MNGOP Reform, Un happy, but not sure, Email Response
Posted by Andy on December 5th, 2006
I’ve been getting a number of emails voicing shared concerns with the performance of Party leadership, but un sure/willing to consider a change. They gave me the impression that they were willing to give Carey another chance to do what he said (promised) he would do during his campaign to become chairman.
Here’s my response.
In 2005 Ron Carey promised many of the same things he is just now saying he will begin to work on. He sold us a bill of goods he couldn’t deliver on.
He spent more time following certain candidates, than leading our party. Its obvious money was no problem given the recent preliminary budget report. Why were the funds spent so foolishly trying to smear candidates? Why were some candidates never given any resources or assistance?
We need to change the schedule of how our party elects leadership. Having it fall in the middle of the cycle is ludicrous. I was hoping that someone would step forward and provide a plan since so many have seen Carey’s didn’t amount to a hill of beans.
The structure of our party needs to be addressed as well. Our leaders should have assigned roles and duties. In this cycle we had our elected leaders performing remedial staff duties. We didn’t elect them to fulfill tasks that could be handled by volunteers. We elected them to lead.
I am proposing we begin working towards major reforms in our party in both structure and schedule. These things can not be accomplished immediately, but we have to start somewhere. Ron Carey and other party staff and leadership are trying to get a do over for one of the most dismal election performances, and not taking a lick of credit.
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has decided to resign due to the national performance of Republicans. He is also pointing out some major downfalls of the party as a whole in this last election, and that was being solely focused on voter turnout at the expense of paying attention to what issues matter to voters. We did the same thing in Minnesota. The party was so focussed on GOTV activities that it never bothered to define our ideals to the broad electorate. It never bothered to display the incredible team of candidates we had assembled across this state.
It was only after people started to display their criticisms and concerns that Carey and the leaders even began to stop taking credit for winning reelection for Pawlenty and Bachmann’s less than impressive victory. In Pawlenty’s case, Carey diverted almost our entire arsenal of resources and energy against Hatch, and in teh end it was a rookie mistake by Hatch’s running mate and his outburst at the media that lost that race for him. If not for the final week of the campaign, the DFL would have had a clean sweep. It was that one action that caused the ethanol vote to swing to Pawlenty. Given the final vote totals in that race, it more than likely would have been hatch’s day. I don’t think that is something our party should be proud of. Sure a win is a win, but we shouldn’t be take credit for having one handed to us.
Bachmann underperformed terribly. She mustered only 50%, and fell tens of thousands of votes behind Kennedy’s previous performances in 04 and 02. The state party made it a sport of attacking the great St. Patty, as did the NRCC. I believe that was detrimental to the case that Bachmann was a better choice for voters.
Which gets to the jist of elections. Elections are not just about getting out the vote. With out providing something for people to get excited and vote for, more than likely they won’t show up. The state party should help provide a clear difference in the vision of the 2 parties, and not focus on who said what when. When voters are presented with a clear choice, they will make a decision, in 2006 their choice was whether or not to go vote. And hence we had just 59% turnout, the lowest since 1994.
So I understand you are unwilling to vote for change when there is not a clear alternative. I agree, but I am asking that the state central committee not let Carey and the rest of leadership get away with it. We need to send them a message that status quo, negativity, and mea culpas are not the signs of real leadership. We need to send a sign that we will not simply sit back and watch them fumble about to figure out what went wrong, because by and large, what went wrong was them.
Not many people can look in the mirror and consider the problem might in fact have been themselves. I highly doubt such ambitious self promoters and opportunists will realize that the problems of 2006 were more pronounced due to the very decisions they made.
Our party can be better. It has to be better. The excuse I have had told to me from some state party insiders is that this state is not really a purple state that conservative Republican ideas are shared with a vast MINORITY of voters. Is that really teh kind of message and thinking you want being shared in our state party’s leadership? Do you really want people who believe that Conservative Republicans cannot really win in Minnesota?
Well, I guess we saw what happens when we are being led by people who think that way. They follow candidates, rather than lead and inspire movements.
