Is the GOP a “big tent?”  Or is it a “pup tent?”

The real answer is below.

But for the biennial pundit palaver on the subject, who better to ask than Doug Grow, who spent decades carrying water for the DFL at the Strib before decamping to the MinnPost?

“The idea of a big tent means different things to different people,” Sutton told MinnPost. “I believe we are a big tent, filled with right-of-center folks. We have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, people who believe in a strong national defense. There’s a business wing, and we have those people who have a libertarian/populist streak. … But the unifier is the economy. People are anxious about the economy, about their jobs. That makes people more conservative. Business. Jobs. That’s our brand.”

Sutton, as should be expected, gets it right; the GOP should be open to everyone who believes in small government, prosperity for the individual, security and family.

And who better to ask about our tent size than someone who got kicked out of it for supporting bigger government and higher taxes?

But former Rep. Neil Peterson, who was drummed out of his party and office by conservative forces in Bloomington after joining five other House Republicans in overriding Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of a gasoline tax, has a different view. He says the delegates gathering for this convention are not even close to the party regulars who supported him.

“When I was in office, we still had a fairly big tent in my district,” Peterson said. “But those people [the party activists] have all been replaced by much more conservative people. The party has moved from being a big tent to a pup tent.”

And Grow, like much of the Twin Cities media, audibly pines for the days when the GOP was basically nothing more than the DFL with better suits – a half-hearted speed bump to complete DFL domination.

The real answer is “the tent is as big as it needs to be; all who support prosperity, limited government, security and the family are welcome.”

It’s really pretty simple.  If you’re not a reporter with decades of experience covering Minnesota politics, anyway.

There are two types of people in the world; the kind that relentlessly sort people into neat taxonomies, and those who don’t.

Likewise, pundits (amateur and pro) fall into two camps; the ones that focus on the jerseys running around on the field, and the ones that look up in the stands to see what the crowd is doing.

Dave Mindeman at MnpACT looks at Tom Emmer’s choice of Annette Meeks as running mate and counts jerseys.

Well, first of all it tells us a little about what DOESN’T concern Mr. Emmer.

1) No help for geographic balance. Meeks is not a legislator. She does not have any natural constituency. She provides no special geographic advantage.

File this under “counting the jerseys on the field”. 

Which isn’t to say that there’s not some value in the conventional wisdom that tickets in Minnesota need to balance the Metro and outstate. 

But there are two flaws to the conventional wisdom:

1. For purposes of getting votes from people who will actually vote Republican – party sympathizers and anyone who can be convinced to be a sympathizer before November – Emmer is balanced, in and of himself.  He’s from the third-ring suburbs, which to0 the conventional wisdom are neither here nor there, but to conservative thought are pretty much the state’s center of gravity.   And, perhaps more importantly…
2. …while regional provincialism is usually very important in Minnesota campaigning, Emmer is banking, for this election, on there being a bigger dynamic at work; revulsion with excessive spending and ruinous taxation.  It’s not a real long shot.

Mindeman continues (and I”ll add emphasis):

2) No offset for ideologic balance. Meeks is a consummate party insider. She will have little name recognition outside of the political junkie subset. And she specializes in conservative public policy. Emmer seems to be telling us that Minnesota wants a right of center governing policy. Independents and Democrats don’t matter.

Again with the jersey-counting.  Look up in the stands.

Conventional wisdom among the jersey counters is that to attract someone who doesn’t agree with you right out of the gate, you need to give them something – a running mate, in this case – who does, as a sort of shiny object to distract them.   In other words, the conventional wisdom is that the GOP needs to “move to the center” to attract voters.

Emmer is taking a different tack; he’s going to spend the next six months giving voters in the “middle” a reason to move “right”.  Except it’s not a matter of left and right; it’s a matter of irresponsible versus prudent; sanity versus madness.  The future of this state and its prosperity is not  a partisan issue!

And Democrats and Independents “matter” not as passive populations to be appeased with potemkin place-holders, but in the way that actually complements their intelligence and dignity as humans; as people to be convinced.

And while it’s arguably risky, Emmer’s got two things going for him:

1. People across the board are very open to the message of fiscal prudence.  Even Democrats are getting scared of Obama’s, and Kelliher’s, lust for taxing and spending.
2. Tom Emmer does a great job of presenting his case to the unconvinced.  I’ve heard him on, of all things, Marty Owings’ “Radio Free Nation”, a left-leaning internet talk show, absolutely kill at explaining why fiscal conservatism works to a hostile but polite audience.   (And while I”ve never heard Marty Seifert face that kind of crowd, I’m told he excels as well).

Convincing the middle to move “right” is what put Ronald Reagan in office.  Emmer, being the single strongest stump speaker in Minnesota politics today, is easily equipped to do the same.

Secondly, the Meeks choice tells us some things that do matter to Emmer…..

1) Special Interests have a say.

Ah.  But those stalwart independents Kelliher, Dayton and Entenza will show us the way on that count, right?

Some of the speculation centered around an early preference for Linda Runbeck, but MCCL intervened….

MCCL staffers did express concern to Emmer’s people about Runbeck, said executive director Scott Fischbach. In 1994, Runbeck was among several Republican lawmakers who changed their votes and tabled legislation that would have required women to wait 24 hours before having an abortion.

Obviously, Emmer fears pressure from MCCL.

Well, the MCCL is certainly a powerful group.  But there are a few other points against the “speculated” (by whom?  when?  in what context?  Mindeman apparently doesn’t feel that’s important enough to tell us) rumored Runbeck candidacy is that she’s been out of public life for a long time, and her last appearance was a tough loss to Betty McCollum. 

That just might have played a role.

He talks the talk about standing up to lobbyists, yet walks the line for the first interest group that weighs in on his first decision making process. How strong are those individual principles?

For my part, I’ll await word the MCCL was “the first” group, or that Mindeman’s unsourced quote had anything to do with the decision.

But I won’t hold my breath.  While Emmer is pro-life, he’s no puppet of the single-issue social conservatives.  One of my most memorable interviews in the history of the NARN was at the State Fair last summer.  Ed and I were talking with Emmer.  Someone in the audience asked him what he thought about gay marriage.

“I don’t care”. 

It is, realistically, not an issue the Governor of Minnesota will ever deal with; it’s of no import.   But wouldn’t a puppet of the socialcons, speaking to the Patriot audience (the very embodiment of the conservative base) have toed the line?

Take Mindeman’s claim with a big block of salt.

2) Feels the Need for Stronger Public Policy Credentials. Emmer seems to be responding here to some criticism of his depth of knowledge in public policy.

Meeks likely will help blunt criticism that Emmer has weak knowledge of public policy and the issues facing the state.

His answer to that criticism is to embrace an academic. Meeks has no actual legislative credentials. She fosters and works inside think tanks. She is a member of the Met Council, but Emmer has openly talked about abolishing that entity. And Meeks herself, has published a paper which made the case for abolishing the office of Lt. Governor.

Right.  She’s no toady.  She’s got a mind of her own (unlike, for example, the DFL’s nominee).

Articulating public policy is far different from implementing it. Meeks can explain the logic of what she thinks should be done, but to put it into practice with real people and real budgets, well, that is quite a different story.

True.

If only there were someone on the ticket with years of experience in the Legislature. 

Emmer has indirectly told us a lot about his decision making process by this first real personnell decision. If Emmer wins the endorsement, and it seems likely at this point, then he will have locked the party into a conservative right ideology. Making a broader, more centrist case to the general public will be difficult.

Which may be a gamble.

And then again, this year, with the Tea Party at his back and the DFL noodling around with four more months of deciding between Same Old and Same Old, it might not be.

And it would seem that Emmer would be comfortable with that. The Emmer/Meeks ticket seems to be designed for another 45 to 47% maximum electoral vote strategy. With Tom Horner as the likely IP candidate, that isn’t going to work.

