WARNING - Circular Firing Squad, Anyone Spot the Problem
Posted by Andy on March 30th, 2007
Gov. Tim Pawlenty is supporting Ron Carey for reelection as Republican Party Chair.
(Now pay attention)
Joe Repya is challenging Ron Carey for Party Chair, this is after he turned down a job offer to be the national Chair of Veterans for McCain.
(Pay attention)
I am now hearing word of calls being made to Delegates in the Republican Party today saying that Repya is a McCain supprter and therefore not a real conservative, so people can’t support him.
(What comes to mind at first when you here this?)
Tim Pawlenty is currently serving as national co-chair of John McCain’s Presidential Campaign and is speaking at his behalf across the country and on TV. One could say Pawlenty is McCain’s biggest supporter.
(Anyone, anyone, Bueller?)
Now, I did ask Repya about the McCain thing earlier this week, and he fully understands that he must remain neutral, and he said so right in the PiPress story. He is not working for John McCain and he is not going actively campaign for McCain or against any Republican candiate as party chair. He knows that the Chairman MUST remain neutral.
(Keyword: Neutral, That means not for or AGAINST a Republican candidate.)
Does any one see the complete irony of this one?
I would highly encourage the Joe Repya detractors to do their homework a bit better BEFORE they run out bashing Repya. Joe Repya just might surprise you as being just what this party needs. He’s a uniter, not a divider. He wants this crap to end, not become the norm. He wants an open debate about the direction of the party, not to divide and conquer.
Sphere: Related Content
March 30th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
AAA-
“(Keyword: Neutral, That means not for or AGAINST a Republican candidate.)”
I see you have chosen to focus on the against part of that sentence. But what about the FOR?
I saw this in yesterday’s Pioneer Press:
“Repya said he has a ’strong affection for Senator McCain…’” Saint Paul Pioneer, March 29, 2007
If it is the responsibility of the party chairman to remain neutral (as you have made clear)- how can
Repya?
March 31st, 2007 at 12:58 am
Carey didn’t remain neutral in the last batch of endorsements. The entire executive committee actively worked to hinder some candidates in favor of their annointed ones. I AM paying attention. I don’t know much about Repya yet, but I’m certainly willing to take a look.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:28 am
Carey admitted at the Blaine Townhall that he “knows who he is supporting” for the POTUS, meaning he has a favorite, should we know who that is, to make sure he doesn’t support that person over and above remaining neutral?
But really, when a man like Repya gives his word that he will remain neutral, personally, I take him at it.
And as Dan pointed out, Carey has interfered with an endorsement before. Like it or not, like Jeffers or not, like Pawlenty or not, Carey made darn sure NO ONE appeared against Pawlenty at the conventions last Spring and Summer. That is undeniable. I’ve heard the excuse for it, if he stands by it, then he shouldn’t have a problem admitting he did it.
I encourage everyone take a few deep breathes and listen to Repya, and his plans on making the party better and stronger over the next few weeks and compare that to what Carey is going to propose for the future. This debate can be incredibly constructive for the party, no matter who wins as long as it remains constructive about the plans for the party.
Let’s all, myself included, take a big step back, relax, and watch these 2 candidates provide their visions for the future of the party in the coming weeks. Let’s take a break from the divisiveness and have a debate about how best to fix this party all the way down to the grassroots level. That’s what we should really be looking at right now.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
That sounds good to me. Why anyone would want to say that a fine man like Col. Repya can’t be trusted or shouldn’t be elected (for some supposed “sin”) is just beyond me. There are plenty of reasons to choose one over the other based purely on their positive qualities and what they can bring to a Party organization that desperately needs to get its act together and take it on the road. And I still believe strongly that neither one can do it alone. EVERYBODY has to get engaged and on the same page. There’s barely enough of us as it is; we can’t afford some people taking their ball and going home.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
2 things:
Both you Andy and Dan (I assume this is the same Dan who managed the Sue Jeffers for Governor campaign) love to blame Ron Carey for Sue Jeffers not speaking at the State Convention. That decision was up to the Nominating Committee. This same committee allowed Harold “The Shud” Shudlick to speak, but barred Uldrich from speaking. Uldrich and Jeffers were barred from speaking since their conservative credentials were suspect. Ron Carey did not serve on that committee.
