Kennedy's supporters freak out
--posted by Tony Garcia on 3/10/2006
The Republican party and the Mark Kennedy for Senate supporters feel that the process of hearing all candidates should not apply to the Mark Kennedy for Senate race. I have posted about this previously.
During the discussion on that post from an ardent Kennedy supporter it was suggested that, "hash this crap out in person some time so we can have a better chance to debate our deferrences." I do not intend to be in public for a while so I took the discussion up in e-mail instead.
Later I made another post on this topic and quoted from the e-mail the following:
"legitimate candidate"The response I got today was the following:
BTW: I thought we were going to keep the email discussion off the blog. Real classy. Thanks. Oh and thanks for excluding the rest of the days long conversation we were having so people could get the entire subject matter at hand. Real Classy.Please tell me, were those two words really that out of line?
Next item...
I have been criticizing the party for their role in subjectively choosing when to sidestep the process for candidates and when to hold to their rules. I blamed Kennedy for allowing it to happen. That post was on 2/27. Later that afternoon this was posted in the comments:
If Shudlick or the DFL sounding guy aren’t at a debate, blame the people that set up the debate! If they aren’t allowed at a GOP affiliate’s (CDs, BPOUs, Seniors, Teenage, College, etc etc) official event, blame that affiliate, not RPM.Later was another attempt to say that Kennedy has no part in the shunning of opposition:
How has Kennedy not accepted the opposition? When has HE stopped Shuddlick from showing up/be invited? Should he demand it, and threaten to boycott it if Shud isn't there, and risk looking like he was afraid to debate Amy? (Again, if you beef is that Shudlick wasn't invited, find out why and who made that happen. Don't assume it was Kennedy's will.)Well, I provided an example from first hand experience that it is not the fault of those setting up the debate. The candidate actually has a part in this dismissal of the proper process.
Our show has been attempting to organize debates for the contested statewide races and the contested 6th Congressional races. I contacted all of the Senate candidates. Ford Bell confirmed. Then Kennedy's campaign said initially they would do it if either Klobuchar or Shudlick confirmed. Next Shudlick confirmed. Klobuchar has yet to reply.Sorry, I was providing an example of the problem. The problem is that the Republican Party AND Mark Kennedy are acting as if they are unopposed. The supporters are so blinded by pure and absolute partisanship that they would rather defend they hypocrisy in the problem than fix the problem for a better, stronger party.
Once Kennedy's requirement was met (Shudlick confirmed) I created a post announcing the status of the debates. I received an e-mail stating Kennedy was NOT confirmed. When I called for clarification I was told that Kennedy will show up if it is either a head-to-head with Klobuchar or a 4-way debate. I replied that the debates will be seperate (DFL one hour and GOP in another hour) and was told Kennedy's campaign would check the availability and his participation is "tentative". I have yet to hear back.
BTW, the response from the Kennedy flock after my example:
What has Kennedy himself, or HIS Senate campaign done to push Shudlick out of the official process? (Again, be specific.)Yep, turn a blind eye. Oh, but there is more.
This seems to be all about you and your show, not the official Party Process. (FTR: you & your show are NOT in the Party’s rules, I checked)Talk about taking a page from the Democrats book. Actually, it is a page out of the PARTISAN book. Why do I say that? Because it goes on:
And yet you’re willing to tell people how bad a fellow Republican, Kennedy, is, and devote a large portion of your time and energy towards turning people against him for stuff YOU claim.In other words, if there is something within the party that is wrong it should not be discussed.
Now, let's get to the REAL issue. There is a process for vetting through candidates. The Kennedy crowd have a double standard going on here and the more this discussion goes on the more it comes out.
On the one hand there is a great race going on in the 6th Congressional District and we just can't wait for the convention. Everyone is parading the candidates around like ponies (present company included in the slight) for one purpose: to actually let the delegates witness through debates and comparisons through the convention who is actually the best candidate. On the other hand the party has to jump behind one person...the first one to announce his candidacy, essentially. It must be that way because the supporters of that first one say so and the party chair said so too (he was the first to endorese Kennedy LAST YEAR). It must also be that way because the party says so (Andy, I have already given from first hand experience a specific example of this as well.)
So can someone please tell me what the difference is?
The Kennedy-over-principles crowd say that the difference is that there is no chance of victory from any other candidate in the race. Well, how is that exactly measured? I mean, seriously, how is that quantified? What criteria?
