Who is "the party" if not the group of citizensThe officers duly elected or appointed.Allowing the "people" to run the party would result in chaos,"the confusion of a multitude".
You don't do that by telling voters that they are not allowed to vote for the candidates they like.
They're not telling ANYONE that they can't vote for whomever they please.It's just that the party gets to pick it's standard bearer.Let McGinley run on another ticket.
We have the same problem in California,where the GOP threw it's weight behind Schwarzenegger,figuring he stood a better chance than McClintock.So now my money goes to individual candidates,I will not send money to a party.
Just let the GOP primary voters nominate their favorite candidate
The primary voters vote for candidates who have already been nominated,by the party.
"The primary voters vote for candidates who have already been nominated,by the party."
You have a profound misunderstanding of how the nomination process works in America. Individuals run in the primary of a particular party, and the voters who belong to such party select the nominee. The party chairman was NOT appointed in order to determine who the party's nominees will be, and having the chairman (or the committee or what have you) decide who may run in a primary can lead to all kinds of abuse.
BTW, the GOP chairman did not pick Arnold as the party's standardbearer to the exclusion of others. The CA recall election allowed anyone who could get 100 signatures or something to run regardless of party, and Arnold, McClintock and several other Republicans were all running (like you, I supported McClintock, and I think I'm going to send him some more money now that he's running for Lt. Gov.). In 2006, however, California will have a normal gubernatorial election, and each party will hold a primary to determine its one standardbearer. If a Republican chooses to challenge Arnold in the primary, he or she is free to do so, and the state's Republican voters will decide who gets the nomination. However, imagine if Condi Rice challenged Arnold for the gubernatorial nomination (I can dream, can't I?) and Parsky and the rest of the RINOs who run the CA GOP decided that she could not run in the primary because "she's not a real Republican" or "nobody should challenge Arnold" or some other cockamamie excuse. How would you feel about that? By what right could Parsky et al disrespect the millions of California Republicans?
If a political party selects its nominees in a primary, then the party should not prohibit certain candidates form running, period. The primary voters will decide for themselves whether that candidate is or is not loyal to the principles of the party.