Secondly, it seems that only Jeffers supporters are vocally backing Repya. This concerns me if we have a member of another party and her supporters trying to back their own candidate.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:42 am
Long tirade to set the record straight follows:
Yes, I was Sue’s campiagn manager. A decision I am proud of. I know that I did the right thing. The nominating committee had it’s marching orders. The decision had to be “unanimous” to prevent the results of the nominating committee being challenged by a minority report. Arms were twisted, and some members were convinced to abstain from voting rather than vote for or against Jeffers.
The executive committee further saw to it that the convention rules were changed to prevent nominations from the floor, robbing the delegates of their voice, and taking away the traditional method of nominating candidates that all levels of the state party have always employed.
Debate on the rule change was squelched by hiding the rule change in with a larger block of rules, and running out the clock on debate for the issue by bringing up irrelevat portions of that rules block first. The entire orchestrated event was aided by a certain state central committee member took the mic several times at the convention to steer the debate and change the subject whenever anything arose that could have opened a door to Jeffers’ nomination. I took to calling him the “hatchet man.”
Sue Jeffers isn’t a member of another party. That’s what the executive committee would have you believe. She’s the vice president of the Twin Cities Republican Association, the state’s largest republican group! Carey said Jeffers was denied delegates lists because “she filed as a Libertarian” which is just flat out wrong. She filed as a Republican, which is why there was a primary challenge to Pawlenty!
Carey was to blame, and I hold him as partly responsible for our staggering losses last election. Is Repya any better? I don’t know that yet, but I’m paying attention!
Shudlick was allowed to speak, but he was asked to cut his time short, since they weren’t planning on having anyone but Kennedy take the stage. And, this was only after Shudlick had been barred from speaking at several BPOU and Congressional District meetings and conventions. His campaign was deliberately handicapped by denying him access to delegates lists until the last possible moment. Without access to the conventions or the delegates, it’s prety hard to run a campaign. The same was true with Jeffers. Sue Jeffers worked on Tim Pawlenty’s first campaign for governor, yet her credentials were “suspect?” Jeffers was denied access to any delegates (except the 2nd CD), even when she was the ONLY declared candidate for GOP endorsement. Coleman is a Democrat, and Alan Fine was pro-choice, favored amnesty for illegal aliens and big government solutions, but they had the support of the party. Uldrich, meanwhile was elected by his BPOU to the 5th CD convention and the state convention. He was also just elected to the state central committee. He’s good enough for his BPOU, who know him, but not the nominating committee, apparently (and to be frank, I wouldn’t have voted for him, but he should have been allowed to compete). Their job is supposed to be just screening out people who are not legally qualified, not decide for the delegates who will receive endorsement!
In the nominating committee, Jeffers was quizzed on the major items in the party platform. She agreed with 99% of the issues raised. Were Kennedy, Fine and Pawlenty quizzed about their stance on platform issues? Pawlenty didn’t even appear before the nominating committee!
Andy’s right. Carey took an active role in hindering some candidates for endorsement in favor of others. That’s simply unacceptable. We wound up with no competition for endorsements, so in essence, the decision about who would be the endorsed GOP candidates was decided before-hand by the executive committee, and the delegates got a show, but had no actual say in the process. Unacceptable! Unacceptable! Unacceptable!
We have to do better than this, or we’ll soon be irrelevant as a political party and as political movement.
I’ve always been told that the GOP is a bottom-up organization. That is no longer true, but we must ensure that it is again, or we’ll end up with more liberal candidates, and lose even if we win!
April 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I was in agreement with you up until the last. I don’t think we have suffered from too-liberal candidates at the state level. Sue Jeffers may have been more conservative, but Tim Pawlenty is more conservative by far than Mike Hatch. Each convention has a certain number of candidates to choose from, and we do not have to choose the absolute most conservative to “win.” Each convention has to play the cards they are dealt and, if they don’t like their choices, find a better one.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
It’s always interesting to hear what happened at the State nominations meeting, (or any other meeting) from someone who was not in attendance.
You might want to ask someone who was in attendance.
I was a member of the State Nominations Committee, and no one twisted my arm or made my decision for me.
As usual, ask me a question and I’ll give you a straight answer, but always be prepared for a answer you may not like.
