OK – so we’ve established that the MNGOP needs to fix its finances, and knock off the circular firing squads. That’s all fairly obvious – although seemingly inscrutable to some in the party.
But where do we go from here when it comes to leadership?
Derek Brigham at Freedom Dogs and True North wrote up the spec sheet:
My ideal chair would be a person who:
—Relates VERY WELL with the grassroots without alienating the establishment. Working the other way around has been the norm since I have been involved, but this will no longer work—honestly it never did. The numbers are with the grassroots, the leader should reflect this.
This is a tough one. The “Grassroots” include a lot of people who come to their first meetings full of whiz and vinegar for an issue – who peter out as the reality of the long-term slog of party politics sets in. And that’s where most of the energy comes from. It’s a tough row to hoe.
—Envisions the MNGOP massively simplifying its tasks. As I wrote on Twitter a few days ago: “New agenda for party: do less, simplify, keep on track, let go of what you suck at, kick ass at what you do well”. The MNGOP at least for some time to come can not be all things to all people.
And it’s here that the DFL may have one of its few right ideas. As I noted a few weeks back, the DFL is really just a holding company that outsources a good chunk of its organizing,media and policy work to outside groups with an interest in the subjects (where “subject” is something like, say, “running a toxic sleaze campaign against Tom Emmer” or some such). It’s not the dumbest idea they’ve had.
—Can pull in BIG Money players, and have several routes to bring in small (read: a buck at a time) donations.
Goes without saying. But it’s good Derek said it.
—Operates with transparency and honesty. People loathe the last many years of bad bookkeeping. Conservatives pride themselves on financial efficiency.
The next party chair is going to face very angry party electorate demanding a very high standard.
—Would not push morality issues. The world is in economic collapse, this should be easy. Get with the basics: Small government, Individual liberty and responsibility, Create an environment for prosperity.
Y’see, that should be a gimme. The party isn’t supposed to push policy. It’s a fund-raising, communications and logistics organization (I’m oversimplifying, but not much).
—Become THE friendly oasis for businesses with our message. The DFL and Dayton are an absolute cancer to business and productivity in this state. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
While that’s the candidates’ job, the party does need to make sure it’s clear on its message. The 2010 elections showed that we can do it.
—Wants to take the bloated party platform down to fewer words than the Gettysburg address. Again, keep the principles strong and the words few.
Derek and I have been working on that for a while.
Another Twitter post I put up was this: “Want a party? Musts: Unite around core principles, Focus on opponents, Appeal to the Big money players, Avoid morality issues” Yes I do repeat myself a bit, but key in that statement was: Focus on opponents. There is a reason we play pin the tail on the donkey and not the other way around. You want to excel at in-fighting, go to a family reunion.
Let me sum it up: Win Elections For Our Principles.
And that’s gonna be an interesting order to fill.
>>Would not push morality issues. The world is in economic collapse, this should be easy. Get with the basics: Small government, Individual liberty and responsibility, Create an environment for prosperity.
That’s what Emmer did. that’s why Emmer lost. You won’t get the numbers you need in northern Minnesota if you make your peace with the barbarism of abortion.
In a perfect world, Derek would be the MNGOP chair. I suspect he would refuse the , ahem, honor.
Avoid morality issues? Not an easy task for many in our party. So many of them are one-issue voters whose allegiance to the Life issue transcends politics. Ask anyone on the Left and they’ll tell you a pro-lifer is the easiest target on which to perform a surgical character assassination (which, btw, they’re very good at).
Libertarian conservatives who think MNGOP candidates can win without the prolife vote are fooling themselves.
Mom: We can’t win the debate until we can change their hearts. An army couldn’t do that. Therefore, we must win the perch from which we can illustrate why Life matters.
>We can’t win the debate until we can change their hearts. An army couldn’t do that.
The elimination of slavery in this country would indicate otherwise.
We eliminated slavery? Someone notify the Democrat party.
“The party isn’t supposed to push policy.” Mitch, if you have the time, expand on this. This one has me fascinated.
If you want to be a delegate you better have pro-life as your absolute number one issue? All or nothing will get you nothing!
“—Would not push morality issues.” —
Bzzzzzzt. Incorrect.
Unfortunately, all conservatism is based on morality issues. Conservatism holds its principles, and its moral authority, on knowing and understanding the difference between right and wrong.
Taxing people to pay for someone else’s faulty mortgage is wrong. That’s a moral issue. Overtaxing the achievers and job creators in this country over and above the high percentages of revenues they already pay is wrong.