Only if everything breaks down by conventional wisdom – by counting jerseys.  Which is Mindeman’s game, and that’s just fine.  But…

Emmer has kept himself within the GOP/Tea Party bubble. He doesn’t look like a candidate who will reach out and broaden his base of support. He believes his current base is enough.

…the idea, this year, is to bring that huge, discontented middle over to the good guys.

It was a gamble 30 years ago when Ronald Reagan did exactly the same thing.

Is the time right?

Whether Emmer or Seifert wins the nomination, I’m pretty happy with the prospects.

I’ll be live-blogging the State GOP Convention this weekend – provided, of course, that the wifi situation pans out at the Convention Center.

My current plan is to attend, and live-blog, the State Auditor endorsement on Thursday, as well as the race for the Governor nod on Friday.  I may also pop in to some of the other stops at the party. 

This won’t be my first state convention, per se; I did manage to attend an afternoon session at the ’04 convention; the NARN broadcast, of course, from the ’06 event.  We won’t be broadcasting this year, unfortunately – but that means I actually get to pay attention to what’s going on on the floor. 

So it’ll be great!

Stay tuned!

Tom Emmer has picked Annette Meeks as his running mate:

Meeks is a member of the Metropolitan Council — a public body Emmer has singled out for criticism in the past. She founded and heads the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, a, non-profit organization that “develops and actively advocates the principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, economic freedom, and limited government.”

She volunteered to help promote the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul and was deputy chief of staff for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Meeks was a key part of Newt Gingrich’s staff in 1994.  She’s got more experience at changing and improving government in her fingernails than the entire DFL ticket all rolled together.

Meeks is a spectacular choice.  And I don’t just say that because she’s an admitted reader of this blog.

Congrats, Annette!  See you at the convention!

The Republican Party stands on the brink of an epic comeback.  Dropping to near-third-party status in 2006 and 2008 in Washington and in state houses around the country, things looked very, very bleak for the GOP.

But the Obama administration’s overreach, and the Democrat-dominated Congress’ ham-fisted pettifoggery in enabling the overreach, and the spontaneous uprising of millions of people, including many “swing” independents with a bad case of political “coyote uglies” for the Democrats, are what’s causing the Dems’ problem.  The National GOP is not.

Now, a lot of people – including, until the last year or so, me – misunderstand what the national Party is supposed to be for.  It is in charge of fund-raising, logistics, and support for national GOP candideates.  It is not the ideological clearinghouse for the GOP as a whole; that’s the candidates’ job. 

So as messed-up as the National GOP seems to be, what with staffers going to lesbian strip joints and Michael Steele showing his malaprop collection (granted, with the connivance of a media that likes its’ black people to be quiet and stay on Democratic political plantation), that’s not the problem.  Or at least not much of it.

The Democrats are bleeding right now because the American people want something other than an eternity of debt and a future of servitude to the government.

And except for some uppity conservatives – Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn and a small legion of others – the party’s response seems to be “we’ll get to fixing things when we get around to it”. 

Look, I get it; politics is about compromise, and right now the GOP, being a superminority party in Congress, is having to fight like hell to even get bad compromises.  That’s life, when you lose elections.

But when it comes to life after January, 2011?  Now is not the time to compromise.  Now is the time for a bold, strong, clear vision that shows all those disaffected, disgusted people who are dumping the Administration and rejecting Pelosi and Reid that there is an alternative, not just ofay, incrementalist reaction.  

More importantly, the party needs to not merely atone for its role in getting us here – the corruption and democrat-style spending from 2000-2008 that helped put the Dems in office in the first place; it needs to reverse that course in a way that nobody can mistake.

The National GOP and all of its candidates need a message that says “we are for stoppping the growth, rolling back the regulation, reinstating economic liberty, cutting taxes, re-limiting government, and undoing the damage of the past ten years”. 

I’m getting that from Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan.  We get it from Chris Christie.  When we need it, Tim Pawlenty shows it. 

We need a party of Chris Cristies, Paul Ryans and Sarah Palins; we need to show the American people that we are on a mission.

And for the most part, we are not.

There are millions of voters waiting to be convinced.  I ran into hundreds of them at the Tea Party last week; they want to be convinced.

So convince them.

State Rep. Randy Demmer won the 1st District endorsement on Saturday, beating out Alan Quist and two more conservative candidates.

Demmer, a four-term state representative and business owner from Hayfield, a town southwest of Rochester, vowed to paint Walz as too liberal for his southern Minnesota district.

“We know Tim Walz is working with Nancy Pelosi,” Demmer said. “He’s right there doing everything she beckons him to do.”

For all his talk in 2006 of being independent and representing his district – which ranges from rock-ribbed conservative farmers, doctors and businesspeople in the south and the Rochester area to mewling liberals in and around Mankato – Walz has been nothing but a lapdog for Nancy Pelosi (although rumors that he actually ran and fetched a stick thrown by Madame Speaker are apparently false).

Demmer beat back a challenge from longtime conservative activist Allen Quist and two other contenders, who couched their bids in even more heated rhetoric.

…

Demmer, 53, took eight ballots over about five hours at the convention held at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

And that’s a good sign; while I prefer the more conservative candidates in general, Demmer is no Arne Carlson; his Taxpayers League rating is 64, which could be better, but it beats Walz sitting down.  And while abortion is not my litmus test issue, it does my heart proud to see that NARAL has give him a long string of zeros.  Put it this way – if he wins, it’ll be like Gil Gutknecht never left.  Perfect is the enemy of plenty good enough.

Downside?  Walz is sitting on $600,000; Demmer has about $10K in the bank.  He’s got a lot of ground to make up; even with a conservative tailwind, it’s going to be a busy year.

Any of my readers in the First – please sound off!

Last week, we discussed what to do about the Minnesota GOP Platform.

It wasn’t just idle talk.  Last weekend at the 3rd CD GOP convention, Derek “Chief” Brigham of Freedom Dogs and True North brought the draft result of the work of a small group of us who wanted to see the platform change to a vote:

Rick Weible who is a Co-Chair at CD3 and I were talking at the SD45 convention and I learned that he also wanted to see this happen, and that the idea was popular with others in leadership. I told him I knew a few guys that would be good to bring in to help draft this thing and so it began. Mitch Berg (CD4), John LaPlante (CD2), Jan Schneider (CD3), Rick and I started a drafting a file that after many, many revisions eventually became the document you see below. Today at the CD3 convention, it passed by a nearly unanimous vote (I only heard one nay from the floor).

It’s very similar to the one I posted here last week:

Proposal from Third Congressional District Republicans of Minnesota

Guiding Principles and Values

Individuals, businesses and the country succeed and prosper when government stays out of the way of those who lead the way with integrity, responsibility, charity, hard work, humility, courage, gratitude and hope.

Government has a role in our society – but that role is carefully enumerated in the United States Constitution. The Republican Party of Minnesota believes that a good government does not eclipse roles that are best carried out by individuals, families, houses of faith, charitable organizations or businesses.

1) America is a great nation; we are the “Shining City,” an exemplar of virtues for all other nations and their people. The greatness of the American nation, the virtues of its people, and the success of the American experiment are a beacon of hope for the entire world.

2) Liberty is essential for our society to advance and prosper. The freedom to explore advances in culture, business, faith, science and government improves all of our lives; on the other hand, excessive government regulation and control hinders that development. The ability and freedom to disagree with each other and our government must also be protected; any hindrances to the free market of ideas will sap the ability of America to advance and to better herself.

3) We believe in the ability of the individual, by themselves or through families, businesses, groups and non-profit organizations, rather than the government to solve the problems of today and lead us into the future.

4) Faith is where we derive our moral compass and come to understand the eternal rules of order and rights which God himself has ordained. We believe each person needs to be free in order to explore his/her Faith.

