I’m going to the State GOP convention next weekend.
As I’ve said elsewhere – I don’t do endorsements, myself. I told the people at my district who I’d be voting for as a delegate; I suspect the campaigns both know.
For the record, either Marty Seifert or Tom Emmer would be a better governor than any DFLer, living, dead or yet-unborn, as the leader of this state. I’ll work myself to exhaustion for whomever wins the nomination.
Now, over the past few days there’s been a roiling froth about the campaign; the Seifert campaign sent delegates a letter from a Republican activist, Sandra Berg (no relation that I know of) regarding a couple of DWI-related charges, that his competitor, Tom Emmer, got 19 and 29 years ago – questioning not only his character due to the arrests, but some legislation he backed that’d have had the effect of treating drunk drivers as innocent until proven guilty and making DUIs private information after ten years of good behavior – in other words, allowing people who’d made a dumb mistake to function and get their lives back.
Drunk driving is an emotional issue – made all the more so by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the rest of the drunk driving lobby. It’s understandable; anyone who’s lost a loved one to a drunk driver is justifiably motivated to seek change. But the .08 blood alcohol level limit is a ludicrious waste of resources, and the resources spent on hammering on first-time, only-time offenders with low levels of intoxication are largely a complete waste.
Question: Does saying the above mean I “support” or am “soft on” drunk drivers and drunk driving?
But it’s ludicrous to treat attempts to make the system fairer and more rational as “sympathy for drunk drivers”. Almost as ludicrous as assuming two mistakes made a generation ago are defining traits about a late-fortysomething guys’ judgment.
The Minnesota GOP needs to do a lot better than this.
This isn’t affecting my choice at the convention – whoever he is – one iota.