Replies

As far as platform compliance: what's your beef about requiring candidates who take the Party's money, i.e., OUR money, to adhere to the Party's positions as articulated in the Platform?

For starters, it would be unethical for judicial candidates to set in stone their positions on issues which may become cases. They would either have to recuse themselves from any case they had a recorded bias on or face a serious ethical challenge. No matter, the platform compliance backers refused to grant even this concession. Next, we have done a spectacular job in my home county of electing Republicans to the local courthouse positions. Commissioners, Tax Assesor, Court at Law, we OWN Tom Green County. We did not get there by handing ammo to the Democrats. We have a less than friendly press, and the last thing I need is my candidate for Treasurer having to fend off questions about whether she truly supports returning to the gold standard or kicking the UN out of the US.

Speaking of eating up party money, if Johnson had his way on this every candidate down to and including precinct chair would have to trot through this 130 some odd question form. Who do you think is going to pay for collecting, collating retaining and disseminating this massive data base?

As I suggested to the last rules committee, if you want a candidate's position on a given issue, catch them in public and ASK THEM! If they are willing to lie to you there, why would you think they would not also lie on this damned fool form?

I'll tell you my beef. A representative represents a constituency, not a party. A candidate who wants to represent say a small district in the Piney woods, had best intend to represent the politics, idiosyncracies included of tht that constituency, not the party line.