5) Human Life is sacred; it must be protected at all stages.

6) The Family is among our society’s most important institutions. Government must not be allowed to infringe on the sanctity of the family.

7) The Pursuit of Happiness is essential to our existence; we support equal opportunities not equal results.

8 ) Charity comes best from the heart of individuals and cannot be forced or coerced via taxation and regulation.

9) The law must be applied to everyone equally; no one is above the law.

10) Law abiding citizens must be trusted to defend their life, family and property.

Drafted and submitted April 2010, by Rick Weible (CD3), Derek Brigham (CD3), Mitch Berg (CD4), John LaPlante (CD2), Jan Schneider (CD3)

So what’s the fuss about?  Mostly, it’s about giving the people of the party a succinct, clear statement of principles and values.

That’s good in itself, especially should the state party go through some sort of resolutions fight at the state convention and the platform ends up as even more of a beast. Don’t tell me it’s not possible.

As anyone that’s ever been to a MNGOP convention at any level knows, it’s the resolutions fights that drag on and on, as activists – who may or may not be especially experienced at how conventions, parties and platforms work, debate the finer points of resolutions whose sole intent…

…is to go into an already-overlong platform, to make it over-longer.

Now let’s consider a possible future for this document. CD3’s resolutions committee, can now take a vote tested and nearly unanimously approved document to the state resolution meeting to present it as a state party document to consider. They may make changes, or it may get totally shot down by the other CDs, or it may just make it through to the floor of the state convention for a vote as an approved party document.

I hope it comes to State.  It’d be a good statement to the delegates and the voters.  The GOP’s biggest problem in the past four years, besides dynasty fatigue, was the perception that they’d become a big part of the problem.

As the party goes through the ordeal of cleaning up its act, what could be better than cleaning up its defnining statement?

I’m out at Jimmy’s Convention Center in Vadnais Heights at the 4th CD Republican endorsing convention.

I’m kinda impressed that I found Vadnais Heights.  So the morning’s off to a good start.

Well, it was; Bev Aplikowski tells us that we have a long list of speakers.   That’s just fantastic.  I have to duck out of here at 11:45 to go do the show.

8:47 – Phil Herwig is kicking things off.  Phil Herwig is the gubernatorial candidate that makes Tom Emmer go “Yow – he’s far-right”.  Wondering if Leslie Davis is planning on showing up…

9:09 – Credentials report.  Speaking of credentials, I managed to check the MN Criminal History database, per Phil Herwig’s request.  No records for Emmer or Seifert.  What was he talking about?

Herwig’s big “bombshell” – “go on your computer and google your candidates and see that I haven’t knocked over a 7/11”.  Is he saying something we don’t know about Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert that Google (at a quick glance) doesn’t seem to know about?  (Funny – there are three of us in the 66B row of seats madly googling away trying to figure out what the flaming hootie-hoo

8:51 – Bill Haas is next.  He’s a former legislator from Bemidji.  Super-likeable guy, great business chops.  May get to the first ballot…

8:54 – Randy Gilbert, State Auditor candidate, up next.  I’ve interviewed him on the air.  He’s a sharp guy; I think that if Pat Anderson weren’t in the race, he’d have a great shot.  But I’m also thinking Pat is a 900 pound gorilla, figuratively speaking…

Is that Teh Andee Appelkowskie I see?   Why yes, it is!

Straight up 9 – Jeff Wiita, another Auditor candidate.  He makes a bit of hay with the fact that he’s a CPA.  His speech shows it; he talks like an accountant.  That’s not a bad thing, but it’s very much in contrast with Gilbert and Anderson.  On the other hand, he brought his daughter, who has the cutest delivery you’ve ever seen.

9:04 – And Pat Anderson rounds out the group.  She’s got the room pretty well organized, I think.  Good speech; I’ve heard it before, of course, but it’s a good one.

Talking with my BPOU chair Tom Lageson.  It’s the first time either of us can remember having all our primary delegates show up for a CD convention; we have all seven, plus probalby eight alternates.

9:12 – Marty Seifert and his wife are onstage now.  He’s hitting the right notes; “I’m the chief zookeeper; I’m looking for elephants, not RINOs”.    “We need to stop the influx of thousands and thousands of people who come here to take advantage of the welfare system”.    Bangs hard on the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, calling for spending cuts, shouts out for the military, and their defense of liberty.  “The second line of defense is you in this room”.  The small-l libertarian message is alive and well; the moderate Republican seems to be dead.   Good friggin’ riddance.

9:18 – Tammy Pust, candidate for Ramco Attorney, is asking to speak.  It’s a “non-partisan” race, but he’s believed to be a DFLer.    There’s about five minutes of speakers (myself included) on both sides of allowing her to speak.  She eventually won a vote to allow her a couple of minutes.  She notes that she’s the only DFL RCA candidate who’s not running for the DFL endorsement.  She’s speaking now; she’s stating a decent nonpartisan case, more or less; she notes that on the Roseville City Council, she was one of two that didnt’ vote for a tax increase.  I’ll give her points for cojones, walking into the lion’s den when it’s in high conservative dudgeon.

9:30 – David Schultz, another Ramco Attorney candidate addresses us.  Notes he’s a “very politically moderate Democrat”.   Notes he’s never run for office, and that Ramco Attorney isn’t a stepping stone for him.  Notes that he’s never been a party activist, and he hasn’t a chance of getting the DFL endorsement – but is asking for votes in primary and general anyway; notes he has “real legal experience”.

Some of the delegates are audibly upset we’re allowing non-GOPers to address the convention; they make a good point.  It’s an endorsing convention, not a campaign stop.   I hope CD4 revisits this at some point.

9:36 – Greg Wuersel, judge candidate, is on now.  He’s been out front on the issue of political judicial endorsements.  He’s a very entertaining speaker, with some great points about reforming the judiciary.  He’s speaking against the proposed amendment to bar endorsements; “tell them not just no, but hell no!”  Drew quite a round of applause.

9:41 – Tom Conlon, former St. Paul School Board member, now running for State Auditor again . Another great candidate; for many years he was the only elected Republican in the city of Saint Paul.    Really sharp guy, and he’s got great experience at winning quixotic quests; he’s running down his bona fides as a small-government warrior; the guy earned his stripes on the SPPS board.  In a race without Pat Anderson, he’d be a very strong candidate.  The GOP needs him to be in the game, somehow, somewhere.  Notes that Rebecca Otto, the DFL incumbent, is basically a wind-up chattering toy for the DFL; not a bad line to take in this room.  Also true.

9:46 – Bob Carvey – a “moderate progressive Republican” – addresses the group.  He’s running for governor.  Looks like a quaker minister.  I’m going to get some coffee.   So, it seems, is everyone else.  He’s bagging on unallotment.  Let’s just say this room won’t be carrying him to the governor’s mansion on their shoulders.  Says he’ll be running in the primary against whomever gets nominated.  His big platform item – bicycle skyways.   I repeat; enclosed, elevated bicycle (and Segway) skyways.

Oy.

9:52 – Tom Emmer is on stage now.  Seats are full again.  “It’s a good sign that Democrats are coming to GOP conventions to ask for votes!”  That draws a nice round of applause.  Introduces wife Jackie, “my best friend in this world”.  In two weeks, notes, we will be endorsing a candidate; notes we must all get behind that endorsee.  Huge round of applause.  Notes our party must be about perception of integrity.  Standing O.

9:57 – Andy Cilek of MN Voters Alliance gives update on Voter ID.   Tom Emmer still working the room – it’ll take him half an hour to get out of the place.

10:02 – Twila Brase from the Citizens Council on Healthcare speaking for the petition on infant DNA privacy.

10:06 – Bev Aplikowski notes that her novena got answered – her call for CD4 candidates was answered with seven candidates to run against Betty “Rubble” McCollum.  Field is down to probably three right now, and we’ll be deciding the endorsement today – but it’s a huge change in the Fourth.

