June 1-3, 2009
Jun 01 08:45 Running to the Middle Is Foolish Jun 01 15:46 Republicans to DCCC: Please Drag Us Through This Briar Patch Jun 02 03:34 Exposing The DFL's Playbook Jun 02 15:16 Kelliher: Gov. Pawlenty Wasn't Engaged Jun 02 20:05 Dear Mr. Mindeman Jun 03 03:37 Status Quo vs. Outside The Box Jun 03 10:42 Talent vs. Experience
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Running to the Middle Is Foolish
In light of the recent tea parties, running to the center seems like foolish campaign strategy. Michael Barone seems to have reached that conclusion based on his column in the DC Examiner:
So I think Republicans today should be less interested in moving toward the center and more interested in running against the center. Here I mean a different "center", not a midpoint on an opinion spectrum, but rather the centralized government institutions being created and strengthened every day. This is a center that is taking over functions fulfilled in a decentralized way by private individuals, firms and markets.This is smart strategy because Republicans have distanced themselves from the bailouts and ARRA. Republicans have the added advantage of being able to run against DC and California. The message sent to California's liberal politicians is that Californians are tired of business-as-usual politics and business-as-usual politicians. The afflictions that are poisoning Washington politics are the same afflictions that are currently poisoning California's politics: a know-it-all attitude and a rejection of setting priorities.
This center includes the Treasury, with its $700 billion of TARP funds voted last fall to purchase toxic assets from financial institutions and used instead to quasi-nationalize banks and preserve union benefits for employees and retirees of bankrupt auto companies. It includes the Federal Reserve, which has been vastly increasing the money supply. It includes a federal government whose $787 billion economic stimulus has so far failed to lower the unemployment rate from where the government projected it would be without the stimulus package.
If I were tasked with recruiting candidates for the NRCC and NRSC, I'd be looking specifically for youthful legislators who are articulate, energetic and possess an impeccable fiscal conservative voting record. Anyone that thinks fake conservatism will work when a genuine conservative is running is kidding themselves. (Yes, that's especially true of the Crist-Rubio race.)
How quickly do you think Floridians' opinions will change on Crist now that he's signed a major tax increase? When the fall campaign swings into high gear, how credible will Charlie Crist be in criticizing the Democrats' spendaholic ways after he campaigned with President Obama for ARRA? Here's the short answer: Crist won't have ANY credibility .
Republicans across the nation should campaign against the Democrats' spendaholic ways. I'll bet big money that that strategy will be as effective in state legislative races in California, Michigan and Minnesota as it will be in congressional and senate races.
In 2008, business sided with President Obama. I'm betting that that mistake won't get repeated in 2010, especially after businesses have seen the ruthlessness of the Obama administration. That's why Mr. Barone's advice to run against the Treasury Department, TARP and ARRA is right on the mark.
Starting this summer, conservatives need to do the prep work for next year's elections. That means we must outwork the Democrats in identifying voters that agree with us more than they agree with what's happening in DC. These elections won't be won just because we're right on the issues, though that's important, too.
We'll win alot of elections if we stay true to conservatism's time-tested principles and by outworking people that run on personality instead of principles and priorities. Whether that'll be enough to retake the majority in the U.S. House is another story but it's worth a shot.
Posted Monday, June 1, 2009 8:50 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 01-Jun-09 11:18 AM
if Republicans were smart any consultant that tried to run a moderate race such as Mccain's should never be employed again.
As an unoffical consultant I should tell my candidates to include a line in their stump speech global warming is a hoax!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 01-Jun-09 12:39 PM
How do we get the message to the NRSC that WE want to pick candidates, not them, and that they will be getting NOT ONE DIME until the get out of the Crist/Rubio race. AFTER the primary (or whatever they do in FL), THEN they can get behind the winner.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 01-Jun-09 01:27 PM
Jerry, That message is getting sent daily by the activists. Just because the NRSC isn't talking about it doesn't mean that they aren't hearing it from the activists.
Republicans to DCCC: Please Drag Us Through This Briar Patch
According to this Roll Call article , the DCCC is attempting to drag six Republicans through the proverbial briar patch for not voting for ARRA. Here's what Roll Call is reporting:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running radio advertisements for the next week targeting six House Republicans, according to details obtained by Roll Call. The committee blasted these GOP Members for voting against Democrats' Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which passed earlier this year.I hope the DCCC doesn't deviate from this line of attack. The DCCC maintaining this attack will be further proof that they aren't taking the tea parties seriously. Gateway Pundit points out that the DCCC apparently didn't get California's message .
Radio advertisements, automated calls and e-mails will target Reps. Don Young (Alaska), Brian Bilbray (Calif.), Tom Rooney (Fla.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Peter King (N.Y.) and Charlie Dent (Pa.).
"Did you know Congressman King voted against the economic recovery plan?" says an announcer in the spot running in King's district. "He opposed an $800 tax cut and opposed creating or saving 215,000 New York jobs. Tell King to put New York first."
In addition to the radio advertisement, which is scheduled to air during drive time, automatic phone calls will run in each of the Republicans' districts. The automated calls refer to specific projects in the districts that could be funded by the stimulus, such as widening a road in McCotter's district.
Let's hope that the DCCC keeps thinking that Rep. McCotter and Rep. King are vulnerable. One thing that they obviously think is that they aren't vulnerable on the spending front, which they are. (NOTE TO NRSC: Crist is vulnerable there, too.)
People questioned whether the Tax Day Tea Parties were a passing fad or a force to be reckoned with. After participating in St. Cloud's Tax Day Tea Party, I confidently said that this movement has legs. After Californians shot down the liberals' attempt to keep spending like drunken sailors, I said that this was essentially the the Tea Party Movement's second 'event'.
