A Central Committee’s role is to facilitate and educate, not mandate the candidate!
KRAUS For The HAUS·
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2018
This week the Ohio Republican State Central Committee (OHRSCC), bowed to their overlord in Kentucky, in an attempt to shore up a weak and more moderate candidate, Jim Renacci for Senate. Clearly this was an attempt to push out a solid conservative, Mike Gibbons from the Senate race. As well, much more conservative Mary Taylor was thrown to the wind in favor of the DeWine/Husted money machine.
Particularly disturbing was the full admission that Senate leader Mitch McConnell was able to bend the OHRSCC to his will with the promise of throwing millions into Jim Renacci’s campaign.
Rather than Ohioans telling
Mitch McConnell to go to hell,
and tell him who we are supporting,
the republican leadership of Ohio
shamefully rationalized letting
Mitch McConnell pick our
Senate candidate for us.
One of the biggest duty’s of the OHRSCC
is to facilitate the education of
Republicans in Ohio as to where
the candidates stand on the issues.
In many states, if you do not attend a State Central Committee organized debate, you cannot even be considered for endorsement. Unfortunately, the OHRSCC has decided that their job is to influence Republicans in Ohio instead of educating them.
It is the candidates job to
influence you to vote for them,
this is not in the party’s job
description. The party is to
provide support and
infrastructure for the
candidates that win the primary.
An endorsement should only come after an unbiased and transparent vetting process has taken place. Mike Gibbons has about half of all the County Central Committee endorsements within the state and may even have a majority of those committees that endorse in a primary. Unfortunately, those advising the President in Washington D.C. and Mitch have not seen the tremendous ground game of Michael Gibbons because Mike is not a swamp creature and he definitely does not identify with Mitch McConnell, who is part of the problem and is not part of a sound fiscally conservative policy by which to run the country.
I am certain that many on the OHRSCC entertained what would happen if Jim Renacci wins the primary and the millions they would receive from the McConnell controlled National Republican Senatorial Committee. But, what kind of confidence will this Republican body have if Gibbons wins the race? There is already some contempt being held for the body that pushed so hard for John Kasich in the primary of the presidential election in 2016, only to have Trump trounce their opinion.
Why isn’t the OHRSCC
demanding and organizing
more debates during the primary?
Is it because they like
picking the candidate
in smoke-filled back
rooms in Washington D.C.?
Debates have always been a valuable addition to the election cycle. And two-thirds of Ohioan primary voters in 2016 seem to agree, saying that the debates played an important role in helping them make up their minds to ultimately support Trump.
Expensive television ads, in contrast, seem to have lost some power of persuasion. This is a good thing — debates have imposed an unprecedented degree of transparency and accountability. On a debate stage, standing side by side with their competitors, candidates have not been able to entirely hide behind huge sums of money, super PACs, or television ads. They have been judged by the party voters based on their working knowledge of policy and their ability to think and speak on their feet. It is a good test of mettle, temper, and character is revealed as well as intellect over the course of the debates.
Debates are the best chance
to get a candidates message
to the widest number of people
— and that’s what campaigns
at their core are about.
This is educating the public
and providing for a transparent
The fact that there is a risk
involved in debates just
reflects the real stakes of the race.
Newt Gingrich’s and Herman Cain’s rise in popularity in previous campaigns was almost entirely due to strong debate performances, balancing Republican red-meat rhetoric with thoughtful policy prescriptions. Yes, it’s true that some of their best moments came when they defiantly pushed back on questions and got the audience loudly on their side, but that was a measure of their ability to connect with voters by voicing their frustrations. Both candidates rose from the political dead not with money or organization, but with what they carried into the debates, their intellect, charisma, and ability to connect.
FOLLOW PRESIDENT TRUMP ON TWITTER:
Facebook Pages and Groups for You to “Like and Share”