/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Monday, April 24, 2006

Podcast for the blog

--posted by Tony Garcia on 4/24/2006

OK...I am pretty close to completing to my satisfaction the studio in my house. As such I will try to enhance this blog with ARUC podcast. Yes, it will be an experiment that I could scrap at any time.

The intention will be to put a voice behind some of the things that I am reading around the blogosphere, interesting tidbits, maybe restate a post or put my voice in place of a post.

Give it a listen.

Podcast #1...Why the GOP Conservatives should embrace Sue Jeffers.

Click here to listen.


Blogger Brent Metzler said...

It's not that a candidate can't run against an incumbent governor. After all Al Quist got the endorsement against Arne Carlson in 1994. But there was a big difference between Quist in 1994 and Jeffers 12 years later. Quist didn't piss off the delegates by getting the nomination of a 3rd party, and then coming back long after the endorsement process started and demanding access he didn't have a right to. He followed the process properly, and won the endorsement.

Jeffers, whether through ignorance or willfulness, screwed up the process. Now she's whining because the party won't let her dictate the terms she wants to play by. Well, boohoo, I'm with Andy on this one. She can accept the rules the Republican party has for candidates seeking endorsement, or she can come back in 4 years and follow the process properly.

I see no reason Jeffers ought to be allowed to dictate the rules for the endorsing convention. She can play be the rules, or she can sit out for 4 years. Whining just pisses off the real delegates from the party.


April 25, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

I don't think she is trying to dictate the rules...and Lord knows there are not any within the GOP who support altering the rules at a convention for the benefit of a candidate, right?

What part of the nomination process is underway? The same part that is recognizing Uldrich & Shudlick?

Seriously, with Kennedy & Bachmann pissing all over the process as it is I find it comical that the GOP faithful suddenly use a strict adherence to the sanctity of the process to shut out Jeffers.

You speak about the GOP as if it is the same GOP as 1994. It is not. THAT GOP sought character. This GOP care only about the letter behind a person's name and nothing else matters. Take Andy for example...how much was he riding Pawlenty just a couple of months ago for abandoning the fiscal conservative base. Then he hears that Jeffers is going to jump into the race and tries to talk her out of it for the sake of the party.

You know what I take from the whole election cycle:
1) Do not challenge a GOP incumbant, you will be shut out of the process (specific beneficiary: Pawlenty)
2) Do not challenge the first GOPer to enter a race (specific beneficiary: Kennedy; at the expense of Gutknecht, Gramms, Uldrich, Shudlick and who knows who else)
3) Do not question the competence of a GOP incumbent unless the seat is safe (specific beneficiary: Pawlenty, Kiffmeyer, most of the House, most of the Senate)

I don't disagree that Jeffers must follow the rules...which unless they are changed in the next few weeks (that would be wrong but not unexpected from the GOP this cycle) Jeffers can get a nomination at the state convention by any delegate, get a second by any delegate and be allowed to speak if such a motion gains 2/3 approval.

In all honesty a party that is HONEST about supporting the marketplace of ideas should grant her, a legitimate candidate seeking the endorsement, a chance to speak. (I say legitimate because that is the term used to disqualify Kennedy's GOP opponents yet those people who use it still are unable to define it.)

Would YOU vote to let her speak? I am guessing not. What are you afraid of? Are you seriously afraid of her getting the nomination? Maybe you are afraid that she might force Pawlenty to find his facade of fiscal conservativism again.

Maybe I should see if I am still listed as a delegate to the state so I can make those motions and nominations. I think I know enough people sympathetic to Jeffers platform to at least get the issue on the floor to be debated.

April 25, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

One last question, Brent. What rules is Jeffers trying to break?

April 25, 2006  
Blogger Dan S. said...


I've commented before here that I'm all for having fair election processes. I don't know the facts about the Jeffers situation, but if she's trying to bend the rules, I'm against that -- not because she's a threat to T-Paw, but because I don't want anyone to bend the rules.

That said, I don't think you're all that different from Andy, Brent, or myself. You want to support the most conservative candidate. We want the most conservative candidate who can win.

Governorships matter. Holding the majority in the Senate matters. I admire your principled stances, but I would argue for tempering them with some pragmatism.

In other words, I'd rather hold my nose a little and keep a majority than be back in the minority because we threw all our imperfect candidates under the bus.

If that makes me a "partisan hack," so be it.

Looking at your campaign scoreboard, would you really rather see Ford Bell win the Senate seat over Mark Kennedy? How 'bout Patty Wetterling over Michele Bachmann in the 6th CD? And Old Savior over Tim Pawlenty for Governor? Be careful what you wish for.

Keep fighting the good fight, though, Tony. While I may question your "enthusiasm," I think your heart's in the right place.

And good job with the podcast.

