Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Keynes Wins! | Dominic Holden on the Uproar Within… »

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

2012 Rob McKenna Won't Vote in the Upcoming Republican Caucuses

Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Because he just can't make up his mind between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna isn't ready to endorse any of his party's presidential hopefuls, even during next month's caucuses.

Yeah, McKenna will "visit a few different caucus locations on March 3 to encourage people who are participating," the same AP report says, but really: What kind of example does it set for one of the top elected officials in our state, and a man who wants to be governor, to simply decline to participate in the democratic process for electing our next president?

Also: McKenna previously said he would attend the Republican caucuses, which makes this pretty clearly a political decision. (McKenna The "Moderate" probably doesn't want to be associated with any of these guys at this point, which is understandable—but not an option for people who are actually doing their civic duty and caucusing.)

FacebookShare

Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

No confidence is a perfectly valid option Mr. McKenna. All of your candidates are batshitcrazy and it is perfectly understandable that you do not want to vote for any of them. However, you need to come out and say that.

Posted by bugwitch on February 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM

This is the huge problem the GOP is facing with the presidential primary circus. All of the candidates have toxic baggage that no down-ticket candidate wants to share. McKenna is trying to not pick the loser, but losers are the only choices.

Posted by Sir Vic on February 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Is caucusing really a civic (rather than party) duty?

Posted by Josh Bis

on February 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Not sure if the repub caucuses operate differently than the dmes, but undecided is an option for dems. In 1992 several precincts in the 43rd went for undecided and allowed the delegates to make up their minds later.

Posted by gnossos on February 15, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Well, to be fair, a caucus is decidedly not anonymous. If he doesn't want to endorse a candidate, for whatever reason, I don't see how he can possibly participate in a caucus.

Posted by Christy O on February 15, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I guess he won't be running for Governor as the "Decider."

Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on February 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I think it odd that Mr. McKenna would go to caucus meetings to encourage people to participate in the process, and then not participate in the process himself. It seems very do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do and inauthentic.

Posted by Charlie Mas on February 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

@4:

I believe it's called uncommitted rather than "undecided". But you're certainly correct that it's a viable, and oft-used, choice at Democratic caucuses. I have no clue whether that's permissible for Republicans.

I signed in as uncommitted for my precinct's caucus in 2008, and even made the micro-speech in support of the position. Apparently, I was convincing enough that we would have had an uncommitted delegate based on the first count. Maybe the fact that I'm the PCO contributed to the initial support. The Obama people then grabbed away enough of the uncommitteds that the delegate disappeared ... so I too switched to Obama. We ended up as an 8-2 Obama precinct.

Final note -- the WSRP calls its caucuses a "straw vote". By which (I think) they mean that there's just one round of voting. It's also possible that such a vote could be carried out as a secret ballot ... write your fave on a piece of paper and toss it in a box. If so, McKenna's weasely ploy looks even slimier.

Posted by N in Seattle

on February 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I am a Republican PCO and have run local caucuses for my precinct before. This year, I believe the lower levels will have less binding influence than ever before (in fact we had to be given reasons to be there...since they are time consuming).

As a PCO I would represent my precinct, ask citizens to attend, take in the votes and run the discussion. I am guaranteed a place at the next level which takes place at Green River college where generally I have been somewhat of a pain as I tend to argue for things like investing in hydrogen fuel cells...the passion for which does not seem to permeate the body politic therein.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe