Carey Blames Delegates
Posted by Andy on March 16th, 2007
Listening to Ron Carey on the Jason Lewis show now. This just caught my attention.
A caller asked about the platform meaning something to the elected officials and what can the party do about it.
Ron Carey answered back by saying that the people passing the platform are the same people endorsing the candidates.
So it is their fault!
Will Mr. Carey admit he fought like hell against allowing a person challenge Pawlenty for the endorsement on the premise that he didn’t support the platform?
Sphere: Related Content
March 16th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
He has a point Andy….we DO have it in our power to get rid of the RINO’s. We need to get our conservate bretheren to the caucuses and to the conventions so that we CAN GET NEW BLOOD in representing us.
LL
March 17th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Ron Carey answered back by saying that the people passing the platform are the same people endorsing the candidates.
Maybe Mr. Carey would like to come see how we don’t have decent candidates to begin with. Candidates who can’t uphold the platform should not be running under that platform. Make them toe the line Mr Carey, or more “republicans” will be out on their asses.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:48 am
From email:
“I wish Jason would have asked Mr. Carey if he bears any responsibility for the slaughter we took last November? Does Mr. Carey plan to use the same ineffective plan to channel party resources into a couple key races at the expense of other races in 08? Does he have a plan for 08?
And finally, Republicans are now firmly in the minority, RINO’s are a big problem from top to bottom, the party is in complete disarray with staff departures by choice and force, the party base is frustrated and angry and Mr. Carey blaming the delegates for the RINO’s in office is shameful, and 08 is just around the corner. What part of this mess falls on Mr. Carey’s shoulders and can he turn it around in just over a year?
Answer: No, he can’t. Ron Carey is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Now too busy trying to “listen” to the base, something he should have been doing BEFORE the last election, these problems are festering. The best thing for the party would be if Mr. Carey would step down.
Sue Jeffers”
March 17th, 2007 at 9:08 am
LL:
So, the State party is actually useless then. And the entire potential of the MNGOP rests on one single night in March of election year. If that night the BPOU’s fail, there is nothing the state party leadership can do for the next 2 years?
Then why do we pay a chair so much? Why do we have so much staff? Why do we not just have a state party that ramps every other year? If they won’t or can’t push issues and help guide the elected officials, what is the point of the party?
That may be my entire problem here. Maybe the party is useless, and can’t do a darn thing that I expect it to.
Maybe we should prop up the House and Senate Caucuses then. They seem more capable of actually helping BPOUs find good people.
BTW: I remember this whole it is up to the BPOUs and their fault attitude back when Eibensteiner was around. That’s one reason he was resoundingly thrown under the bus. And what so many failed to see is that Ron Carey had been in party leadership even longer, having been the Secretary Treasurer for 8 years, or 4 full elections cycles.
The sign of a true leader is humility and responsibility. Ron Carey clearly has neither. If it is not his fault now, what can he do differently next time?
And if he is not going to be responsible for when major elected officials abandon the GOP values following the election, and just blame the BPOUs, well, why even have a party chair or a party?
Honestly, sit back and listen to this guy talk once. He just blamed the BPOUs for the 2006 election. Most f us know the problem was low turnout by conservatives because of RINO legislators. So when those RINO legislators show up to be endorsed, we have no choice.
If this is the defense Carey is going to pursue, how would he like to explain the Pawlenty Jeffers thing? He made sure Delegates didn’t have a choice. How is that our fault? It is afterall, because of Pawlenty, that a lot of conservatives didn’t show up to help work and recruit people.
Ron Carey is not willing to take any responsibility, so why is he treated as such a saint by you people?
March 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
My stars, Andy, you sound just like the MSM, whining and caterwauling, wanting Bush to “admit mistakes” on Iraq. Once he admits one, of course, they’ll be back asking for more, and trashing anything he has done or wants to do. It’s pointless gamesmanship with “those people” and we have to be better than that. I don’t care whose fault it was, or who is in charge. All I care about is getting it right the next time, and Carey is right about that: If we don’t “retake and remake” the party, bottom to top, it isn’t going to make a whole heck of a lot of difference. Even if Mr. Carey is the most brilliant political tactician in history (which even he, I suspect, would admit he’s not), he can’t do it alone. My BPOU and CD are both reorganizing to focus on pushing the conservative cause forward, and electing candidates who can do it will become simply the means to that end. When the rest of the BPOUs get to that point, we won’t have to kick this discussion around any longer.