April 25, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

The scoreboard is a work in progress. However, yes, I would rather have Wetterling than Bachmann.

As for the other people you mentioned...I still have to go through their platforms and I am certain that Bell will end up lower than Pawlenty. Jeffers, however, will probably be ahead of T-Paw.

Partisan hack? I don't know about you specifically. Let me ask you this. If Hilary jumped to the GOP would you support her? I mean, she has a great chance of winning regardless of her party if she is in the general election.

"most conservative candidate who can win"--Bachmann ain't that person. Personally I doubt that Knoblach is that person, but at least that is debateable amongst the reasonably objective people.

Finally, Jeffers, from what I understand is not asking to break/bend the rules. She asked BPOU chairs and the GOP if she could get the delegate lists. Big deal. She asked. She wants to pursue the GOP endorsement. Big deal, that is possible within the rules. That is not bending the rules. She wants to address the GOP convention. Also not bending the rules UNLESS the GOP changes their rules from what they have been year after year.

Yes, majorities matter. But so do principles. I do not like Knoblach's platform, I think he is horribly disorganized and elitist. However, he is not lacking in the ethics department. I can vote for him. I can support his candidacy compared to others. That would be holding my nose a little.

However when someone is so completely devoid of ethical bearing (as is Bachmann) or full of entitlement (as is Kennedy, in my own opinion) I will not support them. Depending how bad that stench is I might go against them. When I see a political machine aiding those types (Bachmann & Kennedy both) I hold them in lower regard. I cannot support someone like that.

Where I differ from Andy and Brent is that I am not beholden to one set of rules and accepted methods for one candidate (for the pure sake of winning) and then beholden to a contrary set of rules and methods for other situations (for the pure sake of winning).

How can you test your loyalty to a principle? When you stand for it even at your own detriment. The principle is character and if Bachmann is the GOP candidate, if my ballot comes down to only her and one other person then I help the other person and accept that the principle lives.

Partisan hack? I don't know. What is that ONE principle which you will not betray? A partisan fights for victory and that letter behind the name above all else. Do you fit that description?

What is that ONE principle?

April 25, 2006  
Blogger Dan S. said...

"That one principle?" There are many principles I will not betray, and I certainly don't mean to demean yours. I do think some distinctions need to be made, though.

For example, you've raised ethical concerns about Bachmann. For the sake of this discussion, let's say they're all true. In that case, I would absolutely agree with you that she should not be our candidate for CD6.

I don't get what you've got against Kennedy, though. I'm reading "sense of entitlement" and "the political machine aiding [him]," but where's the problem?

Yes, he's got virtually unanimous support from the MN GOP. It's not an evil conspiracy - it's party unity. Why is that bad? Has Kennedy done something of which I'm not aware?

Back to Jeffers, I hope she is able to use all procedural venues to which she's entitled, and I hope that conservatives take a fair look at both candidates and select the better one.

When that happens, I then hope that supporters of both will unite behind that candidate, whomever that is - and not vote for the moonbat opponent out of spite.

Now let's be clear here. When I say "the best conservative who can win," implied is that the candidate not have ethical problems.

Even the staunchest party faithful (of which I am one) does not vote for the "R" above all else. I won't vote for an unethical person, even if Republican.

However, I don't expect candidates necessarily to be saints -- they are politicians, after all. This is why I make the distinction between political savvy / a little gamesmanship and serious ethics problems. I can forgive the former, not the latter.

Btw, 24 karat gold has not yet come out of my ass (I checked), so I'm not yet ready to address the "what if Hillary were the GOP nominee" question. :-)

April 25, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

After reading your last comment, Dan, I think you and I are on the same page. I admit, I may be a little extra sensitive about the "best candidate who can win" mentality. After my discussions with many people individually I do not think it is safe to assume that the support is provided if the candidate does not have ethical problems.

My apologies to you for not making that assumption towards you (but you're a Cubs fan...should I really give the benefit of the doubt ;))

Re: Kennedy/Machine. Gutknecht was chased away from running for Senate. Grams supporters were not treated well because they were challenging Kennedy as THE Republican candidate. Kennedy (him personally and his people) has blatantly lied about their role in acting like there are no other candidates in the GOP race. The party has admitted to taking actions to "create the appearance of unanimity". The list goes on supporting my contention that the machine is full force for Kennedy and has been already for over a year.

Does that mean he is in the same ethically challenge boat as Michele? Not at all. I may still pull the lever for him. I may even give the campaign $1.

Jeffers...we agree. She should be given all of the access within the rules. Here are 2 questions for you. If the motion is made to allow her to speak (which is technically a rule change, and rule changes occur constantly at conventions) would you vote "Aye" or "Nay"? The other question, what would you think of the GOP if the set the rules up to absolutely prevent "outsiders" (read Jeffers) from even having that legitmate motion be made?

April 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home