counter statistics

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Democratic Talking Points and HRC Talking points on the Federal Marriage Amendment have been indistinguishable. As Chris Crain in a Washington Blade Editorial points out:

But [DNC Howard] Dean is miscalculating for two important reasons: First and foremost, gay Americans are fighting for their own civil rights, unlike their counterparts on the right, who are pushing to limit someone else's freedoms. One reason America's history reflects progress by minorities despite hostility from the majority is that the minorities are far more motivated than their foes, not to mention the "mushy middle" that doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other.

Second, by treating gay civil rights like just another "special interest" to be alternatively pandered to or ignored, Dean and the Dems only contribute to their party's worst image problem: that of a do-nothing party without clear positions, principles or a plan.

YOU CAN FORGIVE Howard Dean for thinking he can get away with it. After all, the nation's richest gay political group has long been willing to play lapdog to the Democratic Party, even after Dean's repeated disses.

It is a central article of faith at the Human Rights Campaign that the success of the gay rights movement is inexorably linked to the success of the Democratic Party, and herein lies the single biggest internal obstacle to equality for gay Americans.

There's no question, of course, that Democrats in general and almost always in particular, are better on gay rights than their Republican counterparts. And gay rights legislation no doubt stands a greater likelihood of passage if Democrats control Congress — though history suggests otherwise.

But that doesn't mean that gay rights leaders should sacrifice the movement at the altar of the Democratic Party, and continue crafting their message off the DNC's transparently political talking points.

Yet that's what we see, time and time again, especially at HRC, whose leader Joe Solmonese came from Emily's List, a partisan Democrat group.

True, HRC issued an angry press release after Dean's "700 Club" dalliance, slamming his "serious lack of leadership" on the issue of gay marriage. So why, days later, was Solmonese once again following him?

On Tuesday afternoon, Dean's DNC issued a press release taking to task Bill Frist, the Senate GOP Leader, for ignoring First Lady Laura Bush's recent advice about not using gay marriage "as a campaign tool." Frist and the Republicans don't need to be engaged on the issue of gay marriage, the press release argues, because they're really just trying to change the subject from their own political problems.

(Typical of the Democrats' stealth defense of gays, the primary target audience for the DNC statement was apparently... gays. The release isn't posted on the DNC website.)

Still, despite Dean's "serious lack of leadership" on gay marriage, Solmonese and HRC were quick to play follower. Just one hour after the DNC press release went out, HRC issued its "Amen, sister!" reply.

Titled "Senator Frist Pushing a Campaign Strategy Opposed by First Lady Laura Bush," the HRC press release hits all the same talking points, accusing Frist of not taking Laura Bush’s sage advice.

BESIDES THE LAPDOG posture, HRC's willingness to do Dean's Dems' bidding causes lasting harm to the gay rights movement.

Rather than actually defend gay families and make the case for gay marriage, HRC is stuck in a three-year strategy of arguing that the American people don't — and shouldn't! — care about marriage equality for gay couples.

"Voters want candidates focused on soaring gas prices, a health care crisis and national security," Solmonese says in the release, "not putting discrimination in the United States Constitution."

What sort of gay rights strategy is it, when the attention of Americans is focused on our issues, to argue that our rights aren't important, and refuse to engage our opponents in the debate over our equality?

Sure it makes political sense for Dean and the DNC to issue press releases, delivered only to us, defending us, and then have the party's senators respond to conservative attacks on our families by arguing that the issue isn't as important as rising gas prices. But what self-respecting gay rights group would echo that argument?

Can anyone imagine Martin Luther King Jr., responding to an attempt to rollback the gains of the Civil Rights Movement by arguing that the issue shouldn’t be debated because rising gas prices are more important?

Worst of all, HRC's lapdog strategy reeks of lacking confidence in the arguments for our own equality.


This strategy also does not help the Democrats win elections. John Kerry used this strategy during the 2004 campaign. While I think some of the "flip flopper" attacks on Kerry were unfair attacks about nuanced positions, this wasn't the case with Kerry's position on gay issues. Kerry said different things to different audiences both on the issue of state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriages and also on the issue of gays being able to serve openly in the military. During his final debate with George Bush, Kerry said "there is fundementally no difference between President Bush and myself on the issue of gay marriage".

