Guest Opinion
Closed Primaries Are Right Solution
By Rod Beck, Guest Writer, 5-02-08
R. Keith Roark, chairman of the Idaho Democratic Party should read the U.S. Constitution before he offers such a wild condemnation of the Idaho Republican Party and its recent lawsuit to prohibit Democrats and other non-Republicans from participation in the Republican candidate selection process.
The Idaho Republican Party simply does not want Democrats and other non-Republicans granted the privilege of participating in the process of selecting Republican candidates for public office.
The U.S. Constitution protects our freedom of association and thereby our right to self-determination. It is rightly a freedom the Idaho Republican Party enjoys to invite self-identified Republicans the opportunity to select Republican candidates and prohibit Democrats and other non-republicans the advantage of participation in the Republican candidate selection process.
Apparently Roark is now panderer in chief for the Idaho Democratic Party. Consider the three points he makes in his guest opinion distributed around the state.
1. Taxpayer expense. Roark complains that if the state requires a primary election everyone should participate. If Roark would read a few U.S. Supreme Court cases he would find that they have already ruled that if a state requires a primary election the state must pay all of the expenses. Mr. Roark must be advocating a repeal of the primary election statutes or he would not have made such a silly argument.
2. Activists Judges. Mr. Roark asserts that because the Idaho Republican Party is claiming a constitutional freedom of association right in a Federal Court we surely must be asking a Federal Judge to find a right that does not exist in the Constitution. Mr. Roark, please read the U.S. Constitution and you will find a clear right of association. We are asking a Federal Judge to confirm that the state of Idaho is violating our rights of association. Where else are we to seek a redress of our grievances? Walmart? And this guy is even a trained lawyer!
3. Costs of lawsuit. Mr. Roark complains that the costs of defending our suit are taking money from roads and other more important issues. This is the most laughable argument of all. In a multi-billion dollar budget a paltry amount will be spent by Secretary Ben Ysursa in his losing effort to defend the unconstitutional law the legislature refused to fix.
This brilliant criticism is coming from a devout über leftist liberal Democrat whose ideas have consistently been rejected by the Idaho electorate since 1958, the last time the Democrats were in a majority in the Idaho legislature. It’s been even longer since a majority of County governments have been in Democratic control and 1964 was the last time Idaho chose a Democrat for President of the United States.
Thanks for the advice Mr. Roark, but I think the Idaho Republican Party is doing just fine in finding solutions to the problems Idahoans want fixed.
Rod Beck is the former Republican Majority Leader in the Idaho State Senate. Mr. Beck is also the former Executive Director of the Idaho Housing and Finance Association.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
Surely a man of your stature does not need to stoop to ad hominem attacks against the chairman of the IDP. Mr. Roark never personally attacks you in his Statesman op-ed.
As a lifelong Democrat, I personally wish you and the Idaho GOP success in your attempt to destroy your own party. The GOP runs this state and has done so for many years. Despite that fact, you find it absolutely necessary to purge your party of so-called RINOs in an effort to enforce ideological purity.
Should you succeed, the long term effect will be to drive those moderate Republicans and independents into our arms. We welcome them wholeheartedly and will appreciate their support at the polls and from their pocket books.
I predict that if you succeed, you will see a resurgence of the Idaho Democratic party to a point where this state once again becomes bi-partisan in its leadership. Nothing would please me more.
Before you use such a large term as "ad hominem attacks" you should know what it means so you could make a proper reference in your comments.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find anyting imperfect about an argument, yet still wants to resist.An ad hominem attack occurs when one lodges an attack against the person making an argument, thus changing the subject rather than addressing the substance of the debate." wikipedia.org
It seems to be the best used tactics of Idaho Democrats in relation to the issue at hand and many other issues as well. Mr. Roark chose to call every Republican arrogant, slap facing, hypocritical and engaging in chicanery. 6degrees suggests I have "stooped to ad homenin attacks" and neither actually argues against the Republican proposition on the merits.
Roark brought up several lame issues which I promptly dispatched in my reply. If Mr. Roark were to make such a weak argument in a Court of Law he would be the brunt of jokes. That's why I merely pointed out he is a trained Lawyer.
I am still waiting for any Democrat to defend allowing members of the Democrat party the opportunity to participate in the selection of Republican candidates. How can that be fair when the stated objective of the Democrat Party is to defeat Republicans?
I understand why Democrats want to continue to influence the Republican party. However, I have not heard a proper defense of that proposition.
Mr. Roark, 6degrees I'm not going to wait with abated breath.
Ad hominem: "devout über leftist liberal Democrat." I point out that Mr. Roark did not attack you, personally. Yes, he called Idaho Republicans "arrogant," but that was not directed towards you specifically.
Again, you behave more like a spoiled brat than a professional and articulate politician. As for arguing against your lawsuit, I actually express support for your position, for as you so clearly write: "the stated objective of the Democrat Party is to defeat Republicans" and I can think of nothing that would succeed in that goal more than your success in shutting out the majority of Idahoans from your little pity party.
P.S. What I mean by that is the obscenely successful Idaho GOP can't control their own candidate selection process and somehow reasonable people (RINOs) manage to get the (R) seal of approval rather than a bunch of wingnut idiots like Steve Thayn, Curtis Bowers and Bill Sali (insult intended).
I am still waiting for any Democrat to defend allowing members of the Democrat party the opportunity to participate in the selection of Republican candidates. How can that be fair when the stated objective of the Democrat Party is to defeat Republicans?"
That isn't the crucial issue here, Mr. Beck. The big losers in all of this aren't Democrats, but the large numbers of independents in this state, like myself, who are being completely silenced (in the primary season) through your efforts. Many of us in rural Idaho don't care to associate ourselves with any particular party. Should our voice count as less than those who do? Apparently you think it should.
means. How about 'pedantic'?
Mr. Beck, you can't possibly believe that there is a real Constitutional issue here, or that your right to free association has been abridged by an open election. Free association does not guarantee that your sleeve will never be brushed by an undesirable.
And if a significant minority of voters in this state can only be referred to by you by a pejorative,well....there's a Latin word for that too. But it would be rude to explain it to you.
You are most welcome to come and support your local, statewide and national Democratic candidates for office. We'd love to have you on our team!