The Sullivan Legacy
Remember 2002?
Tim Pawlenty was facing off against Brian Sullivan in the run for the GOP nomination for Governor. Conservatives - and I'm one - thought that years in the legislature had sanded off any right-leaning edge that Pawlenty might have had, and turned him into yet another get-along-to-go-along pseudocon.
The run against Brian Sullivan changed all that; Pawlenty had to race to the right to get the nomination against Sullivan, a serious conservative with significant support in the base.
Was Sullivan electable as mayor? Who knows - but he served his purpose, forcing Pawlenty to at least talk like a conservative, and to go into office with some conservative arrows in the quiver.
Four years later, Pawlenty's record is mixed, but mixed favorably, I think; his "Health Impact Fee" legerdemain and cave-in on the stadium were bad, but on the other hand he managed to balance (or, depending on the court case, almost balance) the Ventura Deficit, which pundits in 2003 were saying would take the better part of the decade to resolve, while sticking to the bulk of his "no new taxes" pledge.
Not perfect, but better than the alternative; can you imagine if we'd elected Tim Penny, much less Roger Moe?
Still, there are issues; this cave-in to back-door taxes (to say nothing of the trampling of the spirit of the law) with the Twins Stadium issue is enough to give you pause, if you value limited, accountable government.
I was talking with Wog from Wog's Blog last night, and he floated the idea that some local bloggers aren't too thrilled with; Sue Jeffers, erstwile Libertarian party candidate for Governor, should go for the nomination.
Not because I think she can beat Pawlenty, much less win the general election. But if there's a groundswell on the small-l libertarian side of Pawlenty's base, it can only help. The small-l libertarian and fiscal conservative factions in the state GOP can't be ignored in favor of the social conservatives, the "pragmatists" and the stadium crowd; it'd be a bad assuming Pawlenty could go on to face a unified, exercised DFL in November.
So I'd love to see Jeffers make a run for it; even more, I'd love to see that factor force Pawlenty back to the right.
That could the greatest contribution Sue Jeffers and her supporters could make to Minnesota in this election.
Posted by Mitch at
April 28, 2006 04:51 PM
| TrackBack
Amen to this! Tell it to our friend AAA, who's playing smashmouth with Jeffers as we type.
Posted by: kb at April 28, 2006 05:25 PM"Was Sullivan electable as mayor? Who knows"
I'm a bit confused. Wasn't Sullivan running for Governor?
Posted by: Kermit at April 28, 2006 07:18 PMOn urging from several Republican delegates and activists, Jeffers is attempting exactly what is advocated here, but party higher-ups are doing their best to shut her out. Ron Carey doesn't want Pawlenty to face any competition, and doesn't want the delegates to have any options. Carey will make all the endorsement decisions, and the delegates will just have to rubber-stamp them for the sake of show.
Posted by: Dan at April 28, 2006 10:42 PMMitch,
Excellent post. I was a State convention delegate for the "14 vores" between Pawlenty and Sullivan (I voted Sullivan 14 times).
This state convention, I'll vote T-Paw 14 times if that's what it takes to get him in.
I do believe if Jeffers can move Pawlenty to being more conservative, (committing to conservative concepts in his campaign) like Sulliavn was able to do, it will be a good thing.
I just don't think Jeffers should get a "free ride" into the Repbulcian endorsing process at the State convention. I alos don't want her wasting any in-high-demand gresources - human or financial, in the campaign for the Repbulican nominee.
Also, I hope she doesn't casus apathy, anger, or a split in the vote that would make us ever see the terms Governor and Hatch next to each other in a sentence.
Guy
Posted by: guy collins at April 28, 2006 10:51 PMI've thought of the analogy between Jeffers and Sullivan too. One difference: Sullivan had won the support of social conservatives but Pawlenty also had a record that was acceptable to the MCCL types. (I think he had one vote that the anti-gay scons didn't like, between Sullivan and Pawlenty's record at least it was pretty much splitting hairs).
Since then, Pawlenty learned his lesson and has at one time or another angered all parts of the base *except* the scons. Asuming Jeffers picks up enough support to make anybody take notice, let alone 14 ballots, it will pit scons against fiscalistas and libertarian-republicans. Other than a liberal republican, she would be the scons worst nightmare.
If there is a bitter fight, I don't think that that fence would be mended so easily. To paraphrase our friend Hugh Hewitt, without the scon boots on the ground, the Republican Party is toast. We need to keep the coalition together.
That being said, I don't think strong arm tactics to keep Sue out of the edorsement will do any good for the party either. I am not sure at all what kind of advice she is getting on this. If I'm her, I don't do it unless I know I can be competitive. If she goes out there and gets 5 delegates to vote for her, it's going to look bad her and it's going to look bad for the libertarian-republicans. Better to bluff than to actually put your cards on the table if you don't have the hand to back you up.
Posted by: Margaret at April 30, 2006 01:19 AM. . . a unified, exercised DFL in November.
Exercised I can see, but a unified DFL? Hah. That's as likely as the Vikings and the T-wolves both hoisting championship trophies the same year.
Posted by: peter at April 30, 2006 09:52 AMNo need to worry about an embarassing vote. She'd certainly get more than 5 votes, even if the delegates list is never given to her. I can personally name at least 5 delegates who support her, and I don't know very many delegates.
Posted by: Dan at May 3, 2006 12:36 AM