When talking to Amy Klobuchar at the Hennepin County convention today, I asked her for her position on the Federal Marriage Amendment. I had emailed her numerous times on the topic, and have never received a written response. Amy said she opposed the amendment. I followed up by asking her whether she was planning to post this position on her website. She said she wasn't sure about that and was planning on putting what she considered her "major issues" up there.

Amy Klobuchar's current stealth strategy on this will be self defeating. Mark Kennedy will be able to use this issue against her, if she doesn't take a clear position on this issue. That means being willing to defend her position on her website. Amy said her position was "out there", since she had recently been quoted opposing the FMA in an MSNBC article. Amy also mentioned she has HRC endorsement.

Opposing the FMA is not a radical position. There are a number of conservatives who oppose the amendment on federalism grounds.

Lloydletta by Email Problems

A Lloydletta's Nooz reader who subscribes by email let me know she had not gotten any Lloydletta's Nooz by email recently. Sure enough, the service had gotten stuck, and I needed to go reset it. It should be working again now.

If you aren't gotting your email update from Lloydletta's Nooz, and you are subscribed, do email me when this happens, and I can go reset things.

For those of you who are interested in reading Lloydletta's Nooz by email, use the subscribe option on the right to get this started.

Keith Ellison on Farrakhan

Strib
via the Drama Queen.

State Rep. Keith Ellison, the DFL endorsee in the Fifth Congressional District race, has sent a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council in an attempt to quell concerns about his connections to a group viewed by many as anti-Semitic.

Ellison said that when he had ties to the Nation of Islam for about 18 months in the mid-1990s he failed to scrutinize the positions of the group and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and "wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic. I should have come to that conclusion [that they were anti-Semitic] earlier than I did. I regret that I didn't."

Ellison, who could become the first Muslim elected to Congress, noted that there has been "much speculation" about his ties to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, an organization that is aimed at improving conditions for black people but has been criticized as being antiwhite, antigay and anti-Semitic.

Ellison wrote that he saw "in the Nation of Islam, and specifically the Million Man March [in 1995], an effort to promote African-American self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, and community economic development." His relationship to Farrakhan has been raised mostly on blogs and in political scuttlebutt.

He said in an interview Friday that he wrote the letter, dated May 28, to the Community Relations Council to "reassure allies and friends of my long-term support for civil and human rights."


As Pam Spaulding, a liberal blogger who blogs alot on gay issues says:

Why does anyone take this man seriously, other than as a hate monger? He's no better than Don Wildmon, Dobson, or the rest of those clowns, yet too many black politicians give Louis Farrakhan legitimacy that he doesn't deserve in the slightest. . . .

You'll recall that Farrakhan was voted BET's 2005 Person of the Year, which his NOI folks crowed about. He's part of the reason it was necessary to have a conference on homophobia in the black community.

If this anti-Semitic homophobe can be held up as a model of what the best the black community has to offer in terms of leadership, it's a sad state of affairs indeed.

Farrakhan chose as his head co-organizer of the Millions More March, the esteemed Rev. Willie "Lesbians are taking over" Wilson, who was responsible for banning National Black Justice Coalition's Keith Boykin from the stage at the event. That says it all, doesn't it?


I don't understand why Keith Ellison didn't address this issue head on earlier in the campaign. He knew this was going to be an issue. Farrakhan was raised during his first successful campaign for state legislature 4 years ago. At that time, I supported Keith's opponent Duane Reed.

More eyewitness accounts from the convention center....

From Lloydletta comments:

MPR must have found the most idiotic delegates. I talked to a number of delegates that were furious about the stadium boondoggle.
Eva Young | Email | Homepage | 06.02.06 - 7:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading that 76% of the GOP delegates voted for a platform plank in favor of referendums on stadiums (which means, um, that they support the CURRENT LAW), my faith is somewhat restored.

Its possible that some of the geniuses MPR interviewed still wouldn't be able to see the irony.

I wonder if MPR is intentionally finding the dimmer bulbs for interviews (hey - I see a real slack-jawed mouth-breather in row 10 wearing a Mark Kennedy t-shirt - let's go talk to him).
Mark H | Email | Homepage | 06.03.06 - 12:12 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like MPR talked to the typical Republican sheep delegate. But the typical Republican sheep delegate and the most idiotic delegate are one and the same. You know, the ones who unanimously endorsed the state's Number One Stadium Cheerleader, Republican Tim Pawlenty. How can anyone say the Republican delegates truly support a stadium referendum when their party's top officeholder could have singlehandedly required one on the Twins stadium? Can't have it both ways. Obviously if anyone talked to Republican delegates who were furious, those delegates were a small minority. This is a Republican stadium paid for with Republican tax increases on Hennepin County without a referendum as the law requires, and signed by a Republican governor.
James | Email | Homepage | 06.03.06 - 12:23 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican delegates were largely pretty miffed by the shenanagans at the convention. The entire schedule went out the window. Rules were being voted on without alternates being seated. Rules were bypassed, or flagrantly ignored by the chairpeople. Discussion was stifled by proceedural dirty-tricks. Most of the delegates didn't even who up for the gubernatorial endorsement. I'm pretty sure the "endorsement" of Tim Pawlenty is not valid under party and convention rules... But that doesn't matter. The great and powerful Oz has spoken.
Dan | Email | Homepage | 06.03.06 - 4:21 am |

Interesting

It looks like Ryan Flynn, the author of Blogs for Pawlenty was the anonoblogger behind Republican Minnesota. Otherwise, why would Ryan Flynn link his name to the RM profile?

I had heard that some of the capitol press corps thought the blogger behind RM might be Pawlenty spokesperson, Brian McClung. Brodkorb told me he knew who RM was and it wasn't McClung.

Pawlenty vs Jeffers

Dan McGrath's comment on Craig Westover's blog:

Actually, I would disagree that party rules were followed. The entire process from Thursday, voting on rules by section, with timed debate, and introduction of nonsense motions to run out the clock precluded discussion of a new rule preventing nomination from the floor. About a dozen delegates were queued up to challenge the "no floor nominations" rule, but they never got a chance to speak on it. It all had the appearance to delegates unaware of what was going on that rules were being followed, and a fiar democratic process was under way, but no. Pawlenty's presentation was over 45 minutes, when rules limit gubernatorial candidates to 30 minutes. Dozens of apparent College Republicans in Pawlenty shirts entered the auditorium without any apparent guest or delegate credentials. The "endorsement" of pawlenty was railroaded through without consideration of proceedure. No motion to endorse was made, or seconded. A vote to endorse by rising vote was not conducted. While everyone was already on their feet, applauding Pawlenty's speech, we hear "all in favor of endorsing pawlenty say aye." I didn't hear anything but the clapping that was the applause from Pawlenty's speech. The party claims the "endorsement" was unanimous. Well, it wasn't. It wasn't even the required 60% with the recorded voting strength, vs. how many people were actually standing up. Ah well. It was just a show with a predetermined outcome anyhow. Off to the primaries.
Dan


Dan McGrath is Sue Jeffers campaign manager.

I was expecting something like this. Pawlenty's campaign wanted to avoid a ballot.

There is also a "blogs for Pawlenty" site up now with this disclaimer:

Disclaimer

Blogs For Pawlenty is not ran or endorsed by any candidate, candidate's committee or party unit. The views expressed here and through our links are not the views of Gov. Pawlenty, his office nor his campaign.


So far, the blog just appears to be Pawlenty talking points. Ryan Flynn is the author of the blog. The blog isn't too happy with Sue Jeffers.

No word on further devolopments in the case of the attention starved bar owner and her planned tactics for the weekend!!

Update: The attention starved bar owner was not a part of the nominations committee, therefore she will be unable to address the convention. This; however, will not stop her from pulling something at some point during the convention. She needs the attention, it is like a drug!!


