/* ------------------- 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 ------------------- */

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Close-minded GOPers assail open-minded people

--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/03/2006

The history now between the close-minded party-over-principles partisan Andy of Residual Forces has been out in the open. Well, at least here it is. Over at his website he does not tolerate any dissention and deletes comments that point out his hypocrisy.

But what is lost upon people like him (party-over-principles and partisans) is the main point in each discussion. They bend their beliefs to fit the desired outcome. The current example of this is Sue Jeffers.

In a nutshell the background story goes like this:
Pawlenty ran as a fiscal conservative. Governed like one for 2 sessions. Forgot the platform he ran on in his 3rd year and warned fiscal conservatives that his 4th year would be bad. Pawlenty then unveiled an enormous spending package that he called a budget.

Andy caught wind that someone was going to run against Pawlenty. That person said because Pawlenty is failing in his job. Fortunately Andy told us their real motivation: to draw votes away from Pawlenty and help the DFL AND to get 15-minutes of fame (as if the fight against the smoking ban didn't do that).

Efforts were made to keep this challenger away from Pawlenty (because partisans would NEVER allow a sitting politician to be challenged--party over principles). They even, rumor has it, offered a clear path to a State Senate seat versus no assistance in challenging Pawlenty.

Sue Jeffers announced instead as a Libertarian since the GOP hacks were trying to prevent her from running as a GOP gubernatorial candidate (hmm, sounds familiar...Kennedy announces for Senate and other candidates are chased away or shunned). The partisans went after her as simply out for a little attention.

Jeffers then wanted to seek the Republican endorsement as well. The GOP became afraid because they know their boy is vulnerable to a fiscal conservative platform. They engage in attacking Jeffers for...being a Libertarian. I know, what a horrible crime. That should warrant jail time, shouldn't it.

Party-at-the-cost-of-principles extrodinaire, Andy, has been all over that story, btw. Go to his blog and see that he has been the best at exposing her platform weaknesses.

It is good to see that not all Republicans (though a minority of them to be sure) are as willing to toss their principles for the sake of their party as Andy. Tracy of Anti-Strib has a great post...even better are the comments. They show the partisans for what they really are: close-minded.

Partisan comment:
The party endorsement process is set up so that elected delegates run the system. That system also isn't closed by any means. But it has a beginning - precinct caucus night. Jeffers could have tossed her hat in the ring to run as a Republican at that time. Again, she didn't.
No, it is not really that open. You must be ardently pro-life, outwardly Christian and hateful towards Democrats or your chances of being a delegate are significantly worse. This year you also have to be pro-Bachmann or your chances are close to nil. Strangely enough the platform has more than those planks and someone who supports most of the other planks OUGHT to be a good bet for delegate. But the system has gotten so closed to anyone else over the past couple of years that I consider it to be a very closed system even internally. And unless I am mistaken, Jeffers still can run in a primary against Pawlenty. Someone who knows the election laws as far as ballot access in the Primary can corret me there. So, no, her only opportunity was not to fellate the fragile egos of the partisans by jumping in at the caucus. Doing that would ONLY have served as making it easier to shut her out (just like Uldrich and Shudlick in 2006 and Grams in 2005 for the Senate spot).

As a response to "I guess many of us thought that maybe the Republicans would look at a good conservative candidate, we are obviously wrong."
Yeah, you were certainly wrong to assume the Republican Party was going to look outside Republican Party candidates in its endorsement process.
...
You have previously drawn a distinction yourself between being a conservative and being a Republican, recognizing that these are not the same thing...Sue Jeffers may be a conservative, but she's not a Republican. That distinction matters.
There is why I say these partisans are Party-Over-Principle types. They abandon their principles for the convenience of a dumb letter behind a person's name...and to protect sitting polticians with that letter behind their name. They claim to be conservative but scrap those beliefs for the almighty elephant. I cannot decide what is more nauseating, scrapping one's own belief system for a polticial party or scrapping one's own belief system for a typical politician.

Tracy then states the issue perfectly:
I understand the the party has rules. I also have interacted with the MN Republicans and I can't say I blame Sue for not being overly excited about joining.

I'm glad you admit that there is a huge gap between conservatives and Republicans in this state. Maybe more conservatives will get this message and look for a party that does reflect their values. (I usually recommend working within a party to effect change, but I see that the MN Republicans are a closed shop)
Exactamundo. Over the past few years the MN GOP (and the GOP to a smaller extent) have been moving away from free thought. Sure, they parade pro-choicers onto a stage to make it look like a big tent. But that is not reflective of the party. There are three tenets within the party that you must adhere to or you will be a pariah: absolute pro-life, absolute-outward Christian and absolute hatred towards Democrats. It is no longer a respectful disagreement, it is a hatred. (And Democrats, don't get too excited about that comment...it goes both ways. The Democrats are more vocal about the hatred, but it is the exact same thing both directions.) Difference of opinion is not tolerated.

