| When we said a few days ago that state Democratic Party chair Pat Waak was making a needless mistake in "pressuring" a non-factoring wannabe candidate against running for Senate--an especially hypocritical position for Waak, who owes her position as party chair to the Be the Change backlash in the aftermath of the 2004 Salazar/Miles primary lovefest--we meant it. It was stupid of her on ethical as well as tactical levels.
For further confirmation of just how stupid a move it was, the Denver Post reports:
When Bob Schaffer decided to run for Colorado's open U.S. Senate seat, he knew he probably wouldn't have a Republican primary opponent. In fact, he told party leaders in May that he would not get into the race otherwise.
To help clear the field, the party invoked a formal process under what's known as "Rule 11." Dating back to at least the mid-1990s but little-known among many of the GOP rank and file, Rule 11 allows the national party to abandon its traditional neutral stance and back a candidate long before a primary vote.
It required the signature of the state party chairman and Colorado's two national Republican committeemen. Of the three who made the decision to back Schaffer, one - because he holds a seat on the National Republican Committee - was Bob Schaffer.
That result is a telling moment in where the state Republican Party stands. Reeling from a series of defeats, party officials say a primary battle in the state's most important race of 2008 is a luxury they can't afford.
But the situation looks much the same from the other side. When Democrat Mark Benner recently suggested he would challenge U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs for a chance at the Senate seat, state party chairwoman Pat Waak began a series of discussions with Benner "about other ways to get the issues he is interested in out there." [Pols emphasis]
The Post's Michael Riley goes on to describe the two situations as evidence that both parties are 'cracking down' on primary challengers, citing the deleterious effect this may have on our small-d democracy in ominous tones:
The levers being manipulated to ensure that result are spurring a debate at the edges of the parties over finding the balance between political pragmatism and the exigencies of the democratic process.
The only problem with this analysis is that it's crap. There's just no equivalency between Pat Waak nasal-voicing her disapproval on the phone to various local reporters and a national party invoking a formal rule that tells unanointed candidates to get lost. To imply that's anything even remotely similar is ridiculous--and deceptive.
We think that widespread knowledge of something like Rule 11 would be a really bad thing for the Republican Party, much like other official primary 'interventions' have turned out to be for party morale (think Marc Holtzman). And as the current pitched battle over CD-2, not to mention last year's slugfest in CD-7 (when Ed Perlmutter went on to win the general election in a landslide) demonstrate, there is no equivalent process at work in the Democratic Party. All of which would have been a hell of a lot easier to understand if Waak hadn't decided to become the very thing she previously claimed to hate, in a situation where there was absolutely no need.
But as wrong as Waak may be, comparing these two cases is completely ridiculous. 'Discouraging' a primary and formally trying to stop one are two different things indeed. |
