Frank Keating has joined Mary Fallin and two other former statewide officials in criticizing the Oklahoma Republican Party’s decision to choose sides in contested runoffs. Whether the disagreement changes anything inside the party likely will not be known until after November.
By Tim Allen, Managing Editor
Frank Keating needed little time Thursday morning to make his position clear.
During a brief telephone interview, I asked the former governor about the Oklahoma Republican Party’s decision to endorse candidates in three contested Republican runoffs.
“There is always evolution in party politics, but I think we should do as little as we can do to step out front and say a candidate is our candidate or not,” Keating said. “Let the public decide that. Let the Republican base decide that.”
A moment later, he was more direct.
“To have the party officially get into supporting or opposing candidates, I think that crosses the line. Let individual citizen Republicans decide for themselves.”
Keating has now joined former Gov. Mary Fallin, former state Treasurer Ken Miller and former state Auditor Gary Jones in objecting to the party’s decision.
That gives the opposition some notable names, including Oklahoma’s two living former Republican governors.
It does not tell us what happens next.
The argument before the runoff
The Oklahoma Republican Party State Committee endorsed Mike Mazzei for governor, Kevin West for labor commissioner and James Taylor for state superintendent on the Saturday before the Aug. 25 runoff. All three were listed as “OKGOP Certified.” None of their runoff opponents was.
Miller and Jones objected on Facebook that weekend. Fallin added hers in a comment on Miller’s post.
“A party does not endorse in an open primary or runoff,” Fallin wrote.
Miller called the intervention “outrageous” and called for the removal of state party Chair Charity Linch. Jones said the party had not endorsed primary candidates during his seven years as chairman and urged Republicans to “take back our party after the November elections.”
All three argued that the party should remain neutral and allow Republican voters to choose its nominees.
Linch and the State Committee defended the endorsements as an extension of the party’s candidate-certification effort.
In its Mazzei announcement, the party said certification should not be treated as “merely ceremonial,” but as “a meaningful indication” that a candidate supports its principles and standards.
Defending the endorsements afterward, Linch told Fox 25 that “the old status quo of being silent” was “not going to cut it anymore.” She argued that the party should tell voters which candidates it believes represent its values.
A 2-1 record settles nothing
The endorsements finished 2-1. Mazzei and West won; Taylor lost.
That does not tell us whether the endorsements moved votes or whether the party should have issued them. The question would be the same with a 3-0 or 0-3 record:
Should the official party organization identify its preferred candidates before Republican voters choose their nominees?
The argument waits
No organized effort within the party to remove Linch has been publicly announced since the runoff.
That is hardly surprising. Republicans now have a general election to contest, and reopening an internal fight would do little to help elect the party’s nominees.
Jones set his timetable in his Facebook post: after the November elections.
Keating did not address Miller’s call for Linch’s removal. I asked instead whether action should be taken to prevent the party from doing this again.
“Not at this juncture,” he said.
Keating said the issue should be debated and resolved within the party. “The more debate, the more discussion, the more listening is better,” he said.
After Nov. 3, Republicans may revisit the issue. They may not.
The State Committee intervened in contested runoffs. The unanswered question is whether it will do so again. Until November, the argument likely will remain quiet.
Quiet should not be confused with settled.
