Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » What If Political Celebs Left Localized Primary Elections Alone?

What If Political Celebs Left Localized Primary Elections Alone?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

One way to judge how people within a state feel about a candidate is just who is donating money. Is it coming from within the state, district, county, or from outside interests? Who is complaining about an elected official – people who live locally and can actually vote for that person, or people who should have no say in what that official does because they are NOT constituents of said elected official? 

People like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, etc. should stay the H – E – DOUBLE TOOTHPICK out of localized and primary elections. I don't care what candidate they are endorsing, it is cheating. It is manipulating. It is a most egregious violation of the Prime Directive.

I think the GOP should have their own version of the Prime Directive. If "national" figures – i.e. political celebrities – interfere with localized primaries, they should face sanctions. They should be castigated. They should be shamed for what they have done. It is wrong for people to interfere and manipulate to promote an agenda that may not be the same as people who live within a sphere of influence.

It is almost immoral.

It is going to seriously cost the GOP, badly. The worst of it is the outsiders have a tendency to make vanity endorsements. They do not appear to be looking beyond the hype. It is almost an ego thing: I'll endorse you then you endorse me when I need your help. There's nothing wrong with this – for general elections, but not for local primaries.

It is egotistical manipulation.

It is arrogance, as though someone who has never really stepped foot in a state, district, or region has the gall to think that THEY know better than the people who live there on a day in and a day out basis.

The same holds true for people who have a tendency to donate to promote primary candidates, even if they do not live in a state. There is something cheesy, arrogant, manipulative, and it is almost like thumbing your nose at people who will actually be voting for a person. YOU know MORE than THEY do. Because you are superior and a pay more attention to YOUR issues, you should be allowed not only to vote in your own area and state, but should have a say in how people clear across the country are governed.

The great irony here is that libertarians and the far right are the ones who are the most abusive when it comes to out of area donations, letters to the editor, and campaign manipulation. They complain about "Big Government" liberals, and lament the loss of localized power, but are the very first to step in to manipulate a candidate or an issue for their own agenda. It makes a mockery of what they say they believe, proving otherwise.

When a localized candidate's donations are greater than their "nationalized" opponent, and they are receiving far more donations from within rather than outside of their region, state, or district, does that not say something? If this is the case, should people not step back and look at the actual will of the people – actually listen to WE THE PEOPLE, instead of serving a little tea to WE THE PEOPLE and telling them how to vote?

Maybe people who live with this person know something our friendly egotistical national political celeb doesn't know?

Let's be honest here, the worst violators of this are the Ron Paul Bots, libertarians, John Birchers, anti-immigration manipulators, and the Tea Party "Patriots." Theirs is such an arrogance, such a patronizing paternalistic "we know better" attitude. It is an attitude that says we really don't give a damn about you, only OUR agenda. You are unimportant. You are stupid and need to be told why you should not vote for a person who truly represents your state or district and should vote for some pontificating grand-standers who uses all the right words. They know the right people and donate to the right causes.

The Tea Party "patriots" are all about, allegedly, "we the people," returning government to the people. It is too bad they can't practice what they preach and stay the heck out of primary elections where they don't belong. Political celebs like Sarah Palin (whom I once supported) should realize that they are causing more problems than they are solving by stepping in where they do not belong.

Let's put it this way – it is not fair. It is almost like our political celebs are cheating in order to sell books and salve their egos. There is nothing wrong with endorsing a candidate in an general election or raising money for them. It is the primary manipulation that is just plain wrong.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • Doug Hunter

    The representatives in your district have just as much say over public policy, regulation, and taxation as the ones in mine. As long as representatives I have no opportunity to elect directly are given (way too much!!!) authority over me, I should have the right to try and influence their selection.

    If you don’t like what other people are doing with their celebrity or their $$$, then may I suggest building some of your own and doing with it as you please… otherwise it sounds alot like sour grapes.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    To the extent that the article applies to local issues, as distinguished from national issues, I tend to agree. Folks like President Obama and Governor Palin probably don’t know enough about the sewage treatment facilities in West Sweet Jesus, Texas to provide useful suggestions.

    To the extent that the article relates to candidates for national office, who if elected will be faced with a need to vote on numerous and mainly national issues, I disagree. In the latter context, I think that national figures have a legitimate place in the debate as to congressional and presidential candidates whose positions should reflect their own perceptions of national issues but whose actions will impact on us all. Many of them campaign for or against the policies of current and former Congresscritters and presidents and, if elected, will have to take into account more than parochial issues.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    What hurts the GOP most isn’t their big-name politicians meddling in local elections. It’s the far-right talk-show hosts who (since they can’t be voted out of office) force the GOP politicians ever further to the extreme right…especially since those talk-show hosts can’t be voted out of office.

    By today’s standards, both Reagan and Nixon would be considered socialists and wouldn’t stand a ghost of a chance in a statewide election. Eisenhower would’ve been called even worse. Those facts alone should give any non-extremist Republican pause.