Hey Ron Carey, You Have Mail
Posted by Andy on April 12th, 2007
I received a copy of the following email that was sent to MNGOP Chairman Ron Carey.
Sphere: Related ContentChairman Carey,
I state that title with much respect. You have earned it and have worked countless hours in doing so. Your position is one I would not envy. I write this letter because you have encouraged me to do so. For that I thank you.Like many conservatives in MN I am very frustrated with the direction of the GOP. Adding to my frustration is the apparent apathy about the direction of the party from those in the party like you and the Governor. I listened to you on the radio with Jason Lewis. I thought I was listening to Bill Clinton saying “I feel your pain” over and over again. You agreed with almost everyone that called in and expressed their frustration. Yet I did not hear one solution to the problems we face. I keep hearing how wonderful it is that Gov. Pawlenty won and that we don’t have a Gov. Hatch. Once and for all I want the GOP to understand that Pawlenty did not win….Dutcher, E-85 and Hatch’s reaction are what caused Hatch to lose. Pawlenty was going to lose up to that point. All this makes me question your resolve. Are you there just to be a YES man but one with no power to make change? Forgive me if I don’t fully understand the position you hold. I have this crazy belief that your purpose is to make sure we elect conservatives and then…….. here’s the BIG ONE….HOLD THEM TO CONSERVATIVE VALUES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why wasn’t Pawlenty called on the carpet when he reneged on his NO TAX INCREASES pledge? He raised the Cigarette Tax (The word is out…people aren’t dumb…impact fees are taxes).
Why weren’t Pawlenty and all the RINOs that voted for the Twins Stadium sent to the Principals Office for violating state law that requires a referendum?
Why weren’t Rep. Severson and Sen. Dille body slammed for co-authoring a state wide smoking ban? This ban does more to hurt small businesses than some tax increases (please don’t take that as an invite for tax increases). And the worst part is that the small business owners whom these two have betrayed most likely supported them and voted for them.
I could go on and on but I think you get my point.
Right now I am leaning toward cleaning house in the GOP and starting over with some new and hopefully CONSERVATIVE faces.
You are going to have to do a lot of convincing to get my support. Better yet you are going to have to go after the RINOS very Loudly to get my vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Russ Goldstein
McLeod County, 7th District and State Delegate
April 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“Better yet you are going to have to go after the RINOS very Loudly to get my vote.”
This seems to be the crux of the problem, and it has been widely debated in little groups of Republicans all over. The way I see it, there are TWO ways to drive the RINOs out of the party. The first is to have the local BPOUs quit endorsing them, and finding “better” Republicans to run against their favorite RINO. This is very difficult, and requires a great deal of local party support. It also runs an additional risk of being the minority party, since RINOs are closer to Elephants than they are to donkeys. The other way to do it is to have the State Party apparatus dictate to the BPOUs which candidate they should choose, or at least vow not to support, in any way, the choice of the BPOU convention. Which do you prefer?
After these RINOs are elected and they “stray from the fold, as they are wont to do,” the State Party has THREE choices: 1) They can keep silent and hope that the Elephants prevail, 2) they can publicly state the conservative PRINCIPLE, without associating it with any particular proposal, or 3) they can publicly speak against these heathens, these charlatans, and their wicked, wicked ways. The first obviously does nothing positive, but causes no damage. The second will be largely ineffectual, but the third is definitely the wrong approach. OH, it will make news– getting through the media bias easily– because it will be turned around and used as a club for EVERY Republican idea. What will get trumpeted is the “dissension in the party” and what will be published is that BOTH sides of the argument are wrong– “even Republicans can’t agree….” They love this stuff. (DFL differences, of course, only prove what a “diverse and open party” they are.)
Ron Carey has been absolutely right on both of these issues. He has said that if a BPOU endorses a RINO, it is not the State Party’s right to override that choice or even criticize. After the election, he has actually found a fourth way– praising in public when they do right, and cajoling in private when they go wrong. It’s a lot like coaching Little League– everybody is a volunteer, trying to do the best they can. They get an awful lot of flak and abuse thrown at them by opponents. How do you think they’ll react to criticism, especially public criticism, from the coach?
April 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I thought we cleaned house last year? How small of elected body does the GOP have to get in MN before some of these people are happy. If I take a list of State Republicans and start crossing off those who are “bad”, I end up with a list of what? Rep Kline, Rep Bachmann, and a handful of state Representatives and Senators? What kind party is that?