I haven't seen proof that the Tea Party Movement is showing signs that it's slowing down. In fact, with states like Montana, Utah and Texas starting what might best be titled a 'Tenth Amendment movement', this movement likely will get stronger, not weaker in the near future.
Posted Monday, June 1, 2009 3:51 PM
No comments.
Exposing The DFL's Playbook
The DFL's talking points memo that everyone's been talking from has been leaked. Reading it has been absolutely rich, especially this last talking point:
The only people making the decisions in the Governor's go-it-alone strategy will be the Governor and the lobbyists whispering in his ear.Hearing DFL legislators whining that Gov. Pawlenty only listens to himself and his lobbyist buddies is rich. When the DFL's Cherrypicked Testimony Tour visited St. Cloud, one of the testifiers said that she didn't "have anything new to add to what she told" legislators the day before in their St. Paul offices. This woman then talked for the next 2 minutes. When I attend Tarryl's townhalls, most of the people talking identify themselves with groups that rely on the government to fund their organizations.
I'm not arguing that Gov. Pawlenty and GOP legislator haven't listened to lobbyists. They certainly have. I'm just pointing out the DFL's hypocrisy.
Here's another familiar talking point:
The Governor told the Legislature to do it his way, or he would do it his way. We think the better option is to compromise and share ideas, rather than relying on one decider.Except that isn't what he said. While it's true that he told the DFL leadership he wouldn't budge on tax increases, he certainly compromised on two important things that the DFL was pushing hard in negotiations:
Pawlenty's new plan, offered Monday morning, would borrow just under $500 million against future state revenues instead of the nearly $1 billion he had originally proposed. It would adopt the Senate's proposal to drain $250 million from the state's reserve account and would fill in the remainder by acceding to the larger accounting shifts proposed by the House.Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't say something about this oldie but goodie:
The proposal by Pawlenty steps around the cluster of tax increases passed by the House and Senate last week. But DFL leaders were unimpressed. "It's a compromise in word, but not in deed," said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm.
His go-it-alone strategy will cut hospitals and nursing homes, raise property taxes, and lay off police and firefighters.The DFL states with certainty that cities will lay off police and firefighters while raising property taxes. If cities are raising their property taxes, shouldn't they keep their police and firefighters employed? I'll admit that it's possible that a city deciding not to raise property taxes might have to reduce their public safety budgets. Still, it's still possible that that city could strike a deal that freezes their wages while keeping these workers employed.
Finally, this statement shouldn't be overlooked:
Minnesota's greatness has been built on cooperation and compromise, not ultimatums.A key component of cooperation is the legislature meeting its consitutional requirements, something that was accomplished for the first time with less than 10 minutes left in the session. Gov. Pawlenty didn't let the DFL raise taxes on struggling small businesses and hurting families. Now the DFL is left with the unenviable task of defending their tax increases.
After you strip everything else away, that's what this fight is about. The DFL will certainly accuse Gov. Pawlenty of destroying Minnesota's economy and other heinous acts. Minnesotans who've paid attention won't buy the DFL's spin, partially because of editorials like this :
You said then you would balance the state's next two-year budget via unallotment if the DFL-led Legislature wouldn't do enough things your way. Sadly, its leadership didn't come through with anything more than the political status quo, and they were tardy in offering that. Astute voters know that.Other newspapers have written stinging rebukes, too, as has Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona :
Pelowski questioned why DFL leaders spent months drafting separate tax bills in the House and Senate, scrapped parts of them late Thursday in conference committee and devised a largely new proposal by Friday.It isn't a secret that the DFL leadership screwed this session up bigtime.
"I would hope we would not have resorted to something like this," Pelowski said. "If it's serious, then it should have been done months ago."
Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:34 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 02-Jun-09 06:16 AM
Great post, only you might have been too easy on the DFL: "I'll admit that it's possible that a city deciding not to raise property taxes might have to reduce their public safety budgets."
Brooklyn Center isn't exactly Wayzata, and spends a bit over the state average for public safety. Even so, that's maybe 40% of the budget. We absorbed the "December surprise" $500 million LGA cut last year, and we won't cut public safety in 2009 or beyond either.
Cities like Wadena and Alexandria that have been complaining of late have no case for police layoffs either as I've posted. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the least threatened of all.
Comment 2 by CommonSenseRambler at 02-Jun-09 11:36 AM
I think you forget to dig up the line "It's for the children, the children will get the shaft since they don't vote" and "Pawlenty and Republicans hate children"
Kelliher: Gov. Pawlenty Wasn't Engaged
According to this article , Gov. Pawlenty either threw in the towel or he was never engaged. That's the stated opinion of Speaker Kelliher.
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, who addressed the 100th Pillager High School graduation Friday night, said Gov. Tim Pawlenty was not as engaged in negotiations with lawmakers as he had been in the past, as evidenced by his decision to make unilateral budget cuts. "We were dealing with a governor who decided to throw in the towel and walk away from the type of Democracy we have," she said Friday afternoon.TRANSLATION: What Ms. Kelliher and other DFL legislators were dealing with was someone who proposed several reforms early in the session. in an effort to get people thinking cost-saving reforms, not simply cuts. What the DFL leadership was dealing with was someone who said that he wouldn't raise taxes because it was bad for Minnesota's economy and because the DFL looked at tax increases and ARRA money as the primary solutions to this deficit .
Ms. Kelliher can say that she didn't agree with Gov. Pawlenty's solutions but she can't say that Gov. Pawlenty wasn't engaged. He was simply disinterested in the DFL's insistence on tax increases that would've hurt small businesses, middle class families and the working poor.
I'll proudly stand with Gov. Pawlenty, the House GOP caucus, Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, and Rep. Jeanne Hoppe, DFL-Austin , in saying no to more job-killing tax increases