Spending my children and grandchildren into debt slavery to redistribute wealth to those who have not earned it is wrong. That’s a moral issue. It’s the basis of everything we do.
So to say that claiming moral authority to make government ‘do the right thing’ without translating that authority into other important moral issues is inconsistent and in itself morally wrong. We either stand for right or we do not.
“all conservatism is based on morality issues”
Agreed. However, how do you persuade someone whose sense of morality (if they possess one) is founded on a selfish, secular, undisciplined pursuit? In other words – Democrats.
“—Would not push morality issues.” –
Tim Pawlenty pushed morality issues and won, twice.
At the CD3 convention when Derek got his stripped down platform statement passed, I was able to get changes made to #5 to articulate a simple statement on the value of human life. If the Republican party can not maintain a strong pro-life agenda than to hell with it. If libertarians in the party can’t live with it than there’s a party calling you back. Good luck.
“Would not push morality issues.”
If you mean gay marriage it’s too late. The horses are out of the barn on that one because Republicans put the marriage amendment on the 2012 ballot, so it will be a major part of the debate (with lots of $$ spent on both sides — a crying shame, when so many people are starving).
It also means that the big money players will stay sidelined (Target probably doesn’t want another boycott), and small money will be scarce because Pawlenty got rid of PCR (which gave more money to Republicans than Democrats).
Good luck. I hope the Republicans find their footing because we need two strong parties to make this system work.
“with lots of $$ spent on both sides — a crying shame, when so many people are starving”
This just in – Barack Obama is suspending his vacation and donating his billion dollar campaign fund to feed the starving.
In related news, the impact of the boycott on Target Corp. resulted in a net increase of some $2 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2010, up nearly $3 billion from 2008.
http://investors.target.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65828&p=irol-homeprofile
“In related news, the impact of the boycott on Target Corp. resulted in a net increase of some $2 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2010, up nearly $3 billion from 2008.”
And you can tie this increase in revenues directly to the boycott, not recovery from recession or anything else? Perhaps their revenue increase would have been 2.5 billion without the boycott? That’s just as valid an argument as yours.
Does anyone have any color on this:
http://politicsinminnesota.com/2011/12/sutton-admits-signing-agreement-for-gov-recount-legal-fees-failing-to-tell-other-party-officials/
Is this what ultimately caused Sutton to resign?
http://politicsinminnesota.com/2011/12/gop-party-chair-field-many-strong-potential-challengers-rule-out-run/
Methinks this is a sign that 2012 is lost for the Republicans in Minnesota . . .
I think that Derek & Mitch just got a first lesson. It’s all well and good to have an idea (ie: don’t push morality), but it’s foolish to conclude you’ve got an answer until you ask the question.
Colonel_Flagg has it just right. To me, conservativism rests on moral high ground. To fail to stand in it is to cede it.
Also, I must say that the smarmy, hypocritical lip service sanity just laid on us is the kind of crap that makes it soooo damn hard for me to be civil with leftists.
If you care about starving people, tell your Brokeback caucus to lay off…they brung the fight, and you are carrying it, pal.
“so many people are starving”
Feed them unicorn meat!
To Kemits point, their stock also increased after the lefty tantrum was launched. I love the typical libturd double standard there, insanity. In the left’s twisted view of what is right and wrong, it’s OK for Target to spend money on stupid and useless gay parades, a REAL crying shame when so many people are starving, but they can’t spend it on political candidates that support business and jobs. Further, it’s also OK for libs to elect a trust fund ne’er do well as governor, largely due to money supplied by his family and friends for a smear campaigns against his GOP opponent and quite possibly, a certain amount of voter fraud.
Liberalism is based on morality as well.
In what sense are we all considered equal? Science and common sense give indisputable evidence against the notion of equality and therefore, universal human rights.
Methinks this is a sign that 2012 is lost for the Republicans in Minnesota . .
Ihinks youthinks wrong about that. For starters, the state party itself had very very little to do with the legislative victories in 2010, and regardless of the changes in the executive offices, will likely have little to do with campaigning next year.
Put another way; if the MNGOP is messed up now, it was messed up in November of 2010 too. And look at what we accomplished. Can you imagine what we’ll do with our house in order?
Perhaps you can’t. I sure can, though.