Sue Jeffers will be running in the primary against Tim Pawlenty.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Presidential Straw Poll Results

King Banaian has the results.

Checks and Balances Has the Kennedy ballot results:

10:29 p.m.

The first ballot results are in and as expected Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN6) was endorsed on the first ballot. There were 971 delegates who cast ballots and the results are:

Mark Kennedy 767 votes for 78.99%

Harold Shudlick 154 votes for 15.85%

Blank 45 votes for 4.63%

Spoiled 4 votes for .04%

Republican Convention

Michael Brodkorb was kind enough to get me credentials to witness the Republican convention. To his credit, Michael Brodkorb posted publicly that he was disappointed in the way the party responded to requests from Liberal bloggers for credentials.

The convention vote last night had 15% voting for Shudlick, plus a significant percentage of blank ballots, and the rest of the votes going for Mark Kennedy. That is hardly a resounding endorsement, considering that Kennedy was running against nominal opposition. This vote was covered on the Northern Alliance Radio Network coverage. I didn't hear it mentioned on TV last night.

Tim Pawlenty got endorsed by acclimation. Jeffers didn't get reported for nomination. I talked with Jeffers tonight - and she told me she was 90% sure she was running in the primary against Pawlenty.

Pawlenty's speech acknowledged that delegates were unhappy with him, but he tried to make the case that the "tax raisin', gay marriage supportin', abortion promotin'" democrats were much worse. I think the Governor needs a dialect coach.

He'll still be Governor Tim Pawlenty of Tax Increases to me.

Breathing different air at the Minneapolis Convention Center....

I've been listening to some of the MPR coverage of the GOP convention. The interviews with delegates are kind of stunning.

In the same breath, the interviewees will still call the Governor a 'true conservative', and then explain away the Hennepin County stadium scam. They're holding Tim blameless, while in fact he's the one who got on his bully pulpit to encourage county and city governments to make deals that didn't require state general fund dollars.

The most recent interviewee said something like 'Well, the House and Senate both passed the stadium bill, so the Governor signed it. If he had vetoed it, they would have probably over-ridden the veto'.

Mr. Delegate - your spaceship is idling in the Central Lutheran Church parking ramp, ready to whisk you back to your home galaxy. The stadium bill passed by 2 votes in the Senate, and by 10 votes in the House. A veto over-ride requires considerably more support. This idiot should read newspapers and do independent research of FACTS, versus getting all of his information from campaign literature.

Just this morning I was happy to return a fundraising solicitation to the Governor's re-election campaign office, noting that I was casting my vote for Sue Jeffers.

Berg Can't Leave it Alone

From Shot in the Foot:

I was a libertarian - small "l" and big - back when Democrats, Greens and Maoists all over Minnesota and the nation thought that little things like worrying about eroding civil rights was something done whilst wrapped in tinfoil.


From the comments:

This argument is so confidently spun, while so completely devoid of sense and reason, that I can only assume you're trying out your law school application essay on us.

Jeeziz, Mitch, I know it's fun to fancy yourself a libertarian, but it's kind of inconsistent with being an apologist for secret domestic spying by the federal government. As a pal, I'd suggest you just keep quiet about the whole libertarian thing for awhile, cause it makes you look foolish. You're as convincing as some 50 year-old Algebra teacher trying to "relate" to the kids by casually sprinkling his conversation with hip-hop phrases gleaned from Newsweek.

Embrace what you are: a conservative who has hitched his star to the policies and political success of the current administration. Libertarianism requires you to condemn government overreaching, whichever party happens to be in power. You won't do that. When it comes to libertarianism you're - at best - a poseur, a dilettante; at worst, a phony.

As for the idea that lefties have just "discovered civil liberty," let me refer you to the ACLU, founded in 1920. I know, they don't promote free access to guns or back a flat tax, so they can't be promoting *real* civil liberties. But please, let's just be quiet about the relative bona fides of the left and right on libertarian issues. Cause you're just not in a position to make the argument without looking kind of silly. -- angryclown

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

From Lloydletta Comments on GOP Convention

Sue was on the Wednesday edition of O'Connell and Rosenbaums' show on AM 1500, and she was spectacular.