And another thing: Sue Jeffers didn’t stand a chance. Sorry, Sue, but I am glad you tried. And to suggest that Sue’s deliberate exclusion from the convention was the reason all of the RINO legislators didn’t have a challenger seems like pretzel logic to me. If the BPOUs endorse RINOs, there isn’t much the state party can do, is there?
Look, I know what happens. The grass roots has become infatuated with “electability” as the only issue warranting endorsement. I agreed with that for the longest time, because it seemed as if our party previous to that had wanted candidates to “stand on principle” so tightly that they lost, and we’ve just seen what happens when you don’t win. We got smarter, I think, and adopted a philosophy of “any Republican is better than any Democrat,” simply because of what happens without the majority. But that leads to an opposite type of candidate, one who will, “forsake principle and win” (that is, endorsing RINOs) and that isn’t a good idea either, because even with the majority, the principles often get tossed when the legislation comes around. So what the BPOUs have to do is to start finding candidates, even challenging incumbents for the endorsement in some cases, who can =STAND on principle and WIN=. Until the grassroots is willing to step up and adopt this new philosophy, you and I can holler on the street corners all we want (and probably will :=) but it won’t help.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I been screaming this the day after the election we need to get moving. Ron Carey who I believe is a good man who wants us to succeed is not acting fast enough. I’m sure his bitch and wine meetings helped the activist feel bettter but nothing was gained. The truth is as I have been running around talking to everyone I can is conservatives need an organization that can help us win elections. The RPM is not able to do so for to many reasons to list. The house and senate caucuses are not able because they are elected without any say of the statewide base. They have their own agendas. Why do you Dick Day spent all his resources getting rid of Dean Johnson? Dick wanted him gone, look at the cost though! The BPOU’s do not have the ability to raise the money and support candidates going against ed mn and other groups. We need help. We need the big money guys to donate to an outside org. like a 527 or similar and mount an attack. I have tried to get names or connections to those players and no one wants to give them up because they fear there group will lose funds. The point being that even if Ron Carey isn’t cutting it I’m not sure that the patry is ever going to be the tool for winning elections. Plus where is the guy standing up saying I’m the other option I can do better than Ron. I would love to meet him. I was one of those that forced change in party leadership however I was pushing for Bill pulkrabek. Bill knows how to stand up against liberal B.S.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
FTR: Ron may be a fine person, and Republican, but it his leadership that I question.
If the party can’t stand up for the principles and actually in the public arena, take on Ed Mn, and the DFL, why have it be so ‘centrific’ and controlling? The do set the agenda or organization that CDs and BPOUs have to follow.
Yes some BPOUs and CDs are reforming because they have to due to the state. But others are following this”Its up to the BPOU and the state party just can’t do anything” mindset, but refuse to even assist in the communication between them. Now BPOUs are the muscle of our party, but there has to be tendons to hold it together. there has to be a nervous system to help it work with the other ones, not against them. One muscle can’t move a body, we have to work together. But most importantly is having a super model exterior (IE skin) that draws people towards us in the first place is going to make it easier for everyone.
That’s my problem with the status quo mentality currently visible. I was ready to give up and pray Carey is the person some say he is, then I started to hear about things again, and go back to the Carey I know and see.
We didn’t lose the MN house because of Iraq, and I hope to Reagan no one really buys that as THE lone reason (a part, maybe, but in absolutely no way the lone reason. IF so, explain Bachmann and Kline and Pawlenty. All 3 were big supporters of the war. It wasn’t an issue our state candidates even touched on. And if voters did vote because of it, it is further proof that Minnesotans no longer know what the Republican party of Minnesota stands for.).
We lost because people are now starting to believe that Government can and SHOULD answer and solve every single problem in people’s lives. Why? Because Republicans (especially at the top) have started to believe that too and define the party to fit that model. As much as Pawlenty has done on conservatives’ behalf, he has … well he said it himself, “the era of small government is over.” I completely disagree, but if even the Republican party won’t try to make the case against that notion…..
If the GOP is going to go along with that, you will see more discontent, and even less workers in the grassroots in 2008. And no matter how we rearrange the deck chairs, it won’t matter. It’s the issues folks, call it platform or principles, that’s where the real fight needs to be waged. All the details and mechanics are great, but if we don’t have 2 clear visions visible at the statewide level, it will be another massacre.