As for Carey and Repya, I’m more than happy to listen to both of them as to why they are the best person for the job.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 am
John: Did you vote, or abstain? How many members voted? How many abstained? Why did they abstain? If you did vote, it was to deny Jeffers to the delegates. On what grounds did you deign to usurp the power to decide on candidates from the delegates to the convention? Did you find that Jeffers was in some way not legally qualified to run for the office she sought endorsement for?
You’re right. I wasn’t in attendance, but Sue was, and as Sue’s campaign manager, it was my business to know what was going on both inside and outside of the nominating committee’s meetings. Do you think we were in the dark? Did you know that Sue had the explicit support of 20% of the convention delegates before hand? We made certain of that, since Carey was talking about requiring a petition, but in the end, the nominating committee dropped that as a qualifier, didn’t it? There was only one way a candidate for governor would make it past the nominating committee: if the candidate’s name was Tim Pawlenty. And he didn’t even show up for your inquiries, did he?
J. Ewing: Even if the more conservative candidate isn’t picked, the presence of such a candidate moves the others right-ward. Without that competition, we are far more likely to install candidates who look out for their own political interests before a conservative agenda. Lack of vibrant competition will weaken the party. You’re right, Pawlenty isn’t Hatch. I shudder to think what things would be looking like without Pawlenty’s veto power. I pray he uses it often. We have a RINO problem, though. There are too many Ramstads (and Sviggums) and not enough Bachmans. To right this, we need options. No more insider “king-making.” Fair, open, spirited competition. Competition in the marketplace makes our nation’s economy stronger. Competition in the arena of ideas will make the party stronger, and benefit us all.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
Dan.
The vote was by secret ballot, so how other voted is only an assumption.
My vote was that Sue was unqualified to seek endorsement. This was based on three issues.
1. Her endorsement from the Libertarian Party
2. Her failure to directly answer quetions asked by the committee members, including questions I raised.
3. Her lack of picking a Lt. Gov. running mate, which shouwed a utter lack of planning by the camapign.
I also voted Shudlick and Uldrich as unqualified,
Pawlenty interveiwed by phone.
If Sue had played the game straight and showed that she had a credible campaign, I would have no problem signing a minority report. I done it before, and can do it again.
These are State wide offices, not the local garden club.
Is there a lot of “insider politics” at play, of course. You may rail about it, but this is the system. Don’t like it, then you have to change it, but it doesn’t happen overnight.
As to the antics on the convention floor, as her campaign manager, that was your responsiblity, and results showed your skill level.
Statewide Campaigns do not fight fair, they fight to win at all costs.
What I did see, was a complete lack of organization and understanding of the internal workings of the Republican Party by Sue Jeffers and her campaign.
Don’t like the answers, then don’t ask the question.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
John: The nominating committee was established to prevent people from receiving endorsement who were not LEGALLY qualified to run for the office endorsement was sought for (embarrassing when that heppens). You didn’t asnwer me. Why did you take it upon yourself to deny the delegates a choice? Because the Libertarians liked Sue better than any other candidate, and offered their endorsement (which Sue declined)? An endorsment she did accept was that of the Republican Liberty Caucus (state and national chapters). You also voted against Shudlick and Uldrich. It was clearly your intent to see to it that only the candidates who were hand-picked by the executive committee would be presented to the delegates. No votes for them! Just rubberstamp this, please, and thanks for your $40.
As to the “antics” you mean the blatent disregard for convention rules, the MN GOP constitution and the will of the delegates?
Sue’s Campaign was my first state-wide race, and I’m not afraid to admit to my inexperience. That said, the floor-fight strategy I developed was sound, and in retrospect (hindsight being 20/20) there is nothing I could have (legally) done differently to affect the outcome. The gavel simply shut us out (with a little help from “Hatchet Man”).
You seem to be OK with below-board tactics within the Republican party and you seem to be OK with disenfranchising the delegates. I find that very disturbing.
I mentioned before that we had the explicit (written) support of 20% of the delegates going into the convention. The Pawlenty camp had estimated that we actually had 40% of the convention. Disregard for law, democracy and proceedure to win is a Democrat trait. I expected better from the leaders of the GOP. Is it any wonder the base is staying home?
You’re right I don’t like it, and I’m working on changing it.