"I noticed you endorsed Dave Thompson for Chair. I also support Dave. I would like to explain why.
First, let me give you some background. I have been involved in MN GOP politics at all levels for many years. I have held positions of leadership at the BPOU, Congressional district, and State Party levels. I have been a National Delegate to 3 different conventions. I could have been a National Delegate in 2008, but turned down the offer, since my wife was involved in a campaign for State Legislature. I have chaired BPOU and Congressional District conventions. I have served on Platform, Rules, and Constitution committees at the BPOU, Congressional District, and State Level. I’ve been a delegate to State Central and a candidate for Deputy Chair of the State Party. I am not a neophyte when it comes to Republican Party Politics in Minnesota.
That being said, let me state that the “status quo” in the Republican Party have all but destroyed the Republican Party.
Tony Sutton likes to talk about his involvement in the glory days of Bill Cooper. I was on the executive committee at the time. As Executive Director, Tony did a great job following Bill Cooper’s directions. The Party worked well under Bill Cooper because, as chair, Bill Cooper unabashedly supported the platform and the endorsement process. He was concerned about getting the GOP message out, raising money, and training local BPOUs. My point is that while Tony may be able to execute, his recent history in leadership shows a lack of vision or the ability to lead in a way required to win back lost Legislative seats.
What has happened since Bill Cooper left? Instead of pushing platform issues, the party has been more concerned about "electability" as the highest qualification for office. The State Party and the House and Senate caucus are more concerned about trying to control who runs for office and who doesn't. The problem is, “electability” is impossible to define. Since Republicans have been focused on “electability” we have been losing more and more elections!
The State Party leadership has abdicated its responsibility to speak for the GOP to the Governor (one Party Chair even called the Governor the "defacto head of the party."). This caused a loss of credibility when the Gov went off the reservation on the platform - stadium, smoking ban, light rail, etc). No one was there to champion our Platform.
When a party starts looking at angling and positioning for a win instead of running on issues (especially if it is the GOP), the party loses. Cooper was the last party chair to push issues and to get upset with elected Republicans who parted ways with the platform.
Tony Sutton was part of that “status quo”. He tried to shout down Sue Jeffers at our convention when she had the audacity to challenge Gov. Pawlenty for the endorsement for Governor. He tried to use his position as State Party Secretary/Treasurer to make sure she couldn’t speak. He, and the other Party officials were not successful at the 2nd District Convention, but were successful at every other Congressional District Conventions and the State Convention. Now Tony is claiming to have supported the rights of Sue Jeffers and Ron Paul to speak!
The Republican Party Constitution is clear. The Party is run by the Convention. No leader or elected official has the right to prevent anyone from going before the Convention and stating their case. The same thing happened to the Ron Paul supporters at the various conventions. Instead of letting them have their say and then letting the Convention decide, Party leadership excluded them. That kind of elitist attitude does not belong in the Republican Party.
We have had too many good candidates lose elections because they were endorsed over the candidates “chosen” by leadership in the Party and the Legislature. The punishment for those candidates is zero support. Yet, the election track record of the “anointed” candidates is abysmal.
We need to get our eyes off trying to win for winning’s sake and get the re-focused on what we stand for. When the electorate believes that we believe in our platform, we win. When we act like hypocrites (DFL-lite) we lose.
The State Party Chair is the CEO. The party dances to his tune. Dave Thompson has been singing the tune of our Platform for years. Tony Sutton has been part of the status quo “good ol’ boy network” which has been, at best, unbelievably silent, and, at worst, vociferously vocal in opposition to our Platform and Party Constitution.
Dave Thompson has communicated our Platform ideas more in the last 6 months than the leadership of the party, including Tony, has in the last 6 years.
If the Republican Party really wants to get back to the Bill Cooper glory days of winning elections, it needs a Chairman who will do like Bill Cooper: Fight for the Platform, not the status quo; Communicate well to the public; and work to give our BPOU volunteers something to be proud of in our Party Leadership.
Only one person fits that mold – Dave Thompson.
