Imprimatur
By Mitch Berg
Matt Abe (who regularly writes at Northstar Liberty) notes a bit of a milestone for the NARN (Volume III “The Final Word” in this case) over on True North today…:
On last Saturday’s Northern Alliance Radio Network show, “The Final Word” with King Banaian and Michael Brodkorb (broadcast on AM 1280 The Patriot), Brian Sullivan endorsed Mitt Romney for president.
…and explains why it’s significant for those new to the politics of our swingy state:
Sullivan, the current Republican National Committeeman from Minnesota, ran against Tim Pawlenty for the Republican endorsement for governor in 2002, which culminated in a legendary, overnight ballot battle royale (ask me to tell you about it someday, it was my first state convention and I was a Sullivan delegate). He has maintained a behind-the-scenes profile since then, with occasional appearances on Almanac as the conservative voice on the political panel. In spite of his unsuccessful endorsement bid, Sullivan is still a favorite son among many Minnesota conservatives.
Matt is right – and also too parsimonious with the details. Brian Sullivan played the most important role in Minnesota politics that I’ve seen performed by a non-elected official or candidate; his strong, well-organized drive for the nomination forced Tim Pawlenty – theretofore a fairly moderate, pragmatic legislative fixer – to the right. I think it’s fair to say that without Brian Sullivan, there’d have been no “No New Taxes” pledge, and none of of the fallout (almost all beneficial) from it.
So Sullivan’s endorsement carries some weight in this state, especially on the eve of Fred Thompson’s presumed entry into the presidential race this week. Sullivan said that for him, it came down to two candidates, Romney and Thompson.
“I feel both are good conservatives,” said Sullivan, “that would support the principles that I believe in, and I think that many conservatives in Minnesota believe in, it came down to who would I hire? Who is it that has actually accomplished something, made a difference, made progress against tough goals, it’s Romney.”
Matt also catches one wry irony:
“In some ways I think that Thompson has become the Republican Party’s [Barack] Obama, in the sense that not that much is known about him, he’s clearly a very good speaker, he’s an appealing personality, but his track record as a Senator, you could argue, isn’t very strong…he’s going to have to be able to be more than just a good candidate, but actually convince folks that he can lead the charge.”
Interestingly, aside from his business experience, Sullivan’s critics made much the same arguements in 2002 about Sullivan, who never held elected office.
Matt notes that many higher-ups in the MNGOP seem to be following the herd to Romney – which is at least an encouraging sign that the front office is starting to back away from its commitments to McCain that go back about a year or so:
Brodkorb reported that joining Sullivan in endorsing Romney this week were former Republican National Committeepersons Evie Axdahl, Jack Meeks, and Republican Party of Minnesota Treasurer Tony Sutton.
Go to TN and read the whole thing.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Romney hack Hugh Hewitt has a good point……Thompson has never run a major entity before. That shows a bit in a somewhat disorganized campaign. Can he be CEO of the U.S.?
I’ve decided to support Mitt, and my endorsement means a lot to many people, including Angry Clown.
I’ve always thought of Obama as the Democrats Dan Qualye (nothing against the Qualye-man)
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
That’s a rather inapt comparison, although I’m not surprised that Hugh made it given his lack of understanding of the workings of the business world (his writing on Romney’s corporate career in “A Mormon In The White House” is cringe inducing).
Great presidents can make lousy CEOs and vice versa. What Romney did as guv of Mass is more important than what he did at Bain. It’s much easier to work with a corporate board than state legislatures or Congress.
To the point of Mitch’s post, while I (along with most Minnesota conservatives) admire what Sullivan has done in the past, I don’t think his endorsement will carry that much weight.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily way “weight”, either. I’d say “pointed significance”.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Sullivan said that it came down to Romney and Thompson. Where’s that leave Giuliani? Did Sullivan give any reasons for writing him off?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
PeterH wondered: “Where’s that leave Giuliani? Did Sullivan give any reasons for writing him off?”
Abortion, gays, gun control, comb-over, lisp, baggage, wife, cross-dressing.
Just a guess.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Gun control might do it in normal times. The rest, especially the gays, comb-over, lisp, baggage and cross dressing might effect the strawman republican vote, and the shallow clown vote, but those are pretty small lobbies.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Glad you think you can win with the religious nuts staying home on election day, buzzkill. Cause abortion isn’t that big an issue for them.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Oh, he’s also kinda soft on immigration.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
As opposed to the war on terror? No, not really. They can either vote for Giuliani, depending on his statement to appoint strict constructionist judges, or vote for the democrat, or stay home which has the same effect. These “religious nuts” are not the simplistic people you insist they are. Under normal times, Giuliani wouldn’t have a chance to win the nomination because of immigration and abortion. If he gets the nomination, I expect he will get the vote of the base.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Mitt is simply the most qualified candidate. From either party.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Electing a president isn’t like interviewing a job candidate and asking for a resume and three references. The most “qualified” candidate is not necessarily the best one for the job and voters are often looking for something more intangible. Something that I find missing in Romney.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Romney has the best package of executive experience. I’ll agree to that.
That still doesn’t answer why Sullivan wrote off Giuliani. I’d like to hear an answer from someone who has the pulse of the party in Minnesota.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Buzzkill said: “These “religious nuts” are not the simplistic people you insist they are.”
You mean the people who believe Adam and Eve rode to church on dinosaurs every Sunday? Gotta disagree with you there, big fella.
A Bush voter explained: “The most “qualified” candidate is not necessarily the best one for the job and voters are often looking for something more intangible. Something that I find missing in Romney.”
“Sure Mitt’s got the silver-spoon background, but he’s just not stupid enough to be president.”
September 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“I’m not surprised that Hugh made it given his lack of understanding of the workings of the business world “”
– And that is only the tip of the iceberg!
“Mitt is simply the most qualified candidate. From either party.”
Actually, that would be Bill Richardson. Mitt is very light on foreign policy experience in comparison. Either way, the both of them would make great VP options for their respective parties, but slim chance to get the Nom.
Flash
Centrisity.com
September 7th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Mitt is missing his tangible? Maybe he could get some extra gravitas to offset the deficit.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Flash makes a good point about Richardson. He’s got all the bona fides in the world and isn’t even a serious contender.
Romney would be a great CEO at any company. But in a election year that’s already heavily stacked against Republicans, I just don’t see him being the guy who can carry enough of the muddled moderates to win. I have a lot of problems with Rudy and Fred Thompson has to prove that he can handle the big time. But strictly from the point of who can win, they both have an edge over Romney.
The vaunted “base” could turn out in force for the GOP in aught-eight, but if the Dems once again gain an almost twenty-point advantage among independent voters (it was 18% in ’06) it’s going to be another bleak election year for Republicans.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:51 am
“Romney would be a great CEO at any company.”
Like Cheney and Rummy?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Brian Sullivan didn’t do Romney any favors in his interview on Final Word. He took jabs at each of the candidates King & Michael mentioned. Sullivan came off as Romney’s hatchetman, which won’t help win Minnesota conservatives to his side.
Sullivan might have impeccable conservative credentials but I’m glad he wasn’t our nominee in 2002. With his hatchetman attitude, he would’ve lost.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Romney’s been lining up middle-road moderate-conservatives for a while. Vin Weber was on board long ago (I like Vin but he’s not hard-core Right Wing conservative enough for some of us).
.