This is important to know for the future darkhorse candidates who want to run for office. And of that criteria can you please explain how someone like Jay Esmay would be given permission to run for office by your criteria?
I have a general idea of the criteria tailor made for Kennedy.
Mark Kennedy has won 3 elections in the 6th Distrct and before that he ran twice and lost. The point is that he has built a grassroots organization that has learned what it takes to WIN! He announced that he would run for the US Senate before Mark Dayton announced that he wouldn't run(over a year ago).
This is 100% against the ideals of grassroots. And the thing that makes me more vocal about this is when I talk to delegates, listeners and even other radio hosts I am hearing a very strong unhappiness with what is transpiring.
But the Kennedy-over-principles people continue to misconstrue the issue so they do not have to deal with it.
I still think the real reason you're mad is because he didn't come on your show. I hope you get over it soon because, after the State Conventions have determined who the candidates from both parties are, you could still get Mark to come on your show and go face to face with Amy.No, the issue is not Kennedy refusing to come on the show. I never even said that. (Suddenly a different posting is coming to mind with all of these people being unable to understand the problem.) The reality about Kennedy and our show is that we are refusing to submit to their demand of having a Kennedy vs Klobuchar debate. You guys have the issue backwards. I figured out why you guys cannot fathom someone actually standing up for what is right...it is so unheard of from partisans. It is like getting a liberal to accept supply-side economics.
I reiterate...Kennedy's part in this corronation is as the willing subject. Is he a bad person? No. Can he call himself a champion of the little people? No. Can he say he respects the rules? No. Is it offensive to claim to be a Reagan Republican? Yep...until he stands up AGAINST the corronation because it is the right thing to do he is not half the statesman that Ronald Reagan was. While he participates in this party above principles he is, sadly, not the person I voted for in 2004. I voted for a Mark Kennedy that I believed was not just another politician.
The whole problem, and what you guys endorse, is that the Republican party's leaders' rhetoric about being for what is right is as hollow as the Democrat's rhetoric about being for the poor.
So I close by summarizing what I have learned from the Kennedy supporters. This is a list of the criteria for candidates to be able to gain Republican Party support:
1) A Senate candidate must be the first to announce his candidacy.
2) A Senate candidate must have a certain amount of money (though that amount is yet undefined).
3) A Senate candidate must be able to win the general election to be allowed to speak at party events (though my crystal ball is not working so I suppose I must rely on the Party to guarantee who can and cannot win).
4) A Senate candidate must attract enough votes to win the general election before even the caucuses.
And that does not even touch the requirements that I have learned through various private conversations.
9 Comments:
I see you still insist on taking me out of context and further that you're still really pissed off. I notice that nobody else is responding to you (check above for the likely reasons why) and probably should either, but I want to ask you one straight forward question.
What has Schudlick said, specifically, that makes him a better choice for the US Senate than Mark Kennedy? Give me HIS strong points that he has made that are DIFFERENT that Mark's positions. If you go postal on me about the process or something off topic then I, also, will quit responding. That's not a threat, it's just that I've got better things to do than to argue with someone who's only interested in picking a fight for the fights sake.
The topic IS the process.
The Kennedy-flock wants to ignore that. You are epitomizing that.
To answer your question...that is what the endorsement process is about. We are in the middle of that in every race EXCEPT the Senate race.
Now, if you insist, move on to other issues. I'm am staying on this one both on the blog, in person and on the air.
And the response from the listeners via the station manager is that we are resonating very well.
OK, you couldn't answer my question and now you look silly. Back when Tim Pawlenty ran for governor against Brian Sullivan, THERE WAS NO STRAW POLL!!!! it was bring your delegates to the convention, baby! The State GOP doen't do straw polls anymore.
I don't know what more can be said.
If Shudlick has delegates then he should bring them to the convention.
I haven't run across any other websites having a problem with this except you. I know a number of people well placed in their respective Senate Districts and there is no Shudlick talk, what can I say. Anyway, good luck with your little show there.
Partisan Kennedy supporter here!
OK Tony, You really want to try to hash this out?
The way I see it, you may as well tell them who I am, you've twisted everything so much, why not.
You call me Sunday during your show! You really wanna debate this, have your producer call me, and I will go on air with you to get to the bottom of this.
I really think this is in fact all about you, not Kennedy or Shudlick or the GOP. I think this is just a stunt to get attention.