I agree that there needs to be an alternative, and there are still people still considering it and preparing their plans.
And to JEwing’s MSM attack:
If Ron Carey can’t admit there was a fundamental failure at the state level, that the performance of elected Republicans in 2005 & 2006 is what killed our grassroots turnout and the defense offered when they did it that and helped lead to 59% voter turnout, and Carey is going to blame the grassrootss for endorsing them, as well as put the responsibility on grassroots to repair that, well….
WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A STATE PARTY CHAIR WITH SO MUCH POWER?
All we need is an office manager, data manager, and researchers. We don‘t need a full time CEO Chair if he can’t do anything.
As mr truth said, BPOUs cannot take on the big liberals groups. EdMN, Unions, MoveOn, etc etc. But if the state party and elected GOP leaders (IE the top of the ticket) were going head to head on the issues with these people and defining the GOP vision vs their liberal one, instead of trying to find common ground or split the difference, our BPOUs could have a chance when they are out one on one. We can get the workers there, but only if it is worth there while, and they have something to sell. We can’t go door to door selling a product labeled grade a beef, when the people know its really tofurkey.
Right now, a lot of grassroots people could care less. That’s a problem, and something that can’t be solved by volunteer leaders at BPOU levels.
I’m demanding accountability from our party leadership. I’m questioning the past performance and current blame shifting. You call it whining and caterwauling, I call it caring about this party so darn much that I am taking this argument to the people that will listen and hopefully care enough to ask questions too so some real change can take place once and for all. We’re really arguing about the exact same stuff as we were when Ron Eibensteiner was run out of the party. Well…..
Our party can be better than this, and the secrecy and closed door meetings are only going to further divide this party.
Volunteer chairs at the local level can’t solve everything that is wrong with the party brand and organization. Especially when we’re shunned and forced to do what we are told.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I agree with much of what you said. But what should the party do when the gov does something stupid? You don’t shoot your foot because it iches. That’s the problem with the party, they can’t hang the candidates when they turn into RINOS. The people have to! It should be the conservatives that emailor write the gov and say gov is big enough. I was at a convention the other day and a state rep whom i respect was going over the budget plans and said DFL house spend this much, DFL senate spend this much, GOP senate this much, Gov wants to spend what we gained in revenue and GOP House wants to spend 1/2 what we gained and give half back. THen he acted like he was proud. No one in the room looked upset. I was foaming at the mouth. Not one of these GOP bodies thought about reducing the budget! That’s the problem the base seems to be turning belly up to. Our party became the big tent party at one point which has its advantages, but when the one thing everyone in the tent agreed on was being fiscally conservative seems to be gone what happens to the tent. I personally feel we need someone to say this is my tent Republicans are fiscally conservative and if you aren’t get the hell out.
i’m saying it, whose with me?
By the way the GOP caucuses should throw out anyone who votes to raise taxes.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
By the way andy honestly I understand your passion to save the party. But I care more about what I stand for ie property rights, smaller government, capitalism then some organization. If I have to start my own with people who believe in the things I do than so be it.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
AAA - There are a few ways where the party is “useless”. Chairman Carey followed up saying that the grass roots (that’s you and I bub) needs to find the good conservatives - as opposed to going to the local bar and saying “who want’s to run?” JE is right - we do, when looking for candidates, look for electability - and what did that get us? Ramstad, Pawlenty and GW Bush. I think we are learning that electability is not the be all and end all.
“BTW: I remember this whole it is up to the BPOUs and their fault attitude back when Eibensteiner was around. That’s one reason he was resoundingly thrown under the bus. And what so many failed to see is that Ron Carey had been in party leadership even longer, having been the Secretary Treasurer for 8 years, or 4 full elections cycles. ”
Yep - and we (the grass roots) need to remember that in June when he runs for Chair again.
Honestly AAA - there is blame enough to go around. Where I fault the Chairman is that there was no clear reason (from the Party) why voters should vote Republican. The only thing we got was “well you don’t want Governor Hatch do you?” We (the grass roots) did send up a couple of folks that would have been best to have been left behind however, a couple of them you and I were firmly behind. That is one of the things that hurt us. You and I have learned….will the other districts learn? Will the state party learn? We don’t have a lot of time to find out.
The grass roots needs to start driving this beast and driving it forward. The Chairman said that this is a bottom up organization…time for things to roll UP for a change!
