Obviously I am aware of what goes on in this country politically, not to mention on a state and local level, but I have not been active in local party politics. I have gone to a number of political events and taken action to support specific candidates, but have stayed away from being active in my party for a number of reasons. Several years ago, I was asked to become party chair but declined due to other commitments. This year I was asked again to run for the party chair. This time I agreed.

After being involved in the 'process' for just a few weeks, I can tell you that it disgusts me and reinforces my belief that many of the people involved, while starting out with good intentions, become enamored with or more concerned about the power and lose sight of their vision. As with many of our elected representatives, they seem to forget that they represent all members of their constituency and not just those that agree with them.

When I agreed to run, I was asked to visit with the nominating committee, who had concerns about some of my opinions and asked very good questions. The committee was supposed to make a decision but there was apparently some disagreement upon the slate, which is to be expected. So the chairperson disbanded the committee to get rid of that dissenting opinion; I might add the dissenting opinion was held by the committee chair. Isn't that what we've all come to expect and why many of us hate politics? If there is only one dissenting opinion, have a vote and that person is overruled. But maybe it's also a way to tell other members to get in line. I'm just speculating as I don't know the opinions of every member but it's still odd at best, corrupt at worst.

It was interesting to me, that one of the questions I was asked was, if the party nominated a candidate that you did not support or agree with, how would you, as chairman, handle the situation? My answer was along the lines, that as chairman, I would put aside my personal concerns and do everything to support the party's candidate, since the membership had chosen that person. I believe that is what a chair is supposed to do, with few exceptions. It seems that as party chair, you would invite more participation and discussion, not quash it.

Then came the rules governing the county convention and election of officers. As with any group there are rules that govern the operation of the group and political parties are no different. But the rules allow for the creation and implementation of 'special rules' to govern or alter the process for election of various officers. While the permanent rules say that such special rules should be promulgated by the Central Committee, meeting at least 28 days prior to the convention, this is politics and there are 'interpretations'.

So basically, whoever is currently in charge can create special rules, altering the election process and giving them the best chance to retain power and control. AND the rules don't have to be finalized or handed out until the day of the convention. So if anyone does decide to run from the floor for a position, they don't know the final rules until the day of the election. Sounds very fair and even handed, doesn't it?

This happens with every political party, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, and so on. It's the way things are done. But that's why so many people have become disgusted with politics as usual. That's one of the reasons we are in this mess, the same people remain in charge because they can bend the rules to favor themselves and essentially ignore those who may want to change things or have a differing opinion. I would think that we should have well established rules, open and available for all to see and allow everyone to participate on an equal footing. Maybe I'm naive; politics is a dirty business but one can dream, can't one?