Personal anecdote: I was going to run for school board where I used to live. I asked around within the party who to talk to about being the local GOP's endorsed candidate. They pointed me towards "Q". He refused to help and even said he would find someone to run against me. Why, asked the person who referred me to "Q". Because I voted against party endorsement of judicial nominees being in the platform. That means I was not a good Republican.

They want a monolithic group. Look at the reaction to the election of Ron Carey as the MN GOP chair last summer. "Mutiny". Yep, dissention is not permitted.

Jeffers reception within the GOP was not going to be a warm one unless she followed the orders of not running against Pawlenty.

Tracy then adds an echo to what I have been saying.
I doubt that many of the party faithful can see how bad this move looks to people who aren't party members. The Republicans are shunning a female small business owner just to defend their turf. They could extend an olive branch and try to be more inclusive, but that goes against the grain of your typical party hack.
It looks very bad from the outside. Tracy, to those who are not blinded by partisanship it looks bad. The more the GOP goes down this road the more they are setting up another 1998 result.
Am I the only one that would like to see someone other than a white male run with an R next to thier name?

So if we get Sue to register as a Republican everything will be fine?
Tracy, I think you are the only one in the party who would like to see someone other than a white male run. And no, if Jeffers registered as with the GOP everything would not be fine. Their excuse would be that she did not do it at the beginning of the sacred caucus process (which they advocate against with regards to Mark Kennedy--just skip ahead to the real race for that one--hypocrites). But it is very clear that Jeffers would not have been warmly received at all.

And as to complaints that Jeffers is going to the media about being shut out I say, well, that's politics. It is a move that helps her campaign (deja vu--that is what the Kennedy people say to justify ignoring candidates within his party). Cuts both ways, boys.

Another partisan jumps into that discussion:
Jeffers would have been welcomed in the Republican Party and could have challenged any candidate for any position she was eligible to run for.
Wro-o-o-n-ng.

Let's review. Andy in January tried to talk her out of running for Governor. She had not announced and her reception was already chilly. Let me quote the Clairvoyant: "Every vote drawn from Pawlenty might just as well be for a DFLer. Which may be this person’s plan, as they have not yet gotten over the last legislative session. This person has no interest in winning."

That is not "welcomed" at all.

The word is that she was told to run instead for State Senate and she would then get a warmer reception. Why should she have done that? She was upset with (as am I) the Governor's flip-flopping.

No, she is getting the treatment now from the partisans (are you there Andy) that she would have received if she had the audacity to run against Pawlenty in a Primary.

Another party-over-principle response:
I can't afford you "principled Republicans." And, given that you seem so cavalier about handing the high-tax DFL the reins just to make your personal points of principle (or is it pride?), I'm liking you less and less. Do this on your own damn dime, please.
And then there is this, which is a good articulation of what will happen with the GOP continuing the way they have been.
By refusing to allow Sue to run in a primary against the Guv, sor of an in family contest, the Party poobah's would rather she stay 3rd party and suck away those principaled conservatives handing help to the DFL.
All because she had the Gall to file as a lib then try to come back.
Talk about pique!
Warning to the GOP...you will lose big this year in 2006. The paths you have set upon are not very appealing to the moderate, they are not warm to the "principled Republicans" and they are not displaying any optimism.

You will energized your opposition (you are giving them far too much fodder) and supress enough of the conservative base to damage not just your Governor's race, but the Senate race and the state houses, too.

Just keep going and come November I will just sit back and say, I told you so. And curse you jackasses for being so obtuse that you screwed the state just to protect the "R" behind your politicians names.

You could have looked for actual principled conservatives and chose not to. Why should a principled conservative support your candidates?

2 Comments:

Blogger Swiftee said...

Couple of things before I dissect your fisk of the GOP.

1. I was a Sullivan delegate at the state GOP convention.

2. T-Paw has followed the script that I was warning his delagates about.

2. I endorsed Sue as soon as she announced.

I agree that fiscal conservatives are in short supply around these parts..but Sue is a Libertarian.

If she wants to run as a Rebublican, she needs to register as a Republican. Until she does that she (and you and Tracy) can bitch and complain as much as you want but the point is moot.

May 04, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

Yeah, she is a Libertarian, but why should the fiscal conservatives in the GOP deny her access? But that is, as you imply, internal to the GOP alone.

What irks me personally are the attacks of Sue by the blogosphere's clairvoyant (Andy) and others simply for her party. Hey y'all, talk about her platform. Is there a character issue with her?

As far as the general election goes the GOP is running a huge risk by taking the "closed door" approach. Tracy is exactly right...it looks bad on the outside.

Recollections of 1998 are arising.

May 04, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home