April 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Bmetzler:
What kind party is that? We’ll we can look all the way back to 1996 and see where Chairman Carey has led us. In 1996 elected Republicans in Minnesota were:
Republican Governor
1 US Senator
3 US Congressman
Strong Democrat majorities in both MN House and Senate
Mr Carey is not leading us into the future. He says to look at his record. I feel it speaks for itself. Definitely time for a change in direction.
Core
April 12th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The “Republican Governor” was Arne Carlson. Not a conservative.
The Senator was Rod Grams. Ok, I guess he appealed to conservatives
Two Republican Members of Congress. Rep Gutknecht, and Rep Ramstad. I think we all know how conservatives feel about Rep Ramstad.
So where does that leave us? 1996: 2 conservative Republicans / 2006: 2 conservative Republicans? And Democrat majorities in the state legislature? Oh yeah, we’ve lost a lot of ground in 10 years.
Brent
April 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I never said we lost ground, just that we are going backwards instead of forwards with our current Chair. Again look at where we were after 2004 (not so good) and look at where we are now (disaster). And you think we should continue down the same path with a RPM leadership that wants to blame everyone else and passes the time by apologizing to delegates while he is busy rearranging deck chairs?
Core
April 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Again look at where we were after 2004 (not so good) and look at where we are now (disaster).
I would argue that the state chair is not to blame for the number of elected Republicans we may have. Oh, it would be nice if it was because there are a lot of people who do a lot of work that would be pretty relieved that they aren’t needed to invest so much of their time and effort anymore. I know my wife would be thrilled if that was the case.
I think that the real blame for the for the loses go to the people like the author of the email referenced in this post. The people who refused to be involved unless everything is the “way” they want.
It’s hard to win the “game” when half the team is sitting out. You might think that all we need is another chair, but then we’d just have the other “half” of the team walking out. What we need is to learn how to come together as one party, from the moderate Republicans all the way to the most conservative.
Until we decide to work together, we will continue to keep rearranging the deck chairs while seeing how many others we can push off the side. As we learned last fall, when we “clean house,” our friends as well as our foes get pushed off the side. Isn’t it time to stop the insanity and support all elected Republicans, regardless of your level of agreement with them???
If electing Repya means “cleaning house” and pushing Republicans out of the party to his supporters, I don’t think 2008 will be pretty.
No, we shouldn’t go down the same path the party has been going. But Repya doesn’t seem to be positioning himself to make the party more inclusive. If that’s the case, electing Repya wouldn’t change much.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Bmetzler:
Put down the Kool Aid.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Here’s the thing: Carey likes to blame the grassroots. It’s the delegates’ fault, it’s the BPOU’s fault… What ever happened to the buck stops here? In reality, the various BPOUs and CD committees were getting orders from Carey about which candidates to include in their conventions and meetings, and which ones were to be barred. Plenty of BPOUs bucked these orders and did courageously their own thing. Good for them. The party has gotten too top-heavy, and it’s time for more bucking.
We need as big a variety of candidates for each seat as we can possibly muster, so we can have an open debate about them, and ultimately come to a concensus about which candidate we want to represent us. There is nothing wrong with duking it out behind closed doors. From the melee will emerge our strongest option. Handpicking candidates from above (political buddies) and then telling the delegates, “this is who you’re going to endorse” is pointless! Why even bother having conventions?
This is the single issue that will determine where my vote goes. If Repya will promise (and if I believe him) to keep nominations fair and open and prevent any black-balling, he’ll have my vote.
It is absolutely critical that we get our house in order. A number of delegates at my last BPOU convention were seriously talking about jumping ship. One of them went so far as to tell me he’s giving the GOP one more year to fly right. After that, he’s going to the Constitution Party.
I still believe that the GOP is the best place to affect positive change, so I’m not teetering on the edge of the cliff just yet, but I am frustrated.
Carey has no right to lay blame on the delegates. We crafted an excellent platform, spelled out our wishes in plain English, and hired Carey to carry them out. DO IT, or we’ll find someone who will.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:10 am
In reality, the various BPOUs and CD committees were getting orders from Carey about which candidates to include in their conventions and meetings, and which ones were to be barred.
Republicans only. A decision that I would expect any chair to make. It is not Carey’s fault that Sue Jeffers screwed her campaign up. It is hers, and her campaign managers. Hopefully she’s learned a few lessons and in 3 years if she decides to seek an endorsement again, she’ll follow the correct process.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:21 am
But, if you follow that excuse Brent, anyone who was ever been a member of another party is disqualified from our conventions. That was the excuse, “she was a member of another party”.
It is a bit ironic you know, that you complain about the desire by some to purge the party, and you defend the moderate to liberal Republicans, and here you are defending the decision to bar someone from our party.
