To: Dave Fitzsimmons, the Lucero delegates, the Minnesota Family Council, the Taxpayers League, the Media, and Mr. Lucero
From: Mitch Berg, Uppity Peasant
Re: The HD30B Convention
So many things to write to so many people. Let’s start at the top:
To Dave Fitzsimmons: Thanks for all you’ve done so far. I hope you come back and do more. You’re one of the best.
To Anyone Who’s Used This Incident To Say The GOP Is A Tiny-Tent Party: Nope. This is a sign that a candidate – Eric Lucero – got a slew of single-issue activists to bum-rush the caucuses on his behalf. It’s exactly how Michelle Bachmann and Kurt Bills got their respective nominations (for Congress in 2006 and US Senate in 2012, respectively).
You’ll note – if you are intellectually honest – that of the four Republicans who voted for the Marriage Amendment, Pat Garofalo cruised to an easy endorsement in Farmington, which is every bit as blood-red conservative as Wright County, and Jennifer Loon will do the same this next month in her neck of the woods (Andrea Kieffer, unfortunately, is retiring – but she’d have been re-endorsed in a walkover).
This is what happens, sometimes, in a party that truly embraces local control. The DFL would never have allowed this to happen, for better or worse – DFL money interests would already have the primary challenge planned and the votes paid for – and events like last Saturday aside, most of us believe it’s better our way.
To The Lucero Delegates: I heard the talk from Buffalo while I was on the air on Saturday. Many of you apparently came strictly to vote for Lucero against Fitzsimmons; you agitated loudly to cut to the voting without bothering with all the other business that the district convenes to take care of. Many of you had never darkened the door of a GOP event, ever. You had your mind made up about one issue, and one issue only.
I wonder – what would you say if I asked you what Eric Lucero intends to do, if elected, about taxes? Booming social and HHS spending? The budget bloat? How he plans to work, potentially, in a minority, and at best with a single GOP chamber against a DFL senate and possibly Governor? What his legislative priorities might be, other than…
…well, what precisely are Luceros’ priorities? Because near as I can tell, the only agenda on which Lucero ran was punishing Fitzsimmons for one single solitary vote in the entire 2013 session.
We’ll come back to that.
The Minnesota Family Council and the Taxpayers League: What the f***? I mean, what the f***ing, f***ing f***? The Taxpayers League gave Fitzsimmons a perfect 100% score and labeled him a “Friend of the Taxpayer” – presumably because Fitz perfectly supported the TPL on its brief, cutting taxes and spending . And yet there was your former boss, Phil Krinkie, writing a scathing hit piece on TPL stationery, attacking Fitzsimmons, for reasons utterly opaque to me.
And the Minnesota Family Council? You gave Fitzsimmons a 92 out of 100 – up near the top, even in a legislature full of perfect 100s. And yet over one vote, over a stance Fitzsimmons took before the GOP fell into a complete minority absolutely ensuring the passage of gay marriage – via pushing legislation that was mostly your organization’s work, by the way – and, most likely, the eventual oppression of those who dissent against it, you threw him under the bus as hard as you could.
What precisely is a good rating from either of your organizations worth, again?
Shame on both of you organizations. You both harmed both of your causes immeasurably this week among the people who’ll be showing up next week, next month and next year, if you catch my drift.
The Media: Um, not every candidate you disagree with is Tea Party. Lucero certainly isn’t. The Tea Party largely stays out of social issues. Many of us Tea Partiers have strong social beliefs, but our priority is trying to forestall the mindless liberal governments in St Paul and Washington from completely collapsing the entire economy, if we can.
Mr. Lucero: I saw you speak two weeks ago, at a Tea Party event. Near as I can tell, you have two issues; re-fighting the 2013 marriage debate, and…data security.
Assuming you get elected – and Wright County is, at least, fairly safe GOP territory, with minimal chance of the DFL flipping the seat – by all means, Mr. Lucero, tell us; what do you stand for that is material to the coming session. Because Gay Marriage ain’t coming up.
Taxes? Fighting a DFL Senate and possibly Governor? Fighting against the DFL’s drive to institute as much control over this state as it can? Getting the budget under control? Exporting conservatism from the third-tier suburbs into the parts of the state that need it?
You have some huge shoes to fill. Go ahead – convince those of us who work more than one issue that you’re fit to hold Dave Fitzsimmons’ briefcase.
Go.
That is all.
And yet there was (Taxpayers League) former boss, Phil Krinkie, writing a scathing hit piece on TPL stationery, attacking Fitzsimmons, for reasons utterly opaque to me.
Lucero signed the TPL “pledge” to not increase taxes while Fitzy did not. Yet, like you said Mitch, Fitzy scored 100% last session on the Taxpayers League scorecard. Seems to me his actions have spoken louder than any vapid pledge.
