SC GOP chair condemns Florida’s early primary, calls for loss of all delegates

Infighting among Republicans will harm GOP chances for the White House in 2012.Sometimes even when victory is near, there are people who for unknown reasons refuse to seize it. I believe that is the case with a decision made by the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in Florida.

That committee, authorized by statute, has selected January 31 as the date for the Sunshine State’s presidential primary in 2012.

Lenny Curry, chair of the Republican Party of Florida, was not on the committee. Nor was the leader of Florida's GOP women.

Learning about the decision made on Friday, Curry issued a statement recognizing the power of the committee. Curry said, “As I have said before, the Republican Party of Florida was always prepared to work with the date selected by those with the legal authority to do so.”

Cindy Graves, president of Florida’s influential Federation of Republican Women, issued a statement and an explanation. Graves was in Kansas City at the National Federation of Republican Women convention when the decision was made.

Graves’ statement expressed concern about Florida hosting the national convention. She posited that was an honor the state's Republicans might not have gotten “if the RNC had foreseen that this special committee would vote to go earlier…”

Graves reminded her members the RPOF state committee had “no input” on the decision. RNC leaders from Florida had no input. As a matter of fact, National Committeeman Paul Senft wrote about the consequences of a decision he clearly disagrees with:

“I would submit that we will be less significant because no candidate can get momentum from the few delegates they will get from Florida. Further, how much more significant can we get than hosting the convention?”

Unfortunately a decision made by what amounts to a government committee is not going over well with Party regulars. From Facebook to Twitter and blogs and private messaging, Main St. Republicans are not happy.

Some see the move as an attempt to shore up frontrunners. Others see the move as an attempt to cull the field of candidates at the bottom.

Graves also pointed out complications with new Republican National Committee rules the Party agreed to abide by. She said states with early primaries will not fall under “winner-take-all.”

Graves said,

“Therefore one candidate can get 30 percent of the delegates from a state, the next candidate gets 40 percent for the delegates and the remaining GOP candidates split the remaining 30 percent according to the vote.”

States with later primaries do get a “winner-take-all” option. That provides a means of those states having a “block vote that could be terribly important in a tight race…” Graves said.

Members of the PPPDSC were appointed by Gov. Rick Scott, Speaker of the Florida House Dean Cannon and Senate President Mike Haridopolos.

However the Florida statute does not override RNC elections rules. The committee was formed, said Graves, “during the last legislative session to vote on the date Florida will hold our Presidential Preference or Primary…as opposed to our duly elected representatives voting on our behalf to change existing statute.”

Florida escaped serious damage the last time the state did this in 2008 when support from a temporarily popular governor swung many votes to Sen. John McCain. That governor left the party during the 2010 midterm campaigns.

I have often said and it is worth repeating that as soon as I heard the GOP primary results announced in 2008, I knew Barack Obama would be elected president.

South Carolina was not amused by the decision. SC GOP chair Chad Connelly issued a statement on Friday.

Connelly called the committee’s decision “hugely disappointing.” He continued with words that should definitely be taken to heart by those who made this top-down decision:

“Rogue states have once again dictated the Presidential nominating calendar. I call on my fellow RNC members and all Republicans to strongly condemn Florida’s decision to hold their primary on January 31…States who have worked so hard to maintain the nominating calendar should not be penalized and the offenders, including Florida, should lose their entire allocations of delegates at the National Convention. Rules matter and the four traditional early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) did everything they could to avoid this unfortunate situation.”

Many Floridians want an early primary. However, there are methods and standards in place for negotiating that arrangement.

Hopefully this manipulation will not result in a candidate supporters cannot be enthusiastic about. I believe those at the top of the political hierarchy often underestimate the very people they need for volunteers and donations. Many of us worked hard to bring new supporters into the fold after our failures in 2006 and 2008.

I sincerely hope this decision has not disrupted the faith and trust we managed to hang onto despite some very unfortunate choices in candidates.

One thing is certain. South Carolina and the other early states won’t be as accommodating as they were in 2008. The political climate has changed.

State Sen. Paula Dockery’s advice should have been heeded. She wrote,

“The case has not been made for how Florida would benefit by moving the primary from early March to late January. In fact, Florida would benefit more by having a full slate of delegates for abiding by the rules, for continuing to have all of the candidates visit our state and spend money in our state over a longer period of time, and for not setting off the domino effect among other states all wanting to follow suit and jump their place in line.”

A March primary in Florida would have satisfied the RNC, protected all delegates’ votes including those from small counties, and enabled the state party to keep a promise.

Why was that compromise abandoned? Only the designees on a government committee know for sure.

President Barack Obama is happy with Florida’s decision, because he is the beneficiary of any infighting within the Republican Party.

If there is a means of altering this decision, the committee should utilize it. Too much is at stake.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Sept. 30, 2011)