What happened to the big tent?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Andy, that’s a bit disingenuous. Sue Jeffers wasn’t just a “lapsed Republican.” She had sought and won the endorsement of another party. She herself at least acknowledged that might have been a mistake. I think she should have been allowed to contest, but she was the one who gave the Party the excuse, and a darned good one.
I also think that too many people are seeing the Party as some sort of command structure, into which Col. Repya would bring consistent order and discipline. In my experience, it’s quite the opposite. The GOP is not only a volunteer organization, but one in which everyone marches to a different drummer. We’re not going to be a big tent party until we recognize that we have to have a few strong poles (principles) at the center, and a lot of square pegs around the edges, all pulling together. That’s going to take more than one master ringmaster to pull off.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Huh, funny, so the people who are supporting Carey are now trying to say the party is not all powerful, and can’t deliver on the idea of holding the candidates accountable to the platform. Well, Carey said he was going to do that in 2005. That’s why he got elected. People were livid about Pawlenty, some issues, and threw Eibensteiner out for cozying up to him and ignoring the platform.
Well, now that Carey’s hide is on the line, we get the talk right out of the old Eibensteiner-like playbook that the party can’t possibly convey the principles across the board, hold the officials to them, and has to leave wiggle room to be the big tent.
So why do we have such centralized control in the current party structure? What has Carey promised to do differently if reelected that has swayed your feelings to support him? In my opinion, he ran the party in the very way you say it is not. What has he told YOU that has you defending him?
Does anyone know of any other $95,000 a year volunteer positions that are available?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
The rural CD delegates are so fed up with being treated like stepchildren that there is a strong move afoot to take back control of RPM and give it back to the CD’s where it belongs. They are not too happy to see Carey consistently consolidating power. If you don’t think so, I would encourage you all to visit the outstate CD conventions and see for yourself.
Remember, of the 13 voting members of the RPM Executive Committee…8 are from the CD’s. Even if by some miracle Carey wins, the CD’s will eventually take back decision making control and leave day-to-day operations decisions to the staff.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Couple of comments on the earlier posts. Sue Jeffers filed for office as a libertarian, not a Republican. Dan, you need to recognize that and move on. She is not a republican — and some committee decided she shouldn’t speak at the convention, not Ron Carey.
Governor Pawlenty is the most conservative Governor this state has seen in our lifetime. Had he lost (which I think some on this site actually wished for), think how bad things would be now. Anyone with half a brain would acknowledge that it was a huge accomplishment for Pawlenty to get re-elected this year — and from what I can tell that was, correctly, the Party’s number one priority. It was a smart investment of resources to spend the money on that race.
Barrette/Core makes the point about rural CD delegates being fed up. Part of the problem in CDs, like the 7th, is that candidates don’t run real campaigns. I think Barrette raised about 35 or 40 thousand - less than most state senate candidates. We need candidates (who agree with the platform) to excite the grassroots. The 6th CD grassroots were very excited because of Bachmann. Even in the 8th, there was excitement around Grams.
I read Andy’s campaign flyer and had to laugh — he used many of the same arguments Carey has used about it being a tough year. Still wondering why Andy didn’t step aside after he failed miserably as Chair in his area. Funny.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hey, lawson, don’t come to the party late and try to piss in the punch.
All your talking points have been tried here on RF before. I’m not going to waste the time breaking it all down for you. Instead of repeating attack lines and talking points someone sent to you, do some reading through the archives here. You’re just repeating crap others are telling you to, and you’ll find I dealt with them all before. Go tell them to come up with some new ways to discredit me, because they’ve failed up to now. But then again, if you repeat something enough, people will eventually believe it. ANGRY AL ANGRY AL ANGRY AL. Did it work?
What’s that about the 11th commandment again? Oh yeah, it is only something to be spoken of when it is intended as a defense or shield, but is never actually followed as a way of discourse.
It is this exact arrogance of the Carey defenders and close confidants, not to mention power brokers in this party that is killing it and the grassroots. These people show up because they have their own opinions and ideas, not because they are blind sheep. When you constantly insult everyone you disagree with, and only help those that can win, well, it just plain demoralizes the grassroots.
Do you have anything new to add to this debate? Because we went through most of this crap back in Decemeber.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I went through the archives, Andy, and what I found made me laugh out loud while rolling on the floor (roflol/roflmao). Here are a few highlights: your prediction of Kennedy charging ahead to a big win in November. Those eyes only numbers you wrote about were really on target, huh? Your anti Amy talking points were very effective too. Ditto with your attacks on the Strib/Eric Black.