As Sen. Coleman always says, “A leader with out followers is just a guy taking a walk.”
Our state party leadership followed in this election, they did not lead. I do not trust them to behave differently next time, especially with the national spot lights and attention of the 2008 RNC convention. There will be unprecedented external pressures on our state party leaders to perform unordinary tasks. We need strong principled leaders who are more concerned about righting the momentum in this state, than putting on a good show.
Our party can be better. We need to send notice to the leadership that they have not performed up to the task and promises that were made. The candidates who lost on election day have been punished already. Their failing grades were rewarded with unemployment. Our duty as state central delegates is not to provide a shoulder to cry on for Carey, Hoplin, and Sutton. Nor is it our duty to propel them or their friends and allies to higher aspirations. It is our duty to hold them accountable.
So far, they haven’t shown the ability nor intention to admit they failed. Instead they are pandering to us in the Central Committee in order to save their butts. Do you really think they will take these task force recommendations seriously in 18 months when the full force of the DFL, media, and national spot light is shining in their faces? They didn’t even listen to their own promises from 18 months ago. I can predict the excuses already. “They had to divert the resources to the races they could win.”
Playing defense is not the sign of strong leadership, because unlike sports, playing defense cannot win in political elections. It can win one race or another, but that is not the role of the state party. They are not the king or queen makers. Remember that line from August of 2005? Well, Carey crowned his king and queen election day, its just is too bad we had to lose everything else and a lot of good Republicans in order for him to do it. The very least we could expect is for him to stand before us, look us in the eye, and admit that he did let some people lose in order to help some people win.
Sincerely,
AAA
December 6th, 2006 at 9:57 am
You have made an excellent case, and given fair exposure of the opposing case as well. Would that the Star Tribune could do as well, thank you. I have just one other comment, at this point: If the losses in Minnesota were all or largely the fault of our party leadership, then how do you explain the fact that Republican losses in Congressional and local elections were nationwide? Is it possible that there was a nationwide sentiment of unhappiness with Republicans that simply outweighed what any (or at least most) of the state parties was able to do? Mehlman resigned because he concentrated on GOTV rather than message. We can’t all resign because we followed that direction, there would be nobody left.
I am still of the opinion, too, that there is no such thing as a leader so strong and so brilliant that he or she can turn 10,000 GOP activists around, re-center the party on ideas, and make them an important force in determining who gets elected and how our elected officials behave. We have NONE of that now, and never did. OK, it’s more than one comment. But it’s not as simple as dumping the Chair.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:16 am
I have never claimed that everything would have been different, BUT:
It didn’t have to be this bad. Had things been done differently in the actual campaign season, I bet we would have won a few more Legi. races.
Had Carey actually done what he said he would do and helped craft good legislation (One he made in his Chairman campaign) that conservatives would be happy with, we wouldn’t have had the problem of all our base being demoralized. That would have changed things.
So no, it wasn’t just a few mistakes here or there. It was a fundamental failure of the people there. If he did try to push for conservative legislation, and Sviggum, Day, and Pawlenty balked at him, then he should have carried the message publicly that this is what the party stands for.
I totally understand why the state party just did negative campaigning this year. There really wasn’t much to praise Republicans (in St. Paul & DC ) on. But, then you have to define why people should identify with Republicans. Because of our ridiculous endorsement and primary timeline, by the time we officially had our candidates, people had already made up their minds.
Had the state party been carrying the message the entire time, including in the off year, it wouldn’t have been too late.
I think the excuse that no one pays attention until after State Fair is not 100% true. They just don’t want to pay attention. You have to make them. Converting MN from Blue to red will never happen if we just keep playing the game the same way. You cannot change the way people think with a 30 second ad here or there. People here have DFL as a default setting and it is going to take constant pressure to change that.
That pressure has to come from a constant source. Elected officials come and go, and as we see, their beliefs can change with the tides. Butthe state party is constant, and our message (IE platform) gradually changes at our request.
The fact that the state party doesn’t (and many insiders believe it shouldn’t) carry the party’s message is very disturbing, and why we are in such dire straights in this state to begin with.
Heck look at the national situation. Over the last 6 years, Bush and the wayward Senate GOPers have strayed on so many issues, that they have redefined (or tried to) what we stand for. And as Mehlman has said, you can’t just focus on turnout. The issues matter too.
So, Had carey done as he promised and pushed officials on legislation and also been a mouthpiece for conservative ideals, things would have been different.
I believe the first post was called what went wrong, which is exactly that, The Democrats didn’t win this election, we lost it by not being ourselves. Elected officials are too unreliable and they DO represent the entire population of their area, so they will disappoint from time to time. But party leaders, that’s a different story, they are actually elected to represent the party.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Good points, all, but…
You admit that the /Party/ needs to do a better job of creating and carrying the message. That’s ALL of us, not just the leadership. We didn’t elect Ron Carey to be King, Master of all he surveyed. I believe that he is probably just as frustrated as we are and that he was hamstrung by a national campaign devoted exclusively to turn out, a national environment in which Republicans had failed almost completely to be Republicans, the lack of constitutional authority to make the necessary changes to policies and procedures, and the lack of grassroots (that’s us) input, time and effort.
All of the things you suggest are very good ideas, and I agree they should be done. Where I disagree is that the current Republican Party COULD have done them for this election cycle. Could they have done better? Possibly, but changing leadership based on what might have been seems like wasted motion to me. I’ll be looking to push forward your ideas on how we can do better, and what we have to do to make it possible NEXT time. There really isn’t much we can really do about the past.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
BUT had Carey done what he PROMISED he was going to do, things would have been different. He was elected, because he wasn’t going to follow orders from up high. He was going to listen to us. Not to mention had he followed through with his promises, it would have addressed you frustrations. It would have given us good legislation locally, motivated people to work and volunteer FOR something, and energized people to go vote for our vision of MN.
Well, he sure didn’t seem to stand up very well this time. And how do we know THIS time he will stand up to the new leadership at the RNC. I mean it isn’t like the RNC won’t have some pretty strong demands upon our state party with the big show coming here. Is Carey strong enough to look them in the eye and say, no, sorry we have some elections of our own to win and our party is really much more interested in that right now than catering to whatever hoop they have for us to jump through.
Yes, that’s another little dynamic we really don’t have the details on. What kind of promises were made? What requirements and commitments are we bound to now?
And a final attempt here. If person A says they will do stuff B if we trust them, but they end up doing C. Well 2 years roll around and person A is back saying they will consider doing stuff B if we trust them. Would you really trust them? Besides, he’s been there almost 10 years now. How much longer are we going to give him on the learning curve?
December 6th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
I know we’re not going to agree, but I commend you on a good discussion, at least. It’s not as common as one might expect. I do understand your point, but it is not my experience with the man, and, as we have agreed, I vest much less importance in the chairmanship of the party than you do.
Now if you were actively looking for someone “better qualified” to advance your goals, with the purpose of challenging Mr. Carey at the next convention, you might have an easier time of it. Of course your time is yours to spend as you see fit. My theory is that, by that time, we’ll know what reforms the party constitution needs to establish these new more platform-centric processes, whatever they are, and whether or not Mr. Carey has been a help or hindrance (or largely a supportive bystander, as I suspect) to the process. Maybe I’ll see you Saturday.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
There are good people out there, some eager to go public, others in more of a draft me phase, but I do understand the point and agree.
We made the change for change’s sake move last time. Lesson learned.
Oh and my time? I don’t have time for squat. I have a lot of catching up to do at work, not to mention fill the roles now vacant at my work as we lost 2 employees recently.
To quote loosely the Matrix, “I am just showing people the door, it is up to them to walk through it.” Either way, in or out. I just don’t think we can fumble our way through another dismal election this way. This makes the second one where we forgot all about what got us there in the first place.
You seem to have faith that Carey will finally figure that out, I do not.
Oh and thank you for the words on the discussion. As long as it is civil and on point, I have no problem with it,