I read something on another local blog that criticized a campaign for sending out a missive to the Rep Central Committees across the state trying to point out certain facts about their opponent. Frankly, I didn't get what the problem was but being new, I turned to my dear friend Andrew Langer who happens to not only live in my neighborhood but is very much in touch with how things are done in the political world. With his kind permission, I have reprinted his response. Please keep in mind that he is only responding to a friend as a friend and not, as a leader, employee or volunteer of ANY organization.
---------------
Yeah, I saw that last night. Speaking for myself, and not as a member of the QACRCC, on the whole, I found Kurt Babe's response to be a bit odd and overblown - long on rhetoric and short on substance.
Babe called the e-mail "unethical" and "repugnant", but never really lays out a foundation for why he thinks it to be so. Now, I didn't receive Meekins' initial e-mail, but at first blush it seems to be a fact-based e-mail, informing Central Committee members of the recent coverage of Wayne Gilchrest's historical voting records, and his tendency to vote with caucuses other than his party's - as well as the good Congressman's public disdain for that self-same party.
Now, what's "unethical" about that? Why is informing party officials as to the public perception of, statements by, and attitudes of one of their charges (because, after all, Central Committee members are in no small measure responsible for supervising and advising elected officials) repugnant?
Chris Meekins never makes a request of the Central Committe members. He never makes a characterization of the congressman's voting record or his statements. In fact, all he does is state a set of facts regarding him.
No, what I find "unethical" is that Kurt Babe took an e-mail meant for Central Committee members, of which he is no longer one, and rather than contact Chris Meekins and say, "Um, Chris, you sent this to me, but I'm no longer a member of the Republican Central Committee," he not only sent this explosive and over-reactive response, he also took the original e-mail and his response and sent it to a 3rd party for publication to the general electorate.
Obviously, Meekins' motivations for sending the e-mail are apparent - and there's nothing unethical in making certain that the facts are known regarding an incumbent. Central Committee members know their official duties and obligations (including not getting officially involved in primary challenges and supporting whomever emerges from those battles). Likewise, there's nothing to say that on their own, Central Committee members can't privately support (financially or otherwise) candidates of their choosing (provided it doesn't interfere with the discharge of theirduties).
But one wonders just what motivated Kurt Babe - to not only not correct Meekins, but to respond in precisely the manner that he did, and to then lay those e-mails out for public display. One would think that if he were really concerned, that he'd send the e-mail to his former colleagues on the Republican Central Committee, reminding them of their duties and obligations.
No, I think his motivations are clear, too.
Again, these are just my thoughts as me, Queen Anne's County resident and someone involved in GOP politics for all of my adult life.
- Andrew
Recent Comments