Centrist My Arse
Posted by Andy on April 24th, 2006
I know many MOBsters love like Flash. (Wake up, he feeds you beer once a year folks!) And I hear that Flash is a nice guy, but center minded, he is NOT. Proof of that is this post.
OK, so one of the stories brewing over the weekend was the fledgling GOP Gubernatorial Campaign of Sue (Stub and Herbs) Jeffers and her attempt to get access to the GOP delegate list in order to pursue the nomination. Now, I don’t even believe she thinks she has a legitimate shot at the nomination. But she should have a reasonable expectation to what should be an open process.
As I commented over there, Sue Jeffers is the Libertarian Candidate for Governor. Heck, I posted Saturday that another Party’s candidate should not be given access to the Republican’s list and vice versa.
This whole thing by Jeffers is an attention grabbing scheme, and lefties like Flash will be shouting this from the roof tops. But in the end, ask yourself why any party should allow another party’s candidate access to their private lists.
To imply that this is just some sort of strong arming by Carey and the Republicans is just plain Leftristic.
Sphere: Related Content
April 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I was pointing out that delegates within the party, ie. the letter write in my post, feels that access should be allowed. I just report, you decide.
It is the Letter writer I refer to, a GOP delegate for the state convention who said:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/message/18794
“” t has now come out that Ron Carey has refused her access to the GOP state delegate’s list, even though she is seeking the GOP endorsement. The GOP has an incumbent governor, and conventional wisdom dictates you stick with that, but the republican party claims to be built on open, inclusive and democratic (small d) principles. Not only has Carey refused Sue Jeffers access to the delegates list, but he’s suggested changing the rules of the state convention to block her even entering!!! “”
It is not uncommon for candidates to seek multiple endorsements. It is unusual for a major party to block one of their own from access to the process. Ms. Jeffers mistake was getting the Libertarian endorsement first, but that shouldn’t prohibit her from seeking the GOP’s with a like minded platform.
Regardless of whether you feel I am centrist or not, it is a stage GOP delegate that is doing the jumping up and down, not me.
Flash
April 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
It is ok for a Republican not to support a Republican, IE if a Republican wants to support Jeffers, that is ok. But Jeffers is a Libertarian, and thus, has made the decision not to be a Republican.
She’s got their endorsement. She is a past President of the LPMN.
I repeat, would it be ok for Pawlenty to run for the DFL nod, or Hatch for the GOP?
April 24th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
“I repeat, would it be ok for Pawlenty to run for the DFL nod, or Hatch for the GOP?”
Yes! Simple enough. But it would be foolish considering the ideologies are different. But they should be allowed to if they choose. Jefferes situation is different whereas the ideology is similar
Keep in mind, that the Albert Lea Tribune reports that although she was endorsed by the libertarians, she has not accepted it to leave open the option of persuing the GOP nod.
http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2006/04/18/news/news2.txt
“”Jeffers was endorsed by the Libertarian Party last Saturday but delayed accepting the nomination because she said she wanted to challenge Gov. Tim Pawlenty for the Republican endorsement.
Jeffers said if she receives 41 percent of the vote at the Republican convention she can choose to run in a primary against the governor or collect 2,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot as a Libertarian candidate.”"
April 24th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Under normal parliamentary rules, Sue would have to have a delegate move to recognize her at the convention, and it would require a 2/3 vote to allow her to speak (assuming she wasn’t a delegate and we’re using Robert’s Rules of order). She could be nominated for endorsement by a delegate and a second and that would have to go to a vote on the nomination (assuming the GOP decided to endorse at state) but it would still require a vote to allow her even then to speak unless there was a change in the rules.
There are no votes on nominations and no debate. It would require a ridiculous change in procedure to deny her the ability to be nominated by a duly elected delegate to the state convention, one that I would oppose. It also shouldn’t be necessary, as a vote between Sue and TPaw wouldn’t take long. It’s better to do things by the book than appear like you’re removing the rights of delegates.
Sue has no rights to anything though, as she is not a delegate, so she can’t nominate herself. She can’t get the delegate list if it is not given to her, and she again has no rights whatsoever to it because she didn’t go through the process. In fact, the rules could easily be changed to bar her from entering the convention (again, she’s not a delegate and has no rights in the matter). But you can’t remove the right of the delegates to nominate whomever they please to be endorsed. [Technically, you could make a rule change saying all incumbants are automatically endorsed (poor Arlon Lindner) but that would require a majority vote (or super majority depending on which Parliamentary rules you are using) by the delegation.