Mike Lindsay
2nd Congressional District"
Thanks Mike. I'm glad to post letters in support of other candidates. The point isn't for me to tell you who to vote for. It's about making up your own mind.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I have always respected your opinion. However, your incessant bashing of Sutton and Brodkorb are ridiculous. The innuendo, spin and guilt by association arguments used against these fellow Republicans is beyond the pale. You are doing the good Emmer name wrong. Please stop and just support your candidates in a positive manner – save the enmity for the socialists.
Drew I assume you know Mr. Sutton has never taken a dime from Tribes and simply opposes expanding tribal and government gambling monopolies, per our party's constitution. So this makes your rhetoric nothing but scurrilous and laughable. This “guilt by association” game can be fun. Let’s try it.
To quote Craig Westover:
“Government ought to be neutral. Abortion is an individual choice. Better some women misuse their freedom than government is made the fetal police for every pregnant woman . . . . As difficult as it may be to face, abortion is brutal and inhumane. But in a free society, it is also a choice.” Mr. Westover’s blog.
Furthermore Sue Jeffer’s gubernatorial running-mate, Ruthie Hendricks is a pro-choice fanatic . . . as anyone from southwestern MN can tell you. (What does this make Ms. Jeffers)
Both Ms. Jeffers and Mr. Westover are leading the charge on Mr. Thompson’s campaign and can expect to play an important role in his administration if he should win. Employing your “guilt by association” creed, Thompson is a pro-choice fanatic.
Eureka!!!!! We don’t need guilt by association here – Mr. Thompson has already indicated that he opposes a Human Life Amendment and that he doesn’t agree with Congressman Bachmann on social issues . . . and he called Bachmann dumb and irrational on radio and TV to boot!
A Thompson administration sounds like a disaster in the making. He literally has no clue what he’s doing, can’t raise money and has already given the middle-finger to social conservatives and he hasn’t even been elected yet. Have fun with that Drew – great job.
I don't recall bashing Sutton or Brodkorb. I simply raised an issue about Tony Sutton's involvement with Citizens Against Gambling Expansion. If CAGE indeed accomplishes the moral imperative you suggest that's one thing. But CAGE might be better named CAG, simply against gambling altogether. That would be more in line with our platform. As it is, the intentional or merely coincidental protection provided to the tribal gaming monopoly, coupled with the direct and indirect funding of CAGE by the tribes, is cause for serious scrutiny.
Why you insist on making this about personalities is confusing. Are candidates not willing to have questions asked about their affiliations prior to an election?
If you want to lecture me about protecting the Emmer name kindly add yours to the postings so that we can all know who's who?
Anonymous is flat out wrong, Ruthie is pro-life. That lie was started back in 2006 and quickly and firmlly debunked. One can be pro-life yet still believe in the role of government in our lives.
Point to note, Roe V Wade has been in place for 40 years, where have the Republicans been?
Another point; Dave Thompson never called Michele anything, he did make references to her comments. Sure wish more people would have addressed Governor Pawlenty's (or Coleman or Ramstad or Paulsen or...)comments and actions...maybe he (they) would have been more conservative.
A question; who is bashing Sutton and Brodkorb? Where? I must have missed that part of the post. I agree with Mike Lindsay's comments on the CD 2 convention, Sutton lead the charge. Not bashing, just fact. Want more witnesses?
One more comment...Dave Thompson will make an excellent chair and he has my full support.
Whoah, there, anonymous! I was Sue and Ruthie's campaign manager. You better come up with some back-up for your careless (and spineless)claim that Ruthie Hendricks is a "pro-choice fanatic."
Furthermore, I assure you Sue is a defender of the unborn.
Jeffers for Guv!
K. Anderson
I've seen the anonymous quotes before in an email circulating that is trying to “smear” Dave Thompson as pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage. It further attempts to smear Dave by associating my views on abortion and same-sex marriage to Dave. Let me say this about that.
First, the operative word is “smear.” This gutless email is precisely what drives people from the Republican Party. It reinforces an image of the Republican Party as the party of dirty politics, of mindless slogans and dogmatic positions, of a party lacking in substance and ideas. It tells the world there is no room in the Republican Party for honest debate among reasonable people over how conservative principle ought to drive political policy – a debate Dave and I have engaged in on many occasions.