10:12 – credentials report; it looks like almost all the primary delegates have shown up.  This is kinda big news, actually.

10:14 – Janet Beihoffer is looking for election judges.

10:20 – Dan Severson, SecState candidate, former Navy fighter pilot, and sitting House Minority Whip, is on now.   “If you don’t think SecState is important, i gotta name for you; Al Franken.  We elected a comedian; the joke is on MN!  MN didn’t elect Al Franken; Mark Ritchie did”.    Aggressive.  Good play in this room.   He presents a searing indictment of Mark Ritchie’s regime at  State.  He will be supporting voter ID.  Look for scabrous claims of “racisim” from the DFL long before any issues raised.

10:26 – Chair moves to push the gubernatorial straw poll up ahead of the Constitution Committee report.  Resounding approval.

10:29 – Michael Brodkorb, deputy chair, addresses the convention.   Notes that on May 1, all GOP candidates will leave unity breakfast as friends, all on same team.  This is a huge thing.

10:40 – My computer just in time for Leslie Davis’ speech.  I’m not kidding.

11:00 – We’ve spent the last 22 hours discussing some arcane point of CD4 central committee procedure as part of the Constitution Committee report.

11:04 – I’m told it’s only been 22 minutes.

11:09 – Finally calling the question for the Constitution Committee.  Maybe.  It was a report that was supposed to take three minutes.  Blah.

11;20 – Straw poll happening now.  Informal verbal poll of my tiny district (66B) – Emmer 5, Seifert 2.    Waiting for lunch.   I guess I’m not gonna get to vote for CD4 Rep endorsement.  Bummer.

11:28 – Tony Sutton, State GOP Chair, is onstage now.  “All districts are winnable…but it’s going to take work.  Can’t just watch Fox News and listen to Rush”.

11:35 – I had to take off to do the show.  Hopefully I’ll have results to pass along…

One of the most useless exercises at any business is the process of “writing a mission statement”.  If you have a business that has a chance at success, the mission is pretty self-evident.  “The Mission of Muffy and Ian’s Kites ‘n Koffee is to provide better coffee and kite supplies to the consumers of West Buyaloopup, Oregon”.   

Most management know better than to ask me for a mission statement anymore – because for the past fifteen years, I’ve told ’em all the same thing; there’ve been two mission statements in all of history that serve as templates for all others:  Baron Manfred Von Richthofen (“My mission is to patrol my sector and shoot down anything I see.  All else is bullsh*t”) and Conan the Barbarian (“The greatest joy mission is to drive my enemies before me and hear the lamentation of his women”).

The simple fact is, for most businesses the mission is bone simple, to the point of self-explanatory.  It’s true for most entities, whether people (“My mission is to be the best person, father and citizen I can be”), families (“The mission of the Berg family to make sure Bun and Zam grow up to be good people and citizens”), blogs (“the mission of Shot In The Dark is to drive liberals before it and hear the lamentation of whatever liberals’ distaff community is determined to be; all else is bullsh*t”), organizations (“The mission of the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers is to provide a social outlet for bloggers and blog readers”), or whatever.

With political parties, it’s just as simple; the mission of a political party is to embody the principles that reflect their members’ vision of what government is supposed to be.    All the thousands and millions of ’em.

The Minnesota DFL platform actually does a fine job of conveying that vision.  It states a long list of principles – most of them launching from the notion of “society” doing something, or government fully-funding this or that.  The DFL platform presents a grandiloquently statist vision – a high-level “to-do” list for big government – in elegantly-crafted wrapping paper.

The Minnesota GOP platform [danger – PDF file], on the other hand, is a dog’s breakfast of talking points.   It’s circulated in tabloid form at precinct caucuses; I’ve seen people try to make heads or tails of it, watched their eyes glaze over, and put it down, eyes rolling.   The document is literally written by committee – not just any committee, but one of the biggest committees in all of Minnesota.  At every year’s precinct caucuses, thousands of resolutions get forwarded for consideration to BPOU, Congressional District and finally State scrutiny; few actually get into the platform…

…but “few” of thousands still makes for a huge platform.  There are nine sections to the platform, each with 15-20 planks.  It comes to nearly 20 pages.

And it includes an amazing assortment of things – from lofty ideals (“…policies that reflect that every innocent human being, born and unborn, has an inalienable right to life from conception to natural death”) to practical principles (“Improving the quality of education by maximizing parental choice through expanded support for charter schools, school choice programs, parental rights to home school their children and more competitive and accountable public school systems”) to bald-faced sops to special interests (“Making the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program available annually in every Minnesota
elementary and middle school “) to low-level exercises in social micromanagement (“…pornographyblocking software should be installed on all computers having internet access in publicly financed institutions “) to things that principled conservatives should find abhorrent, if they thought about it (” The Minnesota legislature should pass legislation increasing the legal age for gambling in Minnesota to 21 years of age”) to stuff that just doesn’t make sense (“Opposing efforts to put all land and water under the control of the federal government” – I don’t think even Obama has suggested trying this yet). 

It’s time to put the platform on a diet – and make it focus on the things that a political party should focus on; the principles that should guide the party’s members, and especially the party’s candidates and elected officials.

A small group of conservative GOP activists – who shall remain nameless for the moment – have written a rough draft of a statement of princples; they intend, at some point or another, to introduce it as at least the beginnings of a discussion to replace the current War And Peace-sized platform with something a bit more accessible and to-the-point.

Here it is:

Individuals, businesses and the country succeed and prosper when government stays out of the way of the people – those who act on their own initiative, and who lead the way with integrity, responsibility, charity, hard work, humility, courage, gratitude and hope. 

Goverment has a role in our society – but that role is carefully enumerated in the United States Constitution.  The Republican Party of Minnesota believes that a good government does not eclipse roles that are best carried out by families, houses of faith, charitable organizations or businesses.

We, the members, candidates and elected officials of the Republican Party of Minnesota, support the following principles:

1) America is a great nation; we have been a “Shining City”, an exemplar of virtues for all other nations and their people.  The greatness of the American nation, the virtues of its people, and the success of the American experiment are a beacon of hope for the whole world.

2) Liberty is essential for our society to advance and prosper.  The freedom to explore advances in culture, business, faith, science, and government politics improves all of our lives; on the other hand, excessive government regulation and control hinder that development. The ability and freedom to disagree with each other and our government must also be
protected; any hindrance to the free market of ideas will sap the ability of America to advance and to better herself.

3) We have more hope and trust in the individual than the government to solve society’s problems, and to lead us into the future.  We value and protect the freedoms and the rights of the individual in preference to those of government.

4) Faith is where we derive our moral compass and come to understand the eternal rules of order and rights in which our creator has ordained. We believe each person needs to be free in order to explore their faith.

5) Life is sacred; it must be protected and defended from government control.

6) The Family is among our society’s most important institutions.  Government must not be allowed to infringe on the sanctity of the family.

7) The Pursuit of Happiness is essential to our existence, we support equal opportunities,  not equal results.

8 ) Charity comes best from the heart of individuals, and cannot be forced or coerced via taxation and regulation.

9) All citizens are equal before the law.

10) The law abiding citizen must be trusted to defend their life, family and property.

These are the principles we, the people of this nation and the members of this party, believe lead to a just society, a secure nation, and a better future for our children.

The committee struck out someone’s suggestion for a final line; “…, and to hear the lamentation of their women, and all else is bullsh*t”, but otherwise I like it.

Comments?  Feedback?  Leave a note in the comment section (and be advised that while all commentary is welcome, this is MN GOP business, and thus limited to the grownups; criticism is fine, but addlepated anti-Republican buncombe will be mutilated for the sole amusement of the blog owner.  While my comment section is generally the most open forum anywhere in the American media, this thread will be controlled.  Deal with it).