Again, if I'd known 3 months ago that she was planning to pull the GOP's chain, I would have gone to the caucus and supported her.

Pawlenty lost my vote with the gambling and stadium nonsense.
MarkH | 06.01.06 - 10:10 am | #

Excite the base? Heck yes! They're already excited. Or did you mean "in a good way" that might get him re-elected?

I think Pawlenty ought to insist that Jeffers speak and then demonstrate why he is so clearly the better choice. He takes away her biggest issue, of being the "slighted candidate," and then have the opportunity to repair his relationship with the activists by explaining his actions. It will be interesting.
J. Ewing


I think J Ewing has a point. The base is excited - just not in the way that Tim Pawlenty was hoping for.

GOP Convention Agenda Change

From a convention delegate:


Because Governor Pawlenty will be paying his respects at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Robert Posivio III on Saturday morning, endorsement for the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor have been moved to FRIDAY AFTERNOON instead of Saturday morning.


My guess: there will be lots of efforts from Pawlenty's supporters to make this a unanamous ballot. However there are many delegates at the convention who are unhappy with Governor Pawlenty of Tax Increases for increasing taxes. Signing the stadium tax at the metrodome was rubbing salt on the wound.

Here's the updated convention agenda.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Candles in the Wind

Orac has the scoop.

Another Creationist In the Minnesota Legislature?

Hat tip to Lloydletta and Dump Bachmann contributor, Ken Avidor, who reports that Creationism is becoming an issue Rep. Mark Olson's relection campaign in Big Lake. Olson's opponent, Jim Huhtala is calling Olson out on the topic, and Olson is trying to bravely run away from the topic.

Did Olson Say on the House Floor the Earth is Only 5,000 Years Old?
Letters to the Sherburne County Citizen

To The Editor,

I am writing in response to Rep. Mark Olson's editorial accusing me of using "extremist labels". Apparently Re. Olson is referring to a line in a speech that I gave at the Sherburne DFL county convention where I stated: "Unlike my opponent, I believe the earth is much more than 5,000 years old."

Clearly everyone has a right to believe what they want. What's at issue here is that Rep. Olson is on the Education Policy and Reform Committee and, therefore, he is in a position to impose his personal religious beliefs into public education policy.

In Mark's editorial, he never indicates how old he thinks the earth actually is. This is the crux of Mr. Bye’s question of a week prior. The voters of 16B have the right to know where Rep. Olson stands. Does he believe science or religious dogma?

In a revealing statement in his editorial, Mark states he believes that "there should be no separation between church and state." This is where Mark and I are in opposite camps. I believe that, thanks to the separation of church and state, Americans enjoy an unparalleled amount of religious and philosophical freedoms.

The Mark states in his editorial that facts should be taught in our schools. I concur. Reading on, he mentions that no one theory should be taught exclusively. I would guess that he is referring to the "theory of evolution" and trying to equate creationism as a theory. They are not both theories. Theories, by scientific definition, are backed up by scientific observation. Creationism is a religious belief.

So, Rep. Olson, was I blowing smoke at the convention or did you not say on the House floor the earth is only 5,000 years old?

Jim Huhtala

DFL endorsed candidate of HD 16B

Clear Lake, MN

Olson's letter:

To The Editor,

Much gratitude should go out to Mr. Nathan Bye for being eager to clarify issues Mr. Jim Huhtala raised as he received the DFL endorsement. I also appreciate Mr. Bye's efforts to raise the concern of candidate's using extremist labels which could be damaging to all those who have supported the Olson campaign over the years.

The liberal left and conservative right may have existed from the beginning. But using extremist labels with accusations to avoid issues, or paint unwanted perceptions, is just not appropriate. Mr. Bye is right. "This charge should not be made lightly." It actually should not be made.

People who fulfill their obligation to vote deserve the utmost respect from all candidates who run for office. So shouldn't we stick to the issues without creating concerns that no one enjoys being bantered about?

