Well, the dust is beginning to settle after Tuesday night's endorsement of Matt Dorsey by the city GOP Committee to run for the City Court judgeship. As you'll read in my article in Thursday's paper, the endorsement process left a bitter taste in some party members' mouths. Some reports I got today even said that as many as 12 party members got up and walked out of the meeting in protest of what they saw as a flawed process, following the announcement that Dorsey had won the vote. Obviously those who left in protest were Doern supporters, but it still reminded me of a similar move by members of another major political party.

Last year, when city Dems met to endorse their candidate to run in the Mayoral and City Council races, Val Keehn's supporters got up and left their meeting before even casting a vote, in protest of the thought that the party would support another candidate over the incumbent. The upshot? Despite not having the party endorsement, Keehn defeated Gordon Boyd in a primary contest, only to loose to Scott Johnson in the general election. On election night, watching the returns come in with Tommy McTygue, Boyd said that he was just happy to see Keehn loose her election. Cutting off your nose to spite your face? Seems like it to me. Shouldn't politicians be more concerned with policy and getting like-minded peers into office than which of their cronies gets elected -- or which of their adversaries don't?

I suppose I've just outed myself as a bit of an idealist.

In any event, Jim Doern could very well decide to run in a primary against Dorsey, and with the party committee leadership theoretically exerting less control over the general voting population than it does over its own members, Doern would be able to make a strong case for being a better candidate than Dorsey. After all, he has been a judge for 9 years.

So I say: lets put accusations of arm-twisting aside and let the voters decide which of these two men is better qualified.