Delaware GOP Commiteeman Resigns Over Obama Support
With the race for the White House coming to the end of its second leg, everyone involved will undoubtedly want all hands on deck. So it came as little surprise to me when I read Delaware Republican Committeeman Jan C. Ting recently resigned from his position in the state Republican Party.
Ting, the state’s Republican nominee for Senate in 2006, and a long time party activist, including a 25-year stint on the state Republican committee.
Ting also was captured in a photograph at an Obama rally in Wilmington in February that drew record crowds to Rodney Square. At the time, Ting declined to comment about why he was there.
But apparently that appearance, and about $250 in donations to the Illinois senator, who is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was enough for the state party to brand Ting a traitor, according to the former Republican candidate.
Essentially, Ting was forced to resign under threat of expulsion from the party:
After the Obama photo appeared, Ting said he was invited to an April meeting at a coffee shop in Pennsylvania. State GOP regional chairman Bill Sahm and a district chairman informed Ting his Obama activities had been discussed at the highest levels of the state party.Ting said they told him, “unless you are willing to recant that and swear allegiance to the party nominee John McCain, we are compelled to request your resignation from the Republican Committee.”
Ting says his major gripes with McCain are his temperament and support for the Iraq war. Ting’s case could be somewhat comparable to that of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who faces a precarious situation whenever he extols the virtues of John McCain. Yet, unlike Lieberman, Ting is probably easily replaced with a more loyal member of the party. Lieberman is needed to keep the Democrats in control of the Senate, unless they gain a lot of seats this November.
For his part, Ting is calling his forced resignation a double standard, given the precedent set by party officials:
He noted that the man state Republican Party officials enthusiastically supported and expected to be the party’s nominee for governor this year — Alan Levin — had donated money to Democrats, including Ting’s 2006 opponent for the U.S. Senate, Democrat Tom Carper.
Ting said he did not hold the donation against Levin and hosted an event at his home for Levin in anticipation of his candidacy. Levin later decided not to run.
Probably the attitude is different this time because when it comes down to the wire on presidential elections, which are a national rather than statewide or state district thing, party officials want to make sure everyone is talking the same language.
Yet, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has gotten some heat for continually criticizing President Bush on his Iraq policy. He also comes up from time to time as a possible VP selection for Barack Obama, and has actually supported the idea. Yet, maybe it’s just because I’m just looking in the wrong places, but I haven’t seen quite as much criticism for Hagel as I’ve seen for, say, Joe Lieberman. Maybe it’s because he’s not actively campaigning with Obama like Lieberman is with McCain.
I must say, intra-party politics can be such a headache sometimes.
Actually they only need to gain one or two senators to replace Lieberman’s vote. If it’s a decent year for Democrats and Obama wins, Lieberman will be out faster than you can say "DINO". His active support of McCain (he actually said people should not complain but "enjoy" the Britney ad) has basically ensured his exit from the party.
This guy seems less important, he simply seems to be a personal follower of Obama instead of an "official" campaigner. He doesn’t appear to be using his position to campaign for the other party, which I think is an important difference. Still, it doesn’t look good and I can understand why people from his party would be miffed. Much more comparable like you said is Hagel, who may do the opposite switch than Lieberman in the event of an Obama presidency (or stay a nominal Republican but take a cabinet post in his administration). Though not quite as blatant as Lieberman, his support of Obama is fairly apparent, and I can imagine that Republicans are itching to throw him out as is. It’s one thing to tolerate differences of opinion within a party, which is good, and quite another to tolerate active work against the party from within.
There is a key difference between this guy and Lieberman, HE’S THE STATE REPUBLICAN CHAIR!!! I mean isn’t his job to support the efforts of the party. He wasn’t elected so, I assume his primary duty is not to the electorate but to the party that chose him.
What did this guy expect?