I have many Christian friends and have never met one, myself included, who believes there should not be any separation of church and state. As for what should be taught in public schools, it should be facts. If a theory is taught it must be identified as a theory. And no one theory should be taught exclusively.

My desire for clean and respectful campaigning must continue and I will focus on issues in the coming District 16B campaign. I can be reached for questions or comments at (651) 296-4237 or (763) 263-3500 and rep.mark.olson@house.mn.

Rep. Mark Olson
Big Lake, Minnesota


Huhtala calls Olson out again and Olson defensively responds.

Plymouth Mayor Judy Johnson's answer to an audience question about Intelligent Design Creationism at a Chamber of Commerce sponsored debate torpedoed her campaign for state senate in Senate District 43. Strong high school science education is important to residents in the Plymouth/Minnetonka district - and Intelligent Design creationism is antithetical to good rigorous science education. After this election was over, the strib tried to claim that Johnson's opponent, Terri Bonoff's stance on the stadium helped her campaign. In fact, this race wasn't a referendum on the stadium at all, and the stadium issue hurt Bonoff. Instead this race was a referendum on Intelligent Design Creationism after the well publicized drubbing IDiocy took in the Dover case.

Right-Wing Blogger Shoots Himself in the Foot

Mitch Berg pounced on Loosetrife's Minneapolis Upside Down post about Rybak and Samuels' call for regulation of free speech on cable and the internet.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Loosetrife responds:

Right Wing Bloggers Ignore Pawlenty and Link to South Minneapolis Commie Blog

It was a big day for Upside Down yesterday as the right-wing blogosphere discovered my humble little pinko blog on the day that Tim Pawlenty announced that he is running for reelection.

Who would have known that the right-wing blog boys were such supporters of free speech? Apparently, it takes a Democratic "sin" to awaken a sense of justice in these boys.

After all, it was Tim Pawlenty who suggested we make protestors pay for their own arrests. Just a "user fee" for exercising my constitutional rights, I guess.

Mitch Berg, my recently converted free speech advocate bitch at Shot to the Groin (or some such), was "so deliriously happy with Tim Pawlenty" on the day that Pawlenty floated this free speech tax.

I wonder what Berg would say about a "user fee" on wrong headed blog posts.


What's even funnier is that Berg links to Loosetrife's post which links to my You Tube movie page which includes several Bachmann movies.

Speaking of Bachmann movies... do a Google Video search of Michele Bachmann.

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Mpls Council Member and Mayor Call for Regulating Free Speech

Loosetrife comments on the Samuel's and Rybak's remarks on free speech during last week's Minneapolis City Council meeting:

"Samuels in particular emerged as an unapologetic opponent of unsupervised free speech . Rybak made clear his desire to censor cable access television. If Republicans had spewed this bilge, Democrats would come unglued, crying out against the assault on civil liberties."


Read more, including a transcript of Samuel's attack on free speech at the Minneapolis Upside Down blog.

I also made a short You Tube movie of Samuel's and Rybak's attack on free speech.

This should concern anyone who values free speech on the internet and cable television.

Here is a great quote on free speech from Justice William O. Douglas:

"Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance."


More quotes about free speech from the great jurist:

"Fear of ideas makes us impotent and ineffective."

"Thus if the First Amendment means anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor."

"The great and invigorating influences in American life have been the unorthodox: the people who challenge an existing institution of way of life, or say and do things that make people think."

"The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth."

"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."


Those last two quotes are from this talk Justice Douglas gave in 1951.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Opposition Research On Sue Jeffers

Andy at Residual Forces posts Michael Brodkorb's letter and opposition research on Sue Jeffers. Brodkorb also states that Harold Shudlick and John Ulrich were finally given delegate lists and that Shudlick gave his list to Jeffers.

Craig Westover is defending Jeffers on Andy's comment thread:

# Craig Westover Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm

My Pioneer Press column for tomorrow tackles this issue. I think you are mixing two different issues when you talk about Jeffers — 1) Should she be allowed to speak, 2) is she a Republican in principle and should she be endorsed.

