains to be seen whether such provisions are constitutionally valid in every state, and even if valid, unless adopted in every state, what the implications are.

Those involved in the push said the two states are operating independently of one another, and of the Republican National Committee, which has little say over how state parties determine who gets on their primary ballots. To a large degree, the national party has found its hands tied when it has come to dealing with Trump.

“Ballot access usually is regarded as party function,” said Tom Josefiak, a former RNC chief counsel. “It definitely would be left up to the state party to decide how it’s going to operate.”

And so we wonder if the Republican National Committee (RNC) would be as insouciant about state party ballot access requirements if the state party implements a platform loyalty test?  Which is more important, loyalty to anyone who manages to eke out a primary win even by lying or grossly distorting in eleventh hour tactics the record of  opponent(s), having the R by their name even as they degrade the brand with their votes and undermine key Republican platform matters OR actually doing something conservative?  On that score Cuccinelli should pursue a “ballot access” rule that requires that someone be a Republican more so than requiring blind support of any R candidate even when a third party candidate might be MORE inclined to support more of the Republican agenda.

As far as consistency, and we do not accuse Cuccenlli of violating it in this instance, what about the RNC or its well connected hit men such as Karl Rove and their treatment of the official Missouri Republican U.S. Senate nominee Todd Akin (and others) who made an inarticulate remark though the core  of his or her campaign was consistent with Republican platforms? They undermined him more than any third party candidate would have been able to do. Or maybe consistency requires one be as faultless, as careful, as clear and unassailable in their public statements as G W Bush or Mitt Romney.

DLH and R Mall

0

0