Speaking of  Quinnipiac polls…

The health care deform bill has already lit up the tea partiers…which could be good…or could be bad for the GOP.

It depends.

…on how (truly) conservative the GOP wants to be next time around.

Americans say they’ll vote for a Republican over a Democrat in the November elections by a 44 to 39 percent margin.

But the addition of a Tea Party candidate to the ballot changes the dynamic: The Republican candidate drops dramatically to 25 percent and the Democrat only slightly to 36 percent, while 15 percent would back the Tea Party candidate.

It strains the imagination to think that there are still 36-39 percent left that would still vote for a Democrat yet at the same time this data shows it’s the GOP’s race to lose and a right leaning candidate won’t fly (again).

In light of this data, loyal readers, who do you think is our (Wo)Man?

To get involved with the MN Tea Party, click here, or here.

The big news among conservative bloggers in Minnesota this past week is that one of our own, my NARN colleague and longtime friend King Banaian, is running for the Minnesota House in District 15B. 

Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring compares Haws’ record with Banaian’s game:

A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of working with King, Rep. Laura Brod and Rep. Matt Dean on what essentially is a vision statement for Minnesota. The central theme to that document was essentially to get government out of the way so that Minnesota’s entrepreneurs would unleash their creativity in creating a more prosperous Minnesota.

That meant lowering taxes, shrinking the regulatory burden Minnesota puts on small businesses and keeping unfunded mandates to a minimum.

I’ve known King long enough to know that he’s a man of gravitas and a great public policymaker. When I look at Rep. Haws’s record, what I see is a man who is a reactionary and a man who votes too often for status quo policies.

Central Minnesota needs a visionary leader. The only man fitting that description is King Banaian. That’s why we must elect King this November to represent the residents of HD-15B in the Minnesota legislature.

This is, obviously, a major initiative among conservative bloggers.  Knocking off an incumbent gravy-monger, even in a year that should have a big conservative tailwind, is never easy.  We have to all pitch in and help out any way we can.

In the interest of helping, I’m going to present King with ten bits of campaign advice that should, with any luck, smooth his path to Saint Paul:

10. Find a winning message, repeat it relentlessly to every voter in Saint Cloud.  That’s the easy part.  Heck, every blogger’s got a winning message for their candidate, right?

9. Easy on the Radiohead.  Seriously.

8. Find a snappier way to explain “The Austrian School” to the layperson.  Perhaps given you’re in Saint Cloud, “The Oktoberfest School” would be a good start.

7. Get a couple of barrels of that Armenian brandy, and apply, er, liberally throughout the district.  Seriously.  Yummy.  That was some good breakfast brandy.

6. Carry the NARN tradition of the Speed Round to candidate debates.  Hilarity will ensue. Hilarity means votes.  Maybe.

5. Don’t even think about using Joy Division to intro your stump speeches.  Dude.

4. Go for the gutter.  Counterintuitive?  Work with me, here.  You know how one classic bit of Radio 101 advice is “smile as you talk – it helps your voice?”  Same deal here.  Most politicians are frighteningly uninformed and inarticulate. You have to drag them into some semblance of sounding literate.  That’s never been KB’s problem.  Quite the opposite; he can actually explain how fed policy works.  And if he doesn’t work to pull his level of discourse toward a more general audience level, he’s going to get 100% turnout among wonks.  Between the economic-wonk base of knowledge and the mental pull toward the ‘Bottom”, everything should even out about right.

3.  Ixnay on the Oxsay.  This is Twins country. Just saying. 

2. Think of a snappy name for your lit drop.  I’m thinking “The Caucusus Caucus”.  You’re welcome.

1. Enlist a couple of liberal whackadoodles to start the “Dump Banaian” blog.  We all know that it was the doop-di-doos that gave Michele Bachmann her margin of victory in 2008.  Every point counts.  You’re an economist with Eastern European ties; perhaps you could pull some surreptitious strings and get George Soros to pony up for it.

There y’go, KB.  Go to it!

I’d be remiss if I didn’t pass on something I flaked on yesterday; my friend and longtime Northern Alliance Radio colleague King Banaian is running for the Minnesota House.

The Twitter account for the campaign will be @kingforhouse — please find it, follow it, and watch for more.  I feel like the Facebook fan page looks too plain tonight so we’ll get to that tomorrow.  And for those who have inquired about online donation, thank you so much.  We will get that up tomorrow as well, along with an address for those preferring the paper variety.

We might need to run a trip from the Cities up to St. Cloud for lit-dropping and campaigning one of these next weekends.

I’ll be passing on news from the Banaian campaign as it’s warranted.  It’d sure be nice to eject Haws from office.

D’ya suppose we can book Banaian on the NARN broadcast at the convention?

Today on the show, I’ll spend a chunk of the first hour talking about the GOP gubernatorial race.

I’ll be heavily referencing two excellent blog posts from this past week, both of which appeared in True North: “Why I’m Supporting Tom Emmer” by Craig “Captain Fishsticks” Westover, and “A Closer Look At Voting Records” by regular SITD commenter Master of None.

Tune in after 1PM, on the air at AM1280 or online at the Patriot’s web site!

The DFL is heading toward a convention that will bestow its usual “kiss of death” to whomever gets it – usually the candidate that makes the “progressive” activists that control the party the most tingly; this will lead to a summer of hammer-and-tong DFL fratricide leading up to a September primary that will determine the real candidate for governor.

This combined with the fact that the DFL is in a historically disorganized state, and heading into a headwind of disaffection with Barack Obama and a GOP with new leadership at its head and a Tea Party chasing it to relevance, and the DFL and its minions are desperately in need of a sideshow to draw attention away from their own cage match.

Dave Mindeman at mnpAct wants to direct the reader to the sideshow they’re counting on – the neck-and-neck GOP endorsement battle between Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer:

The Emmer vs. Seifert free for all on the GOP side of the governor’s race is heating up. Both sides are capable of some prolific attack dog politics. And it will get nasty.

It is gradually developing into a conservative base vs. party establishment fight. Emmer is increasingly drawing endorsements and support from conservative bloggers, conservative activists, and conservative leadership. Seifert has support from old line party leadership and the more traditional Republican base.

Which is an interesting way for the local leftysphere to put it, given that both Emmer and Seifert are routinely portrayed as “conservative extremists” whenever they’re mentioned in any other context.  But it’s not untrue; Seifert’s got the organizational mojo, Emmer’s a conservative firebrand and the best stump speaker in Minnesota politics today.

The two have developed a recent history. Emmer had challenged Seifert for Minority Leader a few years back and then refused to vote for him for Speaker in 2009. Emmer has been waiting awhile for this opportunity and he is cashing in.

Add to all of this the fact that delegate strength to the convention is nearly evenly divided and you have the makings of an old style, no holds barred, nasty party convention.

Yep.  The GOP convention is going to be a donnybrook, very possibly crazier than the 2002 convo.

It is noteworthy that Seifert has been particularly critical of Emmer’s voting record of late. The in-depth research style has the definite ring of a Brodkorb type tactic. Although the former MDE attack blogger has been careful to be neutral in his capacity as party deputy chair, his fingerprints are almost detectable in the current Seifert strategy.

It’s no big secret; Seifert’s the “insider”.   The party has several years invested in Seifert as minority leader.

But this – and the idea that for every yin there needs to be an opposite yang – leads Mindeman to a fatally flawed assumption or, if you are more cynical, to the gaping whopper the DFL wants you all to believe about the MNGOP in the upcoming election; the sideshow, if you will, to try to distract the voters and encourage the DFL troops as they go through their own cage match this summer.

He starts out OK…:

Looking over the general Republican landscape, let me make a speculation…and mind you this is only an opinion.

The conservatives are putting a vested interest in Emmer. He is emerging as their consensus choice. Emmer has a wind at his back as he makes his case for the convention.