On the first question, the Republican Party constitution requires only that a candidate agree that if endorsed, he or she will run as a Republican. With that agreement, the candidate is entitled to a list of delegates and alternates to the convention. Jeffers has said if endorsed, she'll run as a Republican. If Mike Hatch agreed to run as a Republican if endorsed, then he'd be entitled to the list of delegates as well. (Delegate lists are not the same as donor lists, which are available only to endorsed candidates and incumbents not endorsed.) A candidate that is not endorsed is under no obligation not to run in the general election.

The second issue is the one for delegates to decide — should Jeffers be endorsed? The Libertarian Party platform has some very different positions than the Republican Party platform, but I would argue that reducing issues to principles they are very similar and that Libertarian thinking is more in line with the Republican Platform on some issues than is the governor.

Take the gambling plank. The Republican Party opposes the expansion of gambling. A 100 percent libertarian would see that as the state interfering with the Republican principle of the free market and argue that limited government should not make moral choices for individuals. However, a libertarian would absolutely be opposed to a government run or a government partnership casino that was intended to create additional revenue to fix a budget problem caused by too much government spending. I ask, which type of gambling expansion did our governor propose?

Bottom line, Jeffers may lack the political experience and have views on some issues too divergent from the Republican Party platform to be endorsed. That's fine. That's the delegates' decision. Lady Logician makes a valid point. But for the Republican Party, the party that believes in academic freedom, to shut down a candidate over a label, makes us no better than Democrats — perhaps worse because Democrats don’t know any better. Republicans do.

# John D. McCallum Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 5:29 pm

As a member of the State Convention Nominations Committee, the question will be whether there will be actually discussions with the candiates, or if this will be a "White Wash" as was done in the 2004 convention.

Contrary to what everyone thinks, I will not “be a party shill”, but will make my own decisions.

Just a warning, should anyone wish to try in any way to intimidate myself or other members on the nominations committee, as was done to members at the 6th CD, people will find out how a Viet Nam Veteran defends his own rights.

As for Sue Jeffers, I plan to ask some very hard questions, and expect some straight answers, I also expect to do the same to Tim Pawlenty, whether he is our govenor or not. Holding office is not an automatic for earning the endorsement. Or being passed threw the nominations committee with a free ride.

# Craig Westover Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 9:46 pm

Good for you, John. That's exactly the way it should be done.

People are still confusing whether Jeffers should allowed to be a candidate with whter or not she should be endorsed. They are confusing whether strategically she screwed up with whether or not she should be a candidate. Whether or not she originally declared as a Libertarian or a Republican, her message is the same. Is it a message Republicans ought to hear? I understand that about 25 percent of CD2 delegates signed a petition in favor of Jeffers being a candidate (not necessarily endorsing her). That’s a pretty significant level of interest.

If the sole purpose of political parties is winning elections, then by all means, stifle Jeffers — and Krinkie, Buesgens and certainly muzzle David Strom. If parties are actually suppose to stand for something, then maybe we ought to stop acting like Democrat elitists and fight for what it is we believe in. The stadium bill is a done deal, North Star funding is done deal, Q-comp is a done deal — tell me what are the Republican principles at work in those accomplishments? How was the governor's aborted gambling proposal a Republican approach to balancing the budget?

Forget for a second that Jeffers has the label "libertarian" and address her position — just what the hell to Republicans stand for?


All those are good questions. This convention isn't going to be a pleasant one for Governor Tim Pawlenty. He'll have no problems getting the endorsement - but will he be able to excite the base?

Double Talking Matt Entenza

Overheard at Democratic Underground

House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul, blamed House Republican leaders for missing a chance to help education, health care and transportation. He said too much attention was spent on approving Twins baseball and University of Minnesota football stadiums.

"We need a new direction and new leadership to move the state forward," Entenza said before leaving the Capitol. (Source, Stillwater Courier Politicians spin legislative results, May 23, 2006)

While Entenza implies that he opposed the Twins and Gopher stadium bills, he failed to tell the reporter that he voted for BOTH of them. He's right about one thing, though--we definitely need new leadership. Starting with the House Minority Leader. What a phony. They don't call him The Great Pretenza for nothing.


