With Respect…

Exactly what does Kirk Sullivan think he’s trying to pull? Marv Hagedorn has some outrageous news on Sullivan’s latest antics regarding the closed primaries lawsuit:

I received a letter Saturday from Mr. J. Kirk Sullivan, the Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, discussing his activities regarding the issue of Closed Primaries. I feel compelled to comment here because I have no idea of how widespread this letter went within the Party and wish to comment on some of the statements within that letter.

In Mr. Sullivan’s letter, he continues to state HIS personal position regarding closed primaries (a “dog that no longer hunts” after Party decisions are made) and seems to “forget” that, as the Chairman, he is to represent the wishes of the party and carry out the direction of the decisions of the Central Committee and he “forgot” that the Executive Committee does not make policy decisions, such as resolutions, for the Party, but are charged with carrying out those decisions and resolutions that are provided them.

He also seems to have “forgotten” that the decision to close the primary for Republican candidates happened at the Party meeting in mid-2006. He also seemed to “forget” that I and others ran a number of versions of legislative bills starting early during the 2007 legislative session to try to change the code to meet the Party’s Closed Primary requirements (the same bills he covertly worked against in both the House and Senate). He seemed to have “forgotten” that the legislature had a chance during that session to do the right thing and change our state laws to accommodate various party primary election requirements in this last 2007 session knowing if it did not happen in the 2007 session, a lawsuit would likely be filed…

If someone is charged with representing an organization of people, then regardless of that person’s personal agenda, it is that persons responsibility to carry out that task to the best of their ability. Once the “team” has decided in a direction, it’s incumbent upon the “team’s” selected leader to drive that direction until the task is completed or that direction is modified.

With that responsibility comes accountability and, in this case, I believe both seemed to have fallen short of being carried out.

If Mr. Sullivan so vehemently disagrees with the decision of the State Central Committee that he’s going to unlawfully try and undermine it, he should resign and let someone who can and will respect the will of the party come into power. As it is, Sullivan is declaring war with the grassroots leadership of the Party. This isn’t good for the Idaho GOP.

In a primary, Republicans enter with different opinions of candidates, but must come behind the winner.  Likewise, here Sullivan must admit that the debate has occurred, his points were heard, and a different decision was made. As someone who expects and must demand that the party put aside its disagreements after the primary, the best that Sullivan can say after next year’s primary is, “Do as I say, not as I do.” And that is not going to help unite our party in the Fall of 2008.