Yep.  The GOP’s conservatives are using the endorsement process as it was intended to be used; as the time to reject compromise, to declare “death or glory”, to come home with their shields or on them; to campaign for the most conservative candidate left in the race.  They don’t want the consolation prize; they want it all.  And correctly so; now is the time to fight like hell for the brass ring.

Seifert’s supporters, by the way, are doing exactly the same thing.  Because now is the time for the fight.

But it’s on May 2 that Mindeman’s theory goes to pot.

If Seifert manages to wrest the nomination away from Emmer in a bloody convention, you will see a party that will go into the fall campaign divided. A conservative backlash might just stop the conservatives from coalescing around Seifert, reducing his turn out and possibly moving toward some other third party or maybe even forming one.

Let me take you back in time to 2002.  Brian Sullivan – who was and is every bit as conservative as Tom Emmer – had the backing of the conservative base.  Tim Pawlenty – who held the same position in the GOP caucus that Seifert does today – and Sullivan were every bit as closely locked together as Seifert and Emmer are today.   And some of the punditry, especially on the left, predicted exactly the same result; that Sullivan’s supporters would stay home, that conservatives would break away, that the GOP would battle itself into irrelevance.

But the convention, as long and brutal as it got, had exactly the opposite effect.  To win the endorsement, Tim Pawlenty had to adopt one of Sullivan’s key driving points – the Taxpayers League’s “No New Taxes” pledge.  And for the imponderably vast majority of Minnesota conservatives, that was more than enough.

Tim Pawlenty took the pledge – and, more importantly, has honored it for eight years, now.  And I, as a fire-breathing conservative talk show host, could care less if he took a trip to the arctic with Will Steger that had absolutely no policy ramifications, as long as he stuck to the point that mattered – stymying the DFL’s plan, “spend like crack whores with stolen gold cards”.

In short, the bruising endorsement process had exactly the effect it was supposed to; a candidate won, but as a result of his fight to get endorsed, he took the keystone of his challenger’s platform to the Governor’s Mansion with him.

Emmer may have a better chance of holding the party together but he is going to carry some baggage as well.

Nope.

Look – I’m not backing any particular candidate, at least not publicly.  Not yet.  But I’ll tell you this; even if you are a stone-cold Tom Emmer zealot, you have to realize that not only would Marty Seifert be a better governor than any of the DFL’s pack of hamsters, but that Marty Seifert’s voting record in the House is more conservative than Tim Pawlenty’s ever was.   Seifert is a conservative.  As conservative as Emmer?  Perhaps not – but plenty good enough.

So campaign like hell for whomver your candidate is – Seifert or Emmer.  Because for once,  conservatives are in a win-win situation.   Whomever gets the nomination will be a better, more conservative governor than any of the alternatives available to us today.  Neither will be perfect – but perfect, as they say, is the enemy of “plenty good enough”.

There will be blood.

No.  There will be coffee, and shouting, and more coffee, and pictures of delegates sleeping at 2AM with drool coming out of the corner of their mouth, and more coffee, and Excedrin, and five or ten or fifty ballots, and concession and acceptance speeches, and handshakes, and meetings, and buried hatchets and smoothed feathers, and looks out the window at the Tea Partiers who are done asking nicely for results.

And on the morning after the final gavel, there will be a campaign that hits the road at the head of a mostly-unified GOP that has a three month headstart building a winning campaign, on its way toward capping off an epic comeback.

There will be coffee, drool and victory.

Three words to live by.

So at the convention last night, we were debating one of the final resolutions of the evening – a proposal by a delegate to remove language supporting the Death Penalty in the current GOP platform.

It wasn’t my resolution – I submitted two at the caucuses, both of which passed easily – but I spoke in favor, for reasons discussed elsewhere in this blog.  Now, “speeches” around resolutions are pretty limited; two in favor, two against, generally short; they’re never what you’d call “great oratory”.  Mine was something like “I support the death penalty for every reason but one – the inevitability of human error.  Now, in the 34 years since the Supreme Court reinstated the Death Penalty, there’ve been over 200 complete exonerations – as in, people who were considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that were released directly from death row.  And it now seems absolutely certain that Texas executed an innocent man.  Since government can’t even fill in potholes correctly, should we trust them with the power of life and death?”

A woman a few rows in front of me rose to speak for the resolution.  “That just seems wrong, saying the government can’t get anything right.  Aren’t we the part of possibilities?”

The rules didn’t allow me to respond to the response, so I couldn’t leap to my feet and say “NO! We are the party that believes the people are capable of anything they set their mind to, and the government is too stupid to trust with a cardboard knife!”

We are, indeed, a huge tent.

I attended my House District convention – 66B – last night at Falcon Heights City Hall.

We had a few fewer people than the Ron Paul-swollen 2008 turnout, but it was pretty solid, and uncommonly well-informed, I thought.  Lots of tea partiers mixed it up with some of the stalwarts,  making an interesting mix of people.

Of our seven delegates selected to go to the CD4 convention next month, an informal survey showed five were at least initially committed to Tom Emmer.

As to the resolutions – normally both the most time-consuming and least-productive part of the conventions?   Things clipped along pretty fast – we voted for blocks of resolutions, paying individual attention only to the ones that people chose to debate indivually, maybe a quarter of the suggestions that came up from the caucuses.

The parts I thought were interesting:

• Gone were the endless pro-life resolutions.  No, no change in heart – but I suspect most people genuinely believe that the MNGOP’s platform is sufficiently anti-infanticide.
• There was, however, a resolution to remove the pro-death-penalty plank in the state party platform.  While it’ll no doubt die on its way up the food chain, it was interesting in that it passed the district convention by a close margin – for conservative reasons.
• Someone – not me – had actually gotten resolution forwarded from the caucuses that seconded John LaPlante’s idea (which I enthusiastically endorse) of erasing the state platform and replacing it with a short statement of princples.  It failed, I believe, but only barely.  2012 is the year.

Onward and upward!

John “Policy Guy” LaPlante, writing at True North, h talks about his experience at his first-ever BPOU convention last Saturday.

It’s a good story – read the whole thing, naturally, because reading John LaPlante is just a generally good idea.

Now, my own BPOU convention – District 66 – is tonight.  An  I echo John’s misgivings about one key part of the proceedings that generates a lot of heat, but almost no light at all; the resolutions for platform changes:

You say you want a resolution? As I paged through the packet we all received upon registration, I saw what I had dreaded: Page after page of the party platform, with changes that had been suggested during caucus night.

Why did I dread this, aside from the obvious time sink? First, it meant listening to people talk about items that are of marginal interest, at best, to a state party: the federal budget, the federal tax code, federal agencies, and foreign policy.

I spent a fair amount of time at precinct caucuses trying to filter out some of these, reminding people that nobody in state government has anything to do with, say, prosecuting the war in Iraq, or approving or opposing trans-American highways.

Second, some of the proposed changes are simply bad. One proposal was to repeal the federal income tax “and replace it with nothing.” Given the dynamics of Washington, that would lead to more deficit spending and thus (perhaps) hyperinflation. The measure narrowly failed, and I noticed a delegate in front of me shake his head. Another measure called for the “separation of school and state.” I rise and speak against the resolution, pointing out that the public-good argument for taxpayer funding of schooling is very strong. This is not, I continued, mean that government needs to actually run all schools. Indeed, we would be better off giving people vouchers or tuition tax credits, and let parents choose from among privately run schools and government schools. A defender of the resolution came after me, saying, in part, “we need vouchers.” Of course that’s a rejection, not an extension, of the “separation of school and state” argument. The resolution fails, narrowly.

There are a lot of resolutions that are spawned by angry people who’ve come to precinct caucuses to try to change the world; writing a resolution seems to be a fine way to give that concern a voice.  Which is fine, except that debating them inevitably ends up sucking up an hour of time at precinct caucuses, and will eat up much of the time tonight.