I don't detect much excitement from DFLers for Matt Entenza's AG campaign.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Tim Obrien's Gig on AM 1280 the Patriot Irritating the MOBSTERS

Here.

For The Love of God, Mark Yost, Please Come Back!
Written by Chief
Saturday, 27 May 2006
Sweet suffering crap! I can't take another week of the new lefty Saturday mornings on 1280 AM. Listening to Tim OBrien (The Strib's Bloghouse columnist) wax on endlessly about Eva Young with worse radio chops than Al Franken is like nails on a chalkboard. Please, please, please Mitch Berg, call in as Miguel and slap this clown around. I've had about all I can take from a guy who is 5 years behind the curve telling us how fascinating blogs are and how MN is behind the curve.


I met Gary Miller at Kennedy v the Machine at a Michele Bachmann-Mark Kennedy event in St Cloud. Gary mentioned this show also. I didn't hear it.



Mitch Berg as Parrot by Ken Avidor. Hosted by flickr.

So what did OBrien say about yours truly that got the MOBster's undies in a bunch?

Sue Jeffers picks up a Republican-esque Endorsement

A press release from her campaign....

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Sue Jeffers Endorsed by Republican Affiliate Group

Endorsement by the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus was
Unanimous

St. Paul, Minnesota - Sunday, word came in to the Sue Jeffers campaign
for Minnesota Governor that the Republican affiliate organization, The
Republican Liberty Caucus had endorsed Jeffers for Governor. Sue Jeffers was
unanimously endorsed by the RLC National Board and confirmed by Minnesota RLC
Executive Officers as "a leading advocate of individual rights, limited
government, and private enterprise."We believe Ms. Jeffers will be a strong
defender of liberty as Minnesota Governor," Andy Lindberg, state chapter
coordinator said of the endorsement.

Jeffers was delighted to have received the strong show of support from the Republican group. "I am very excited to have been unanimously endorsed by the RLC. I am so glad to have your support, and thank the national organization and state affiliate chapter for getting behind my campaign," she said.

Sue Jeffers' Campaign staff indicated that support within the Minnesota Republican Party is growing every day. Campaign Manager, Dan McGrath said, "I'm thrilled that the endorsement was by unanimous vote. We've also been seeing a tremendous outpouring of support from the Republican delegates to the state convention. I'm feeling pretty good about our prospects."There may still be some rocky paths ahead for the Jeffers campaign, but Sue, with her usual optimism and enthusiasm said, "The party officials have been throwing up roadblocks, trying to keep me out of the process, but I don't need them. The delegates are taking back control of their party. More are contacting me every day, and they're getting behind my campaign. I think we're going to see some fireworks at the state convention."

Mike Hatch Would Sign Hennepin County Only Stadium Tax Bill

On Almanac, Hatch stated - after being asked multiple times - that he would have signed the Hennepin County Only, 30 year Stadium Tax.

Becky Lourey clearly stated she would have vetoed this bill.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Michele Bachmann's Sidekick Janet Boynes on Kim Jeffreys

Here.

From what I know I believe there's 80% of women, between 80 and 85% of women that are struggling with homosexuality were either raped by someone they knew or somebody outside of that normally there's some type of rape or some kind of molestation in our past.


Where did Janet get that particular statistic? A bathroom wall?

You can hear this quote about 5 minutes into the podcast.

UPDATE: Pam Spaulding has picked up on this on the House Blend and Pendagon. Exgay Watch has posted the audio of just that segment.

Steve Kelley - running for Governor with cement shoes

Also noted on this weekend's Almanac couch.... Steve Kelley was the only DFL candidate for governor who stood in favor of the Mike Opat-sponsored Hennepin County stadium scam.

Becky Lourey, Ole Savior, and Mike Hatch all took shots at both the Governor and Senator Kelley.

Steve has no way out of this one. He gave it all away in the conference committee. The fact that he tried to attach transit funding doesn't mean a thing at this point - what matters is the final bills that passed. This issue will not help him.