My point is that I don’t think you are in any position to criticize, when your track record is horrible, as I noted from reading the archives: you supported Phil Krinkie, who finished in fourth place. You supported Sue Jeffers, who filed for office as a libertarian. You abandoned the ship (your BPOU) as it was sinking in the critical final days to ride the Kennedy bus. Finally, your finest post may not have been about politics, but rather talked about your excitement about the possibility that the ban on silicon breast implants might be lifted (check the archives people, I”m not making this up).
I think your guy, Joe Repia, is a patriot. He and his wife did good work with the lawn sign campaign. But, all I’ve heard from him are tired cliches about firing up the troops. Repia couldn’t give a number count of delegates who support him at his announcement. That’s because it’s probably in the single digits because people with little or no credibility in the party (yes, Andy, that’s you) are the only ones supporting him.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Good for you. You summed up almost all of the MNGOP HQ approved attack memes against me. 11th Commandment be damed.
All I can really take from your attacks is that it is wrong to support candidates with which you believe in and agree with. If that is not allowed in Ron Carey’s Republican Party, I guess I don’t belong in it. I do have to wonder if it is Ron Carey’s official ‘new’ plan to only support the winning candidates, because in 2005, he said he would support all the endorsed candidates.
And you had really better call the State Party researchers and get the facts straight. I didn’t support Sue Jeffers. Seriously guys and gals, at least get the attack lines correct.
Sheesh, you sound like Brodkorb with the patriot thing. So and so is a great patriot BUT…..
At least you didn’t throw any compliments my way, and instead just went right for the jugular. that a boy, or girl.
11th Commandment be damned. Oh, and you may want to look over the others who supported Krinkie for Congress. You’ll find a few names on Carey’s ’steering committee’ supported him, and frequent the inside of party HQ. Are they too not credible with in the party?
And is this the type of arrogance to be expected if Carey is reelected? Where people who tried, and hold strong conservative beliefs are lambasted from with in the trusted power circle of the Party leadership?
Come on Lawson, you made it person, why don’t you have the courage to attack me with your real name so people can judge whether or not you are credible, or just another loyalist being fed attack lines about me. Because, every time I dare try to shed some light on leadership, and start making headway, the same exact attacks come out.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“Couple of comments on the earlier posts. Sue Jeffers filed for office as a libertarian, not a Republican. Dan, you need to recognize that and move on. She is not a republican — and some committee decided she shouldn’t speak at the convention, not Ron Carey.”
Same lies over and over. Here’s the official filing with the Secretary of State: http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/campfin/rpdetail/rp16384.html What does RPM stand for again? Oh, yes. Republican Party of Minnesota.
Before any moves were made at all in the gubernatorial race, Jeffers spoke with Carey directly, and was told in no uncertain terms that she would not be allowed to compete with Pawlenty for endorsement. She’d have been welcome to seek endorsement for another office, however.
“Some committee…” by that, you mean the nominating committee. I’ve been over this. Carey saw to it that convention rules were changed so NO ONE could challenge the anointed candidates.
The only endorsment Jeffers accepted was from a Republican organization. The state and local chapters of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The Libertarian Party OFFERED their endorsement. Jeffers DECLINED it.
I’ve heard all the lies Carey and his cohorts were spreading. I saw the illegal (anonymous) blue lit-hit-piece that was circulated at conventions. I heard about the phone calls Carey orchestrated to smear Jeffers. Don’t believe any of it. I was there, in the middle of it all.
I agree that Pawlenty is better than Hatch. Jeffers would have been even better, but she recognized that had she filed with another party, or petitioned for ballot access to run in the General, she would have taken votes from Pawlenty, and probably elected Hatch. She didn’t want to see that happen either. We tried to settle the whole matter at the GOP convention. Sue had told the nominating committe that she’d abide by the will of the delegates, and not run in the primary if allowed to address the convention. Since she was denied that avenue, she took her case directly to the voters in the primary. She lost, and in the process, left Pawlenty as the only conservative candidate on the ballot. Still, had Hatch’s campaign not self-destructed right at the end, he would have lost. No credit to Carey there. Credit to Judy Dutcher’s gross ignorance.
If Sue had been endorsed by the Libertarian Party (as many are wont to say), and ran as a Libertarian in the General Election, Pawlenty would not be governor now.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
And that’s the part everyone who dislikes jeffers refuses to acknowledge. Too many in this party are rubberstamps, and afraid of internal debates. Well folks, maybe that is our biggest problem.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Anyone who ever pays attention to the things that Sue Jeffers does these days, realizes what a true conservative she is. She’s the 1st VP of the Twin Cities Republican Association, is constantly at the Capitol testifying against statewide smoking bans, used to protest the Stadium(s), etc.