You really wanna have a debate on this, you call me while we're on air. I'll gladly go on air, so we can get to the bottom of this.
Here is my cell number
612-916-3232
I've got plans tomorrow, but I will gladly take the time so we can handle this like gentleman, voice to voice, rather than slamming me on your blog.
Call me Tony, have the guts to back up your claims.
Andy, no offense, but you are not the story here. The story, contrary to what the Kennedy-flock think, is the circumvention of the process. It is not me. It is not that we refuse to give in to the Kennedy campaign's demand to alter our debates to serve him. It is not even about Shudlick himself.
The issue is the process...or should I say the willful dismissal of the process at a whim.
With that said, if you wish to have your say when we discuss this on Sunday you can call in. 320-251-1990.
I do not fear debating this on the air...in fact I would rather have the Kennedy campaign or the GOP chair defend themselves. That interview I welcome. If you want to be a caller to defend the issue (putting party above principles) you are welcome.
Publius, thanks for the wish of luck with the little show. I'll take it, but I do not need luck. Talent and hard work will suffice.
Oh, and standing up for what is right.
Publius and Triple_a are completely wrong on this issue. Although Publius did mention that no one is talking about Schudlick as a viable candidate, (which is true) people are talking about the Kennedy campaign's lack of character in shutting out a candidate that didn't really have a chance in the first place. This was a huge discussion at the caucus that I went to. Tony, you are right - you don't invite a guest on your show and have HIM tell YOU how the show should be run and under what condititions. Kennedy either shows up when you invite, or he doesn't. I think he doesn't want to have to defend his actions, and that's why he won't show up. People are talking about this - I was going to vote for Kennedy but this as well as the one time I met him at a MOB event (where he basically showed to shake hands and didn't really have an interest in what anyone was saying) has started to change my mind. I want a candidate that I can be proud of, one that I can at least believe is fair. I'll admit that I'm guilty of casting votes for People with an (R) behind their name without knowing much about them. Publius and Triple_a are a very small minority in that they would still vote for the (R) EVEN AFTER finding out that the person is doing something that isn't kosher. I've found that the minority is usually louder than those of us who stay silent on the issue. Thanks for making noise about this....you have a lot of supporters who aren't talking - you are just hearing from the loudmouth minority (who obviously feel trapped because they are striving so hard to support someone who is doing something wrong and losing)...as seen by their petty comments about your "little show," etc. - that's the way people act when they are losing an arguement - they resort to name calling because they have no sustance.
Seriously Andy, it's easier if you call the station, as the buttons on the phone don't work right. we have to dial out, then have to press a random 4 digit number, then punch in you phone number plus another code, then I have to lick my finger and connect two wires while our producer turn on a microphone, then we have to shake one the the lighting fixtures before making a sacrifice to Ra. Then, MAYBE, the phone will work. However, incoming calls seem to fail at a small rate.
So Tony, when you quote ME in our private emails, but just use the snippets that make your point, throwing out everything else that explains that little statement, you aren't attacking me?
I was engaging with you in an honest exchange to try to explain why I feel as I do. I spent a lot of time writing out long emails, so my entire point was clear. You have taken them, twisted them, and then used them against me, and Kennedy in this venture you're on to tear him down. If I am not part of this story, why am I a source for your posts?
And again, where is R2TR in the MNGOP Process? I still can't find it.
BTW that "Party above principles" line is an attack. It may not seem like it to you, but it sure feels like one to me, the recipient of it.
And it just came to mind, what started this entire thing 2 weeks ago. Straw polls. Did you call for one at your caucus as you said you would? I'll throw it out again for you to say where it is required to have a US Senate straw poll. That was what got you on this, you said that MNGOP was breaking the process for Kennedy by not having the straw poll.
I’ll ask everyone tonight at the Kennedy fundraiser who they would have voted for in a straw poll. Granted everyone there is a ‘partisan’ according to you, but don’t their votes count too?
Wow. That's nerve. So...Triple_a is going to speak for the entire GOP? He's going to represent the Kennedy campaign by calling in to your show? If I were the Kennedy campaign, I'd contact this guy and ask him to shut up. I'm thinking that if Lloydletta got kicked out of MOB for saying inflamatory things, maybe Triple_a should looked at a little closer also. He is overstepping his bounds and attempting to speak for all of us.
Post a Comment
<< Home