Newt’s very own bimbo eruption is getting underway. Morality matters.
random thought, Cain (my guy) surprises the world and endorses Santorum tonight. Just a thought. Also the feeding the poor meme, sanity you do realize the evil conservatives donate A LOT more to charities that actually do things like… feeding and clothing people.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.TuE4bLJFuso
heres one about the precious OWS losers and the DAMAGE they cause
http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2011/10/15/occupyboston-ruins-food-bank-fundraiser-conservatives-step-in-with-3700-fund-drive/
To be fair to Emmer he would have won 60-40 without the help of Tom Horner and ABM and all the Dayton cronies running the sleziest campaign I have ever seen in Minnesota. If he had pushed pro-life issues it would have given the left an attack point that could have prevented us from taking the state house and senate (remember King Banian won by like what 15 votes up in St.Cloud)
>>If he had pushed pro-life issues it would have given the left an attack point that could have prevented us from taking the state house and senate
Remember how they thought they’d pull it out late? They didn’t because they underperformed up north. He didn’t even use regional media to address the foremost evil of our society. And that’s why we’re stuck with Governor Deep Pockets.
And who thinks a pro-life stand costs the GOP votes in Stearns County?
“they brung the fight,”
Actually the Republicans brought the fight by putting a marriage amendment on the ballot.
“Further, it’s also OK for libs to elect a trust fund ne’er do well as governor, largely due to money supplied by his family and friends ”
He’s a member of the 1% like many Republicans who run for office on money “supplied by family and friends”. In some ways he’s more Republican (big business family, inherited wealth) than Democrat.
” Can you imagine what we’ll do with our house in order?”
It would be great.
Right now, it’s hard to see integrity in the party (practicing fiscal responsibility, for example, and the family values stuff with people like Gingrich and even Emmer with his DWI’s), and how the Republican party will benefit the middle class. The Bush era financial meltdowns and wars funded off budget didn’t boost the party image.
Good luck. Seriously, I mean it. I’d love to find some Republican candidates I could vote for, but it’s been tough going these past years, especially since the far right/evangelical crowd took control and social issues have been front and center. I was never one to mix my religion with government and politics — that just doesn’t work for me.
“He’s a member of the 1% like many Republicans…” dot, dot, dot.
Talking point cliche reveals. Sanity my ass.
Kermit, you are the least coherent poster here. Often you don’t use complete sentences. Could you use the old grammar school noun-verb-object formula for sentence construction?
Is English your first language?
@David Gray “[Would not push morality issues] That’s what Emmer did. that’s why Emmer lost. You won’t get the numbers you need in northern Minnesota if you make your peace with the barbarism of abortion.”
Abortion had nothing to do with why Emmer lost. Emmer lost for one simple reason. The party abandoned the urban core. A couple of points difference in the Cities would have swung the statewide races. Unfortunately, among the causalities of the recent MNGOP breakdown was a nascent effort to make inroads into those communities.
“Sanity”,
Re grammar: this is the comment section of a blog. Observe any standard of grammar you want – but I’ve observed in many years of doing this that when people start hectoring other people about spelling and grammar rather than engaging the actual subject at hand, it’s more often than not a sign that they can’t engage the subject at hand.
But you have tried to engage the subject, so I’ll try to answer here:
Right now, it’s hard to see integrity in the party (practicing fiscal responsibility, for example, and the family values stuff with people like Gingrich and even Emmer with his DWI’s),
I’m not going to speak for Gingrich – but how on earth do you attack Emmer’s “integrity” over something that happened 20-30 years ago? Is every candidate entirely beholden to mistakes they made half a life ago? The fact is, he didn’t have a DWI; he had two “reckless driving” convictions. The point is that you have apparetly based your impression of Tom Emmer not on his actual policy positions or poliitcs, but on a DFL-sponsored chanting point.
and how the Republican party will benefit the middle class. The Bush era financial meltdowns and wars funded off budget didn’t boost the party image.
since the far right/evangelical crowd took control and social issues have been front and center.
OK, so what “far right evangelicals” have been running for office in Minnesota?
We have all been exposed to extremely, conspicuously, absurdly verbose comments in these auspicious, venerable, esoteric halls of Blogdom. Any fool can do that.
I am very far from “incoherent”. I am succinct. Precise. Scathing. And always to the point.
And I have my own style. If you don’t like, too frigging bad.
A concern troll and a grammar scold? Now that’s an attractive combination!