One motivation for Krinkie’s attack may be that Fitzy is supporting Tom Emmer (Krinkie’s fellow CD6 Republican) for Congress. One could make a case that Krinkie was exercising some sort of personal vendetta. While that normally wouldn’t be a huge deal, said vendetta was carried out on TPL stationary…..allegedly without the knowledge of Krinkie’s fellow board members or TPL President Ted Lillie.
So, any over/under on when Krinkie announces the “suspension” of his CD6 campaign?
MB: “which is every bit as blood-red conservative as Wright County”. Not quite. In his 2012 race DF got 61.84% and Romney got 61.63%. PG got 59.47% and Romney only got 55.59%. So Garofalo’s seat looks about 2.5%-6% more DFL than the Fitzsimmon’s seat.
OK, so Farmington is merely *decisively* GOP in a bad year, as opposed to Wright, which is *overwhelmingly* GOP in a bad year.
Thanks for that key distinction.
Word is that TPL doesn’t have a signed pledge from Lucero, at least they didn’t on the day of convention.
So Fitzsimmons walked in a bunch of parades for other candidates and apparently he is the MNGOP activist of the decade, but that doesn’t entitle him to a seat in the MN House of Reps or mean that he is a good politician despite what the irrelevant activists think or wish. The MNGOP State House endorsement process is not rocket science. It is a straightforward process of rallying people to show up to caucus, attend the BPOU convention, and earn the support of the delegates. Fitzsimmons failed miserably to earn the trust and support of the people he was supposed to represent. In fact, it appears he has 0 support in his own district. Plain and simple. It is sad and pathetic to see all the whiny and irrelevant MNGOP activists from outside the district trying to dictate what happens on a local level and how delegates should have voted. Similarly, it is complete bull shit that Fitz’s vote to redefine marriage was in the name of religious liberty. It is pure double speak and deceitful and that is why he was punished. Has anyone on this blog heard of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? It already protects churches from marrying gays if they choose not to. Let’s just call this for what it is. Fitz maybe was a good activist, but he was a very poor politician. If Fitz was even remotely good at what he did, he’d of easily been endorsed and re-elected in November. Instead, Mr. Lucero will be elected and given a shot now. Chances are Mr. Lucero will vote like a Republican and represent the people in his district much better than Fitz.
Perhaps Rep. Fitzsimmons could be persuaded to run in the GOP Primary. It would be a shame to let a ‘few’ one–issue party activists determine the outcome for HD 30B.
Similarly, it is complete bull shit that Fitz’s vote to redefine marriage was in the name of religious liberty. It is pure double speak and deceitful and that is why he was punished. Has anyone on this blog heard of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? It already protects churches from marrying gays if they choose not to.
Can you cite some case law from either from the US Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit or the Minnesota Supreme Court to that effect? Because if you can’t, then you should know that while a church might ultimately prevail in court on the theory that they can refuse to perform a SSM on religious grounds protected by the First Amendment, it’s only after they’ve spent thousands of dollars (or more) on legal fees and court costs.
Jerry,
So Fitzsimmons walked in a bunch of parades for other candidates and apparently he is the MNGOP activist of the decade, but that doesn’t entitle him to a seat in the MN House of Reps or mean that he is a good politician despite what the irrelevant activists think or wish.
Er, he went a little beyond walking in parades.
Activists aren’t irrelevant – including those of us who spoke out on Fitz’s behalf.
The MNGOP State House endorsement process is not rocket science. It is a straightforward process of rallying people to show up to caucus, attend the BPOU convention, and earn the support of the delegates. Fitzsimmons failed miserably to earn the trust and support of the people he was supposed to represent. In fact, it appears he has 0 support in his own district. Plain and simple.
Well, no.
From what I heard, Lucero’s people did a fine job of turning out people to the caucuses and the convention. As you note, it’s not rocket science.
Lucero worked the process and won the vote. No denying it.
But let’s not pretend they expressed the considered mandate of the Republicans in the district. any more than the Paulbots expressed a majority opinion in CD4 and CD5 in 2012.
It is sad and pathetic to see all the whiny and irrelevant MNGOP activists from outside the district trying to dictate what happens on a local level and how delegates should have voted.
Wow, Jerry. Turn that frown upside down. You won your vote. Unstress yourself for a moment.
By your indulgent leave, I have every bit as much right to comment on what goes on your district as anyone who lives there does. I don’t get to vote there, but – if it’s OK with you – I get to try to influence anyone I want to, any legal way I want to do it.
As Thorley noted above, Jerry, it’s here that you kinda run off the rails:
Similarly, it is complete bull shit that Fitz’s vote to redefine marriage was in the name of religious liberty. It is pure double speak and deceitful and that is why he was punished. Has anyone on this blog heard of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? It already protects churches from marrying gays if they choose not to.
Eureka! The First Amendment protects freedom of religion and conscience!
