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.

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.

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

She was still endorsed. She’s playing procedural games then too.

Does that make it right?

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.

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.”"

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?