Regarding Emmer, the message that most Minnesotans got was that he had two DWI’s and then he authored (or signed on to) legislation that would have reduced penalties for drunk driving. This was, IMO, a very damaging message about him. If he did something else (“reckless driving”) then the Republicans did a poor job of communicating it, because that message didn’t get through. Of all the TV ads run during the campaign, it’s my opinion that the one with the mother of a drunk driving victim was the most damaging to Emmer, and his side did not respond at all to it. To make matters worse, as the campaign rolled on I believe some of his campaign staff and close family were caught for drunk driving/other drinking type debaucheries. The whole image that emerged was negative. It was never fully addressed, and this, IMO, hurt his campaign badly.
“OK, so what “far right evangelicals” have been running for office in Minnesota?”
I’m talking about those who pander to that constituency . . . but now that you mention it, the loudest voice (and the one with the largest platform right now) for Minnesota politics, and getting the most national level press coverage, is Michele Bachmann. I think she qualifies as a member of the Christian/evangelical right. She talks about God (or God talks to her) a lot. Pawlenty did have a voice, but it’s gone now. When people think about politicians in Minnesota (especially from outside the state) their thoughts run immediately to Bachmann.
“Now that’s an attractive combination!”
Thank you!
“And I have my own style. If you don’t like, too frigging bad.”
I understand most of what you are saying, but that one post was illegible for me.
“Sanity”
Regarding Emmer, the message that most Minnesotans got was that he had two DWI’s and then he authored (or signed on to) legislation that would have reduced penalties for drunk driving
“The message that most Minnesotans got”. You nailed it right there.
It’s the message that the “Alliance For A Better Minnesota” spread with millions in Rockefeller and Union money, breathlessly parrotted by an in-the-bag media.
I debunked both parts of that story, here and here. And the legislation he proposed had nothing to do with “reducing penalties for drunk drivers”; it had to do with reforming the implied consent law, which currently clogs the courts and stacks the deck against people who can’t afford top-flight lawyers.
If you made up your mind about Tom Emmer based on anything you read in the mainstream media, you cheated yourself and this entire state. Indeed, anything you read about Republicans and conservatives (or their causes) in the MSM should be distrusted until proven true – and it’s very often not.
. Of all the TV ads run during the campaign, it’s my opinion that the one with the mother of a drunk driving victim was the most damaging to Emmer, and his side did not respond at all to it.
No doubt about it; much of his campaign advice was bad. Doesn’t change the fact that most of the charges against him were BS, fanned by an in-the-bag media.
I’m talking about those who pander to that constituency . . .
Right. Other than Bachmann, name them.
And then defend the choice of the word “pander”. The idea of resonating with voters on issues that are important to them is part of any election.
Michele Bachmann. I think she qualifies as a member of the Christian/evangelical right.
That’s one, and an obvious one (as in “obvious well past the point of cliche). But only one. Who else? We have three Republican representatives and majorities in both chambers of the Legisalture; name the evangelicals. One politician is not a tendency.
“If you made up your mind about Tom Emmer based on anything you read in the mainstream media, you cheated yourself and this entire state.”
That’s your opinion, and of course the opposing opinion won out in 2010. I learned about Tom Emmer through very direct sources (I know a number of people who worked directly with him). Unfortunately, they didn’t have good things to say about his character. The Republicans picked a tough candidate to run. It happens. Remember Moe? Same thing, other side. A third candidate (Independent Tim Penny) took 16% of the vote. Pawlenty won with less than a majority (he got 44% of the vote). Moe was a disastrous pick for the Democrats.
Kathy Lohmer, my MN state rep in my district, is an evangelical Christian (and good friend of Bachmann). I’m sure there are others in the state leg, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that they carry water for the evangelicals (putting marriage amendment on ballot), and this gives the appearance of them all being, to some degree, evangelicals. Perception is everything, as you and I just discussed the impact it had on the Emmer race. Now, you might say, “aha! I told you so, there are very few evangelicals in elected positions!”, but in fact it doesn’t matter. It’s the perception of being the party of evangelical right that matters to voters. I believe Perry fits the evangelical label, and maybe Santorum (?). Not from Minnesota, but they are highly visible.
“Pander” can run the gamut, as you know and have seen on both sides. Perhaps it was a bad term to use, but yes, “resonating with the voters” of a certain belief system is a better way to state it.
With InSanity it’s all about the kool-aid and chanting-points.
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.
I understand most of what you are saying, but that one post was illegible for me.
Then you aren’t as smart as you think you are.