Just like the Second Amendment protected Chicagoans’ right to keep and bear arms ll those years, and is protecting people in Connecticut from gun confiscations. It’s in the Constitution, so don’t worry!
Just like the Third Amendment keeps the authorities from commandeering your property, and the Fourth secures you against unreasonable and capricious government intrusion, and the Fifth guarantees you a jury trial, and the Tenth limits the application of the Commerce Clause, and for that matter the First protects your freedom of association. It’s in the Constitution, so don’t worry!
Except it’s a lie. The First doesn’t protect Christian bakers and photographers from being forced to participate in gay weddings; the Second was only driven back from extinction at the last moment, and shooters in Connecticut ARE facing confiscation; the Fourth and Tenth are nearly meaningless, and the Fifth is, too, if the government decides you’re a terrorist. Even the somnolent Third is under attack – cops can evict you from your home to run stakeouts, in some jurisdictions.
The Constitution only protects us as much as we have the energy and determination to force it to.
Sorry, Jerry. Thorley’s right. Your complacency about our freedom of religion is misplaced.
Chances are Mr. Lucero will vote like a Republican and represent the people in his district much better than Fitz
If he doesn’t get elected, the “activists” who pushed him to the nomination will have lots of answering to do.
Jerry:
Did you hear about that case in New Mexico where a photographer was forced by New Mexico’s human rights council to take pictures of a gay couple’s wedding against their will and the New Mexico Supreme Court when they appealed ruled against them stating, “It’s a price of citizenship!” No matter how you want to pretend it wasn’t an issue it was an issue.
You owe Fitz an apology. Especially since he was a person who on race after race did what you said he couldn’t do which is recruit people. What you had was somebody who wanted the office in what will be a safe district for Republicans and used the wedding issue to get Fitz kicked out of office.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
If Fitzsimmons runs in the primary, he will be crushed just like his endorsement race. Every egomaniac irrelevant MNGOP activist in the state was behind Fitz in the weeks leading to the endorsement. Their unsolicited flapping traps hurt him rather then helped and led Fitz to his short lived state rep career. Now, all the activists can do is chatter and whine in disbelief at not only what little pull they have with the public, but within their tiny shit pile within the party.
The first amendment fully protects the freedom to practice religion, therefore government cannot force Churches to perform sacraments. Any church in America that would allow government to infringe on this founding principle is not a real church.
To say that Fitz’s vote for gay marriage makes him some sort of religious liberty hero is a dog shit lie. I don’t think businesses that market and operate in the public domain should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference. The wedding photography couple in Arizona was looking for a fight against gays. If they had even an iota of acumen, they would have simply made a professional excuse as to why they couldn’t do the job and referred them to photographers that would do the work. Instead, they discriminated and that is wrong. This is not the same thing as forcing a church to perform a sacrament and is not a religious liberty case. NOT even close.
Here is my apology to Fitz. I have nothing against you. I have never met you. You lost the endorsement fair and square. I’m sorry you had 0 supporters in your district that would show up and caucus for you. If I were you, I wouldn’t run in the party or you will be sorry because you will lose.
-Jerry
Jerry,
I can argue one point or another of your comment with you, and neither of us will convince each other.
But this bit here?
The first amendment fully protects the freedom to practice religion, therefore government cannot force Churches to perform sacraments.
What, you think there’s a secret Constitution ray that’ll make tyranny go away? The Constitution is only as powerful as the peoples’ will to uphold it. Not the other way around.
The Tenth Amendment didn’t forfend a Federal power grab using the Commerce Clause; the Fifth doesn’t protect people on terror watch lists; the Fourth doesn’t protect you from NSA spying and property forfeiture laws; the people let all those things happen. The Second Amendment didn’t protect the right to keep and bear arms in Chicago, New York or DC until the people force the government forced it to.
And soon, there will be a lawsuit against a church. Maybe the First Amendment will win out. Maybe it won’t. If it doesn’t, in part, it will be because
Any church in America that would allow government to infringe on this founding principle is not a real church.
Well, great, except that if the government wins a challenge against a church’s First Amendment rights, the government won’t distinguish between “real” and “unreal” (according to you) churches.
Jerry:
Yes or no did you hear about that case in New Mexico? A gay person told a straight person that I don’t care that you think being gay is a sin. You have to take part (note the common refrain from the gay community is only we want the same rights as you have) in my wedding even though you don’t want to. Oh by the way you don’t have the right to say no no matter what you think.
So apparently you don’t care about the first amendment? What the about the second will you say we don’t have a right to carry a gun? Will you say that I don’t have the right to a jury and be found guilty by the government (the sixth and the seventh amendment)? The fourteenth amendment is gone under the spirit that we have to give rights to one group the gays while taking it away from straight people.
I can go on, but you don’t care unless Republicans are behaving like Democrats.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN