Renacci: Selected, not Endorsed

I don’t know Jim Renacci. I have met him only once. I don’t know his values, history, philosophies, or tactics. I know nothing about the man. But he is the frontrunner for the Republican nod for Ohio’s 16th Congressional District, and I think we ought to find out why. It doesn’t appear to be anything remarkable that he himself has done. Nothing personal Jim, but all indications are that your frontrunner status has less to do with you and more to do with the motivations of four county party chairmen, regardless of how pure those motivations happen to be.

And I have a problem with that.

So the questions aren’t about Jim Renacci. They are about the process used that resulted in Renacci transforming from “Republican hopeful” to “Republican frontrunner.” That’s what I’m interested in. Process is paramount.

• What was the process? All indications are that the four GOP party chairs in the four counties that represent the 16th District asked each prospect to undergo a vetting process. Now, a vetting process is normal and necessary. But were those candidates asked to participate in the process with the understanding that they would bow out if the four county chairs did not “select” them?
• What was the criteria used in the selection process? What made Renacci the last man standing? Was it Principles? Money? Friends? Promises?
• What’s the difference been “select” and “endorse?” As I understand it, party chairs are prohibited from endorsing candidates prior to the primary. But isn’t a selection an endorsement? Isn’t it a distinction without a difference?
• Why aren’t party chairs allowed to endorse anyone? What is the law trying to prevent? Is one of the goals to prevent signaling to donors who to send their money to?
• When was the selection made?
• Is there a cause and effect relationship between the announced selection and the timing, number and size of contributions to the person selected?
• Did the contributors who contributed after the selection process was complete deliberately wait for the selection? Were they asked to? Is that right? If so, does that mean that the “selection not endorsement” effectively skirted the law?
• Does a primary matter? Did the “selection not endorsement” short circuit the primary process?
• What other questions should be asked?

Why do I care? Because the appearance is thus: The Renacci Selection Process was meant to avoid a primary and, if one could not be avoided, render it meaningless by making the outcome a forgone conclusion. The party rank-and-file need not render an opinion; one has been rendered on their behalf.

Now, I know that there are valid arguments to be made about avoiding the primary process – something along the lines of it gives fodder to the democrat opponent. I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. It’s time we as conservatives and Republicans realized that being so caught up in how your opponent is going to portray you is a recipe for failure. The opponent is always going to do that, no matter how much you try to appease them (re:  McCain, 2008).

Now maybe I’m new here, but it seems to me that, especially in the current political climate, it is both unfair (to the other viable candidates and the party faithful) and unwise (considering the current weakness of the Republican brand), to not allow the primary process to take its course.

Rather than act as official party spokesmen for a “selected” candidate, the party chairs ought to instead make the integrity of the primary process their paramount responsibility.

Is it too late for that? Is it too much to ask for a political party, even at the most local level, to represent the unmanipulated will of its members?

We shall see. There are questions that need answers.