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…

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.

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.

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…)

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.

If she were serious about running for office, she would start at the local level.

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?