Anyone who believes Sue Jeffers is NOT a conservative is blind/deaf/ignorant.
I’ll concede that Tim Pawlenty IS the most conservative Governor we’ve ever had…. but that’s not saying much.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I could swear that Jeffers originally filed as a Libertarian before she decided it was a good idea to run in the Republican Primary and switched her filing.
I could also swear that she linked to the Libertarian party on her website, and also posted a story about the Libertarian endorsement.
I could also swear that the pink postcard handed out at the tax rally today listed her as a speaker at the Libertarian Party of Minnesota 2007 convention.
Jeffers may have “declined” the Libertarian endorsement to be on the Republican ballot in the primary, but there is strong evidence that not only did she have strong ties to the Libertarian party, but that she still does.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Brent,
So the Republican party is going to exclude Libertarians from membership?
You know, there’s a heck of a lot of people in the Republican party who agree with a lot of the Libertarian positions, in fact there’s a lot the Republican party (by platform) agrees with the Libertarian party on.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
So the Republican party is going to exclude Libertarians from membership?
I hope not, because when I run for office I want to keep my options open and give every party a chance to endorse me and I wouldn’t want the Republican delegates to hold that against me.
Brent
April 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Hey, the Libertarians like Ron Paul, too. Better kick him out of the party, quick! Can’t have anyone run that people in OTHER parties might vote for!
April 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Oddly enough, I’d rather kick out Libertarians, not RINO’s. I don’t support Ron Paul either. But if he follows the Texas endorsement process he deserves his district’s endorsement. If he follows the presidential endorsement process he deserves to be considered.
Sue Jeffers did not follow the MNGOP endorsement process, and did not deserve to be allowed to seek endorsement at the state convention. The blame for that lies on herself and/or her campaign manager, no one else. She screwed her campaign up, it’s her own fault. In 2010 she’ll get a chance to try again. Hopefully next time she’ll get a campaign manager that knows the ropes for seeking endorsement. Otherwise, she’ll find herself inelgible again, and rightly so.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Gah. This is getting old. What is the endorsement process, exactly? Do you know? Here’s how it works. A candidate announces that they are seeking endorsement. The various conventions HEAR from the candidate. At the state convention, a delegate nominates the candidate. Another delegate seconds the nomination. The candidates speak to the state delegates. The delegates VOTE. One candidate emerges from the competition with the party’s endorsement and support. Prior to the delegates’ picking their candidate, officials are supposed to remain neutral.
Here’s how it worked last year: Party officials picked their favorite candidates, hindered all other prospective candidates, shut announced candidates out of the conventions, provided the delegates no opportunity to nominate candidates, and gave the delegates NO options.
John Uldrich is a state central delegate, and last year, he was shut out of the competition in favor of Kennedy. Harold Shudlick was running a campaign for that same endorsement, working in the party for YEARS, but was shut out of several conventions, and denied access to the campaign-critical delegates list until the very last moment before the state convention. It wasn’t just Sue Jeffers. It was systematic and endemic.
The behind-closed-doors “good ol’ boys” politics in the MN GOP has to end. If the delegates perceive that they have lost their voice in the party, they will stop showing up. Just look at the dismal turn-out at the 2006 state convention. And look at the number of delegates that bailed out after the first day of shenanigans. If we had to reestablish a quorum, we would have come up short.
You people that think it’s a good thing to deny delegates access to information, and an opportunity to vote are a source of grave concern for me.
The delegates wanted to hear from Jeffers. Carey didn’t want them to. Bmetzler, do you want Carey to make all of our decisions for us? Then we can just stop having conventions. Think of all the time that would save us.
Do you want to know the real reason Jeffers was kept out of the endorsement race? Fear. Jeffers had a lot of support. She’s more conservative than Pawlenty, and the Governor was making some very unpopular moves right before the convention season. Carey ran cover for him so he could move left without getting embarrassed by a slap on the wrist from the delegates. They did not want to risk the possibility that Pawlenty wouldn’t win on the first round of balloting. It’s that simple. Sue did not expect to win the endorsement (though that was certainly our objective), but we knew that just by having Sue in the mix, the Governor would have had to move back to the right to placate the delegates. Going to a second round on the ballot would have moved T-Paw right real quick.
To his credit, the Guv’s been making good promises of veto veto veto, and I’m glad to hear it. I’ll feel even better once he does it. There are, at least, some encouraging signs that he’s hearing us.