Sue Jeffers is a Libertarian # (I’ve lost track)
Posted by Andy on May 31st, 2006
MDE points out another great point on Jeffers.
In a last ditch attempt to gain access to our convention, Sue Jeffers’ campaign is now trying to distance Ms. Jeffers from the platform of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota.
“It should be noted that Sue Jeffers’ views, while libertarian leaning in many respects do not match up with the Libertarian Party platform in some respects. For example, she is pro-life, and opposes redefining Marriage. ” Source: Dan McGrath, Campaign Manager, Sue Jeffers for Governor
But remember that since Ms. Jeffers has been endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, she is bound to support their platform.
Source: Libertarian Party of Minnesota Bylaws:
“8.14.The convention shall require any endorsed candidate to support the Libertarian Party of Minnesota platform.”
Let’s see how well that flies with the GOP Delegates. Against the marriage amendment? Yikes.
And so you don’t forget about Jeffers’ Libertarian connection. She is still listed on the main page of the Libertarian Party on Minnesota’s Website.
Libertarian Gubernatoril Candidate Sue Jeffers on the Campaign Trail
Small business owner Sue Jeffers has been campaigning across the state at schools, debates, bars, gun shows, tax rallies, radio shows, and much more.“I am running for governor because people are fed up with the two-party system and voters want an alternative choice that truly represents them. My neighbors, co-workers, friends, family and the public have been ignored. I will be their voice in this election.”
Oh and on the Candidates Page
Featured 2006 Candidates
LPMN 2006 Convention News
- Sue Jeffers receives party endorsement for Governor, but seeks Republican Party endorsement - Website
She is still being promoted by the Libertarian party. And another thing, what happened to all the money that Jeffers received from LPMN convention attendees? If they donated to her campaign, their convention fees were waived.
Also, to be endorsed by the Libertarians, she had to be a member.
To be a member you have to agree to this.
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota shall be to function primarily as a political party to elect people to political office in order to achieve the values in the Statement of Principles. Its secondary purpose is educational work for the same goal.
2. Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and oppose the initiation of force or fraud as a means of achieving political or social goals. We are dedicated to the right of all individuals to live in whatever manner they choose, as long as they do not forcibly interfere with the right of others to live as they choose. Governments throughout history, including our own, have operated on the principle that the state has the right to control the lives of individuals and confiscate the fruits of their labor. All other political parties in this country grant government these powers. We, however, hold that governments, when instituted, have only one legitimate function: to protect the rights of the individual.
We challenge the concept that governments have the right to become involved in any activity not directly related to the protection of individual rights. Governments should exist only to ensure the right to free speech and action, the right to own property, and the right to engage in voluntary contractual arrangements with other individuals. No individual should be forced by the State, or another person, to relinquish any portion of his or her life or property for the benefit of another person.
Sue Jeffers is a Libertarian!
Sphere: Related Content
May 31st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Just what parts of #2 do Republicans disagree with?
May 31st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
??? No clue
And if this is a breaking point for Libertarians, why are they now so eager to take over the GOP?
If we have strayed so far from the idealistic principles that are Libertarian, why is the GOP now the place to be?
Oh, you need us. Well, to be a member of a large group, you’re going to disagree with other members of that group. It is called Big Tent. It kinda sucks sometimes. but it is the way it works.
Like I told Tony a while ago, principles are all fine and dandy, but you are the only one who has those principles, what is the point?
May 31st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Jeffers is nothing more than a liberal Harold Shudlick. She does not have the experience, name recognition or money to be taken seriously as a candidate for Governor.
If she were serious about running for office, she would start at the local level.
May 31st, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Oh Rob. That was not a good answer. Those things are not reasons why people shouldn’t be candidates. In fact often they are ones that people find refreshing.
Jeffers has every right to run as a Republican, but the problem is she decided to run as a Libertarian before she decided against it. She’s been waging a war against Pawlenty and the Republicans for many reasons, most notably the smoking bans, which funny enough is a County a city originated problem in her case.