A third problem with the resolutions is that some are simply redundant. There were two resolutions on term limits (again, on the federal level), with specific numbers on years and terms. A third simply says something like “Heck they ought to just go home,” which is a spurt of outrage more than anything.

I remember my first precinct caucus, where we had no less than eight different resolutions calling for the outlawing of abortion.  Which is not only redundant within the caucus, but unnecessary, since the MNGOP Platform is not a pro-choice manifesto even now.

Even though it wasn’t 2008, I did see some Ron Paul-style activists at work. I missed the discussion a resolution to “abolish the Federal Reserve Board and allow free enterprise money and banking.” Unfortunately, I think that one passed. (Just now I noticed another sentence—tell me this is NOT in the platform already, please—“Opposing any movement toward a North American Union including any NAFTA superhighway.”)

The Ronulans made for an entertaining District 66 meeting two years ago; we had to wade through a solid ninety minutes worth of debate on resolutions – most of which had little to no bearing on the state offices we were dealing with!

But here’s the LaPlante’s most interesting point – the one I really wanted to get to when I started this post:

Finally, the document is simply too long. As I told several people, God had 10 commandments; why should a political party have a 17-page (or whatever) platform? At that length, the platform becomes not the statement of general principles that it should be but an internal version of the “Christmas tree” bills, passed by Congress and Legislature alike, that Republicans say they abhor. A paragraph here, a sentence there, many an article in the present platform is an attempt to buy off the support of certain factions in the party. (Maybe I should offer a resolution to abolish the platform and start over, and limit it to 100 words!)

Which got me to thinking; come the next Precinct Caucuses, I may propose exactly that.

Something along these lines:

Whereas the Minnesota Republican Party platform has become a long, meandering collection of sops to its own internal special interests, and…

Whereas no document this long and fragmented can possibly attract people to it on its own merits,

Be it resolved that the Republican Party of Minnesota shall scrap its existing platform, and replace it with the following statement of principles:

“As the Republican Part of Minnesota stands for liberty, the free market, and individual initiative, we resolve to support and uphold in every way the following principles:

• Liberty: lower taxes, less regulation, and a focus on freedom, whether economic, intellectual or political.

• Prosperity: the promotion of the freedom of the market to bring the most opportunity to the most people, and the promotion of merit that drives this prosperity.

• Security: the defense of this nation from enemies abroad, the protection of its citizens from crime and criminals at home, and the security of our borders.

• Culture: The recognition that America is a melting pot that welcomes newcomers who come with a desire to join in our novel experiment, enjoy freedom, wealth and a brotherhood of common principle, rather than view it as a candy store to be plundered.

• Limited Government: A government that is focusing on whether you’re smoking or eating Big Macs is a government that has too much time, money and power on its hands.

• Family: the belief that government needs to uphold, rather than undercut, the basic building block of all healthy societies, the family. “

Yeah, I borrowed it from here; why re-invent the wheel?

Yep.  February, 2012, I’m gonna do it.

According to MDE, Tom Emmer is now in a statistical tie with Marty Seifert for the GOP Gubernatorial nod, with more than enough undecideds to completely change things by convention time, coming out of last weekend’s “Super Saturday” orgy of district conventioneering.

This means a bunch of things.  The remaining “Basic Political Organizational Unit” (BPOU – a legislative district in more populated areas, a county outstate) conventions are going to be fu-u-un (mine is Tuesday).  If you ever felt neglected at a convention before, that’s over.  And if things keep going this way, the state convention is going to be a donnybrook, perhaps every bit as intense as the 2002 MNGOP convention, where the vote for the gubernatorial endorsement took 16 days and 389 ballots.  Seeing as I’ll be covering the convention with the Northern Alliance this year, I can hardly wait.

But here’s the important part:  This is the one, single, solitary time in all of electoral politics when compromise truly is worthless.  Now is the time to get out and stand unstintingly for whatever it is you believe, and pull like crazy to see that those beliefs are enshrined in your candidates.  If you think Marty Seifert is the one hope the MNGOP has to hold onto the governor’s office (other than, of course, the DFL), then get out there and take no prisoners at your BPOU convention.  If you think Tom Emmer is the one person with the plan to save Minnesota, then come home with your shield or on it!  Carry the battle on at the Congressional District conventions, if you are selected as a delegate; when things progress to the convention in Minneapolis, then carry on the battle to the hundredth ballot, if need be.   Now is the time for principle to win out over compromise, politics and pragmatism!

And then, if you’re a Republican, once the last ballot is cast and the winner gives his acceptance speech, it’s time to look at the candidate.  If he’s the guy you supported all along, congratulations.  If not, ask yourselves two questions:

1. Look at what the nominee stands for.  Can you honestly say you agree with 70% of it?  And if you disagree with him on a few issues, but agree on most – or, even more so, if you disagree on a few issues that are not vital to Minnesota’s future, or over which the Governor really has no say anyway (I’m looking at all of you who clucked about Tim Pawlenty’s brief and fairly meaningless dalliance with the global warming cult, as if the Governor of Minnesota would be able to control the environment)?  Then bury the hatchet, and do it immediately.  Because the important question is…
2. …even if you disagree with the GOP nominee on 29.9% of issues, do you suppose you might disagree with one of the DFL’s pod of gabbling hamsters, Margaret Anderson “Ze Legislachah is an instrument and I am ze musician!” Kelliher and Mark “DUCK!” Dayton and Tom “Look, a shiny object” Rukavina and RT “look, tax money!” Rybak and John “All your health insurance are belong to me” Marty, even more?

If you can honestly say that you disagree with Tom Emmer or Marty Seifert more than any of them, then by all means, vote your conscience.

But if you believe that some vote that Tom Emmer or Marty Seifert took two years ago somehow makes them less fit to be governor than some vacuous DFL bobblehead, and you plan to sit the election out because of it?  We need to talk.

Dave Mindemann sounds depressed:

I wonder if Pawlenty even wants to help anybody. He doesn’t care about the poor…we got that loud and clear. He’s playing games with the bonding bill, which means he is in no hurry to help with jobs. He reversed himself on climate change, which means he doesn’t give a rip anymore about the environment.

Let’s see, where to start?  The Minnesota taxpayer already pays for some of the best benefits in the United States, so much so that they attract people to move here.  There is plenty of wiggle room downward.

The bonding bill was larded with pork, and “cared about” mostly government jobs and swag for the construction unions.

And lots of people are reversing themselves on “climate change“; indeed, pretty soon the remaining Warmers will be like those Japanese soldiers who held out in the jungle for thirty years because they refused to believe Hirohito would ever surrender.

So buck up, little camper. Governor Pawlenty cares about all us poor schmuck taxpayers (remmeber us?) who are already getting sucked dry by our wortheless, spendthrift cities and counties.

Glad we could settle that.

I’m a conservative.  I’m pretty ideological about it (which manifests itself in the fact that I write a conservative blog).

But I’m no purist.  I try to be pretty tough about my reasons for departing from my ideology – and let’s be honest, it’s easy for me, personally, to be pretty uncompromising, because I neither govern nor represent anyone. Just like all the other ideological purists – the Libertarians, the Greens and the Constitution Party.

Being a purist is the mark of those who sit in splendid, uncompromising isolation, unhampered by ever having to worry about governing anything.

Brown votes for Obama’s “jobs” bill:

A month after being crowned the darling of national conservatives, Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is being branded “Benedict Brown” for siding with Democrats in favor of a jobs bill endorsed by the Obama administration.

Like the four other GOP senators who joined him, the man who won the late Democrat Edward Kennedy’s seat says it’s about jobs, not party politics. And that may be good politics, too.

In Massachusetts, it just might.