However, Sue would still have the right to run in the GOP primary if she were to get on the ballot. You have the right to declare whatever party you choose at anytime you choose, so it doesn’t matter in any of this that she carries a LP endorsement. If she had attended caucuses, she could have been challenged for not belonging adhering to the party, but they let in Eva Young, they’ll let in Sue Jeffers.
You’re right though, Sue has no right to the lists. But delegates have the right to move to endorse anyone they please, incuding members of other parties.
Hope that confuses things.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Yeah, I understood her not to have accepted the Libertarian nomination even though it was extended to her. We are having Sue on tomorrow night to talk about why she’s doing this etc. on KTLK-fm 7-9 during the Conry show (for our last sub show since Conry will be back next week).
April 24th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
http://www.lpmn.org/pr_061904.php
She was still endorsed. She’s playing procedural games then too.
Does that make it right?
April 25th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Andy,
So all the Green part has to do is endorse Pawlenty and that would make him inelligible for the GOP nod. Just saying. A Party can endorse a ham sandwhich if they want, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to accept it.
My whole point here was that the GOP could have given her a moment in the sun, and then rubber stamped TPAw. Instead they created negative press and continue to show the electorate they are the party of Exclusions. Even Tracy at Anti Strib is a little pertrubed. Does that make him a Leftie, too.
http://anti-strib.blogspot.com/2006/04/free-advice-given-daily.html
“”Next, Sue Jeffers took our advice and decided to challenge Tim Pawlenty for the Republican endorsement for Governor. Good going Sue! Unfortunately the MN Republican party is run by assholes.”"
I’ll have to tune into KTLK. I’ll be surious to hear what Sue has to say
Flash
April 25th, 2006 at 8:34 am
“My whole point here was that the GOP . . . . created negative press and continue to show the electorate they are the party of Exclusions.”
Bingo. We have winner: there’s the talking point for which this whole manufactured episode is about.
It’s not about Sue Jeffers seeking the GOP endorsement, it’s about damaging Tim Pawlenty and the Republican Party. If Jeffers truly were serious about seeking the GOP endorsement, she would have: a) laid the groundwork for her campaign a long time ago and b) followed the process by which endorsement is earned, most notably becoming a delegate to the party which she seeks to represent.
Ultimately, the purpose of this disingenuous effort is to paint Pawlenty and the GOP as “exclusionary.” It reminds me very much of a similar political tactic that the DFL used against Congressman Kline in 2002 when it ran Sam Garst under the “No New Taxes” banner. Then, as is the case now, the purpose was to prop up a faux conservative candidate in order to damage the GOP’s electoral chances.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Sue has been running an anti-Pawlenty campaign since the beginning. Keep in mind I was of the first to know about her running.
Little known fact.
It is all my fault. SD 50 was looking for a Senate Candidate and some people told me about her. I got the local GOP in touch with her, and …
There was no way she was going to run her campaign with out lambasting Pawlenty. She said that there was just no way she could have run with out making the campaign all about Pawlenty. I’ve been keeping an eye on her campaign, and it is obsessively anti-Pawlenty. So much to the point that it turns my stomach, even though I share some of the same complaints about him.
I have not seen anything other than negativity towards the Republicans as a whole. And regardless of whether she didn’t accept the nomination from the LPMN, she hasn’t been active in local GOP politics in over 8 years. The Republican Party is for those committed to the Republican Party.
She wants to come to the State Covention to bash Pawlenty, and that is it.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:26 am
There’s a lot of paranoia in partisan politics, isn’t there? Jeffers isn’t trying to damage the republican party. She’s trying to fix it. She’s been a republican all her life, but has become disenchanted with the behavior of the “republicans” who get elected to office in Minnesota. A sentiment I can testify that is shared by many of the delegates that I know. When speaking in broad tones about the uselessness of “the republicans,” she’s talking about the jokers we elect, thinking they are like us, then turn out not to be once in power. Most of us feel that way, I’m sure.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Republicans eating there own..I love it