LL
March 17th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Grass roots…
AAA started a conversation yesterday based on Chairman Carey’s appearance on the Jason Lewis radio show yesterday. Chairman Carey said (in response to a caller asking about RINO’s that don’t follow the platform) that the people passing the platform…
March 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Andy, that wasn’t an attack, that was an honest reaction. We’re all after the same thing, and I think we all have a piece of the answer, like yours:
“As mr truth said, BPOUs cannot take on the big liberals groups. EdMN, Unions, MoveOn, etc etc. But if the state party and elected GOP leaders (IE the top of the ticket) were going head to head on the issues with these people and defining the GOP vision vs their liberal one, instead of trying to find common ground or split the difference, our BPOUs could have a chance when they are out one on one. We can get the workers there, but only if it is worth there while, and they have something to sell. We can’t go door to door selling a product labeled grade a beef, when the people know its really tofurkey.”
I think you’re exactly right, and I’m optimistic on that. I love what Senjem and Seifert are doing– bringing up “right” bills even knowing they’ll be defeated, then exposing all the “silly bills” the DFL puts up. We’ve even got Pawlenty saying he’ll veto tax increases, and it looks like the R caucus will hold together well enough to sustain. This could play well with the 70% of voters who don’t think taxes should be raised.
What I can’t do is to say that the State Party HQ can do it by itself. It is going to take great leadership (which you say we don’t have; I’m not sure) to get the State Party to do what it’s never done before (to my knowledge, what NO state party has done before)– to buck their party’s elected officials and support the principles instead. And it wouldn’t even be necessary if the BPOUs were strong enough to send only principled legislators to St. Paul. Yes, the Party leadership can be much more effective in building these BPOUs and giving them a “big megaphone” marketing of our principles. and they should. But the BPOUs have it in their combined if not individual power, to make the change themselves. Ours has started. How about yours?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Ours has too JE…..
LL
March 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I heard Carey on Jason Lewis’ show as well, and I was livid. I’m glad to see that I’m not the only person who picked up on Carey’s “It’s all your fault… I did everything right” message to the delegates.
He says we delegates need to pick better candidates to endorse, BUT the party leadership (ie: Carey) was actively hindering good candidates, and fighting tooth and nail to be sure we had no options for endorsement. Sue Jeffers is only one example. Harold Shudlick was actively hindered as well. Ultimately he, at least was allowed to address the convention, but only after they severely handicapped him. He didn’t get a delegates list until weeks before the convention. John Uldrich also wasn’t allowed to address the convention. The party, not the delegates chose Kennedy.
Convention rules were changed last-minute to prevent nominations from the floor. In other words, to prevent the delegates from chosing their candidates! Party leaders used proceedural tricks (like running out the clock with pointless platitudes) to prevent debate about the actual rules change. This wansn’t the action of the delegates. It was Carey, and a certain well-known Central Committee member who worked to keep the delegates in line (and in the dark). We were nothing but a rubber-stamp to endorse the candidates chosen for us by party leaders.
Carey has some nerve to blame the delegates!!! That sort of buck-passing doesn’t indicate good leadership to me.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Another common email note over the weekend from others was about his “Thankless job” statement he repeatedly made.
The response was “I can think of about 90,000 thank you’s no chair has ever gotten before”.
He was playing the poor me card on Friday, and then sounded completely different on the NARN w/ Brodkorb and King Saturday. On that more friendly radio show, he was seeming to blame the Caucus leadership for the elected officials not holding to conservative Republican principles.
I was not able to pay close attention to that show, but it sure sounded like Carey was describing a completely different political party than the one he was on Friday.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Sometimes I feel that way, too, as if I’m a member of the Schizophrenic Party. One half wants to advance our principles by finding an “electable” candidate that’s a little weak on principle, and the other half wants a fire-breathing defender of principle that doesn’t stand a prayer of getting elected. We have to find a new approach, along the lines of Andy’s suggestion. Seventy percent of the population probably agrees with our basic Republican principles, enough to elect a candidate who agrees with them by a wide margin, most places.
The problem is that we don’t know clearly what those principles are, and we certainly don’t communicate them clearly to the public, and can’t seem to find candidates who can clearly articulate and defend them. That’s a very big problem. The State Party can, and should, propose ways in which to solve these things, or take ideas from the BPOUs, or some combination, but the BPOUs are still going to have to do these things for themselves.