The four other GOP senators who broke ranks – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and Christopher “Kit” Bond of Missouri – also were criticized on Tuesday. But Brown was the big target on conservative Web sites, talk shows and even the Facebook page his campaign has promoted as an example of his new-media savvy.

“We campaigned for you. We donated to your campaign. And you turned on us like every other RINO,” said one writer, using the initials for “Republican-In-Name-Only.”

Buncombe.  He’s a moderate guy in a whackdoodle liberal state.

And as big a waste as this “jobs” bill is, it’s small potatoes compared to Obamacare and the various stimulus and bailout bills – which Brown campaigned against.

Do RINOs exist?  Sure.

The new senator responded by calling into a Boston radio station.

“I’ve taken three votes,” Brown said with exasperation. “And to say I’ve sold out any particular party or interest group, I think, is certainly unfair.”

The senator said that by the time he seeks re-election in two years, he will have taken thousands of votes.

“So, I think it’s a little premature to say that,” he said.

Of course it is.

And let’s face it – Brown is going to have a more centrist record than a John Kyl; he represents Massachusetts. We knew he wasn’t an orthodox conservative. But let’s not talk about “RINOs” until he’s been in office 6-12 months, or until he squibs out on a promise, like Obamacare.

The bad thing about this, of course, is that the left is going to try to use this as a wedge between the GOP and the Tea Party.  To succeed, the GOP needs to share some goals with the Tea Party; the Tea Party, in turn, needs to live Ronald Reagan’s admonition; if you agree with someone on 70% of things, you need to ignore the other 30% and get along with things.

Derek “Chief” Brigham over at Freedom Dogs has taken an unscientific (!!!) poll of Minnesota conservative bloggers for the gubernatorial race.  Unsurprisingly, Tom Emmer won, bigtime. 

I’m listed under the “Has a candidate, but isn’t spilling it publicly yet” category, along with David Strom, Margaret Martin and Sue Jeffers.   The fact is, with the departure of Dave Hann from the race, I am leaning in one direction – but I’m not going to say which one yet.  Partly because, hello, I’m a schmuck blogger and nobody cares what I think.  Partly because it’s early, and I could still change my mind, depending on how this session goes.  And partly because, hello, do I want to get the other candidate’s people cheesed off at me so they’ll never appear on the NARN again?

And mainly because the fact is, whichever one wins the nomination, I’ll back him 100%, along with pretty much the entire MNGOP slate.  While I’ve never considered myself a straight ticket voter, the only DFLers I’ve been able to justify voting for since the mid-nineties have been Norm Coleman and Randy Kelly.  As to the Independence Party?  Get serious.  Jim Gibson’s Senate candidacy was the only IP bid I’ve ever considered voting for (and I didn’t; Rod Grams needed my vote more).  The GOP, imperfect as it is, is the only party in Minnesota that covers most of what I believe in and has any impact on the way this state is run (shaddap, Constitution Party).

Over on Facebook, a DFL-leaning lobbyist asked what kind of record conservative bloggers have at predicting general elections.  The answer is “none”; we’re not the general public.

What it does predict, I think, is a spirited endorsement process and State Convention, the kind that’s going to lead to a much better GOP effort in the fall. 

Eight years ago, MNGOP establishment candidate Tim Pawlenty had lukewarm support from a conservative wing that’d been ignored for decades, but which was gaining power.  Their candidate, Brian Sullivan, ran a highly successful insurgency, driving the final convention race out to 560 ballots over the course of 467 straight hours of voting at the 2002 MNGOP convention; he only clinched the nomination when he took the Taxpayer’s League’s “No New Taxes” pledge, promising to spend his term(s) as a fiscal hawk – something that’d never have happened without the Sullivan challenge.   Would Brian Sullivan have won the general election had he gotten the nomination?  We’ll never know; conventional wisdom was that he was “too conservative”, but Roger Moe was a bit of a stiff, and probably a lot more vulnerable than the keepers of the “conventional wisdom” want to admit.  But in a sense he, and his supporters, did win; their insurgency pushed Pawlenty to adopt a key piece of Sullivan’s platform, in a sense perhaps the most important one.

This year?  The delegate count is shaping up pretty tight so far, although there’s a long, long way to go.   Emmer’s done a good job of staying in front of the Tea Party, but Seifert’s organization is a formidable one.

The point being that, from where I sit, either Seifert, the establishment candidate, or Emmer the conservative firebrand, will make a better governor than any of the vacuous hamsters the DFL is putting forward.  And an imperfect “good enough”, whether it’s an imperfect conservative (who’s been driven to the right by the Tea Party and an Emmer push) or an unrepentant Conservative (who’s got the whole MNGOP working for him) is going to be better than any of the alternatives.

Derek “Chief” Brigham, at Freedom Dogs, has been tallying up blogger “leanings for Republican Governor candidate endorsement.”  He has some interesting observations. Definitely worth a look.

Derek puts my own opinion into the (surprisingly) rare “Uncommitted” tally, but he doesn’t seem sure about it. So just to clear things up… Make that a definite uncommitted opinion. I hope whomever wins the endorsement makes a fine candidate in the general, and an even finer governor thereafter. But I’m too cynical to get caught up in all the primary hoopla this time around.

One potential headache for the MNGOP this fall has evaporated.

The possibility that Col. Joe Repya – war hero and longtime grassroots GOP leader – would run for governor as an “Independence” Party spoiler, soaking five or so percent of the votes away from a MNGOP candidate, might have been a problem come November.

No more; Repya is bailing out of the race:

“It has become clear to me that, much like the DFL and the GOP parties in this state, the (Independence Party of Minnesota) fails to stand by its own rules and principles. At issue, the (party’s) decision to essentially nullify the state convention endorsement process,” Repya said. “This action, in my opinion, severely damages the IPM’s chances of truly becoming a viable and strong third party option….Their action will further erode and (tarnish) the IPM brand while relegating it to a permanent position of political “spoiler.””

Well, no.  The “Independence Party”‘s big problem is that it was a “party” based around one celebrity candidate – Jesse Ventura – who got elected governor during a fit of collective silliness in a sillier time.  The rest of the party, afflicted with a grave case of self-importance, has soldiered on ever since, clinging to the faint fringes of relevance and – based on its ability to barely eke out 5% in one of the 2006 constitutional officer races – existence as a major party.

Repya’s candidacy had the chance to be a little more; Repya has a long history not only as a grass roots organizer, but as an organizer whose roots predate, and share a lot of personalities, with Minnesota’s large and successful Tea Party.  He was well-placed – within the context of the IP’s traditional ineptitude – to take advantage of the Tea Party, withy a message that could very well have peeled a few of them away.  And the media knew this, which was why Repya’s IP bid got so much media play; he was a disaffected Republican who left the party in a whirl of publicity last year, prompting media that had always looked at him (and all conservatives) as something just a little less than human to suddenly christen him “the voice of disaffected Republicans?”, someone that the MNGOP rank and file needed to pay strict attention to; they were setting him up, much like a Mike Huckabee, to be a spoiler against the GOP.

Anyway – here’s hoping that this is the year the “Independence” party finally fails to get 5%, and finally gets shuffled off the stage and back to minor party land.  And good riddance.

Paul Krugman doesn’t like Republicans very much. This is not a recent development. However the extent of his loathing often takes him along truly unique rhetorical paths. Such as the notion that Republicans are dooming America into non-existence, just like what happened to Poland a couple of centuries ago.

Lest you think I’m taking his words out of context, here’s how Krugman says it himself:

Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.

A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.

What this comes down to (surprise, surprise) is that cursed forty-first vote Republicans picked up in the Senate with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts to fill the former “Ted Kennedy seat.” Apparently once this happened Republicans devised a clever new scheme, never attempted before by any other Senatorial minority, to use to their advantage a bizarre and little understood Senatorial procedure called… get ready for this, it’s a pretty obscure one… the “filibuster.”

(more…)