I do not apologize for my views. On abortion, I whole heartedly agree with Barry Goldwater’s response when he was asked where he stood on abortion: “I am a conservative,” he said. “It’s none of government’s business.” On the same-sex marriage issue, as a conservative, it makes no sense to me to marginalize individuals that want to publicly commit to one another and raise children in a home based on a committed relationship.
Those are my views, however, not Dave’s.
Dave and I exchanged emails on social issues while he was at KSTP. Dave is very solidly pro-life and supports marriage between one man and one woman. He also has the integrity and confidence in his positions to listen to opposing views. That is one reason I respect him.
I am not on Dave’s campaign staff, but I would be honored to work with Dave if he is elected. I would also offer whatever support I can to Tony should he win. Dave is my choice, but advancing republican principles is the objective. That objective doesn't go away if my candidate of choice loses.
That said, I have tremendous respect for Dave’s integrity to conservative principles AND his willingness to engage in debate on fiscal and social issues. This is precisely what the Minnesota Republican Party needs – leaders who will not cower from contrary opinions, whether from inside or outside the party; leaders who truly understand that real unity can only be forged in the fires of honest debate, leaders with the courage to disagree with any elected official when he or she is wrong. Any disagreement I have with Dave on specific issues is far outweighed by the respect and admiration I have for him as a person.
Mr. Westover, as usual, has plucked a golden delicious from the crabapple tree, saying that he will support whoever wins the leadership race, while still standing up for a particular candidate. If everyone involved could make the same claim and promise, I would be far less concerned about who won. Those who think that all we have to do is elect the "right" chairman and all will be well are living a fantasy. It isn't the Chair's job to unite us, or divide us, and regardless of position one person cannot do that to us against our will. We have to WANT to unite under common cause where we can find it, and respectfully debate where we do not, and still do all of things that are NOT issue-oriented but essential to conducting winning political campaigns. Being right isn't enough, even if all of us agreed on what "right" means, which we do not.
J. Ewing
Well stated, Mr. Lindsay!
As for some of the comments, it's not 'bashing' to point out some facts. If said facts were twisted, turned, or downright false, that would be 'bashing'.
As for Mr. Westover, the more of his stuff I read, the more I think he truly understands what 'conservative' means. Tip o' the hat to you, Craig!
I see the party being pulled apart by two primary factions. The first faction is made up the (nearly) one-issue voters like myself who believe the Republican party is our best hope because of its principled stand against burdensome government spending (and the concomitant taxation/inflation that must accompany that spending). We believe that social issues for the most part are private issues best handled within societies (e.g., within a particular faith-community, for the questions of marriage and abortion). The second faction are the pro-big government types who want to see the party be an intrusive police state wielding the full power of that state to enforce lots of secondary agendas. They differ from the radical left primarily in the issues they support (e.g., pro-war, pro-life).
The fight in the party for chair is best understood as a similar fight over which is more important -- principles or leadership. One writer accused (correctly) the party of having been making the mistake of picking "electable" candidates who then lose anyway, over "principled" candidates who get no party support (and then, surprise!, lose).
We have the same conundrum as we pick the next chair of the party. It does us no good to elect a chair based on principles if that chair cannot energize others to help the party grow. Growing the party and winning elections will require a chair who can build a team that can (1) educate the voters and (2) motivate them.
Educate them -- we have to help them realize that big government is going to drive the country to ruin. We must show them the folly of the politics of spending "other peoples money" because there really are no "other people".
Motivate them -- we have to make them concerned enough that they will get involved. The world is run by those who show up, and our kids (who will be paying the huge bills we are running up) cannot "show up", we must stand for them.
I believe that the liberty coalition, made up of people against big government in all its guises, represents the best hope we have. I am looking for an executive team that can work for the party in the context of true freedom, and who would apply that horrible appellation "RINO" to those who see big government as okay as long as it is their big government.
Post a Comment