She’s off mark on many of her attacks, and shares more ideas with DFLers in her distaste for Pawlenty and the Republican leadership in our state.
I’ll say it again, had she really intended to run as a Republican, she should have filed for as a Republican and went directly to the GOP process, but instead she went Libertarian. She’s based out of the Libertarian offices (She used to if not still does hold campaign meetings there). The Libertarians did not field a different candidate once Jeffers decided to run for the GOP nod.
Sue Jeffers is a Libertarian running a Libertarian campaign. She’s is serious about running for office, she just has her process and party affiliation a bit skewed at the moment.
May 31st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Oh come on, Sue Jeffers knows as well as the rest of us that had she sought the GOP endorsement for governor she woulda gotten creamed and silenced. You just don’t DO that when there is a party incumbent already… she wanted to run for the office and get some attention and frankly I think she’s done a pretty good job of that. I mean after all, aren’t we all talking about her??
I believe that she’s smart enough to understand that she will not win, but also that this is the way to get the attention she wants. (Don’t know if it’s about ego or the issues she hopes to draw attention to, but either way…)
May 31st, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Andy,
I will preface this by saying I haven’t researched GOP bylaws on this topic, but I have to differ with you here. I’m not clear how having another party’s endorsement automatically excludes someone from receiving the GOP endorsement. Isn’t what matters most that the GOP endorse the candidate that best represents the parts of the party platform that are most important to the delegates. Note, I don’t say the person that best represents the entire platform.
Let’s take an example. Let’s say there is no encumbancy involved and that Jeffers has been endorsed by the Libertarian Party, and the “Republican front runner” is Lincoln Chafee. Who would I support? I can’t say for sure, but I would at least give Jeffers serious consideration. I think a lot of delegates would join me. As Craig points out, there is a great deal of overlap in the Libertarian ideals and Republican ideals.
You would be hard pressed to find a GOP candidate or even a delegate who supports 100% of the platform 100% of the time (Ronald Reagan didn’t). I don’t think it is a fair argument to state that Sue Jeffers is bound to 100% of the Libertarian platform, especially when she has publicly stated a couple of cases where she differs with that platform both prior too and after receiving the endorsement.
Where I do agree with you (from your earlier posts on this topic) is that if Sue Jeffers wanted the Republican endorsement, she should have gone through the full endorsement process, not try to jump onto the train while it is steaming down the tracks.
I also supported your comments (from earlier posts) that unendorsed candidates should by no means have access to delegate lists or any other non-public official party list, whether endorsed by another party or not.
I also think that it is not the best strategy to try to win an endorsement of a party while at the same time throwing hand grenades at them. I’m paraphrasing my interpretation of her position. “You f’n Republicans, I’m too embarassed to run as a Republican associate myself with you. By the way, can I have your endorsement?”
Even though I don’t agree with everything he has done, I am behind the Governor 100%. If the issue is whether Jeffers should have a say from the floor of the convention, the fact that she has the Libertarian Party endorsement is not in my mind a valid reason to deny it. The fact that she is not a delegate and did not go through the endorsing process properly might be.
I do think the damage would be worse by not allowing it than any damage that could be done by allowing Sue Jeffers to speak.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:58 pm
“Those things are not reasons why people shouldn’t be candidates. In fact often they are ones that people find refreshing.”
Jeffers could state that she is interested in running for President, but that wouldn’t make her a credible candidate. I do agree that there are exceptions, but you really have to be a credible candidate to be taken seriously.
She would have been much better off running for State House or State Senate.
May 31st, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Way Wrong Attitude, but Can You Blame ‘em…
I just got this email.
I guess I am not welcome anymore at the conservative table since I supported the Twins Stadium and am a conservative. Best of Luck and I will be saving my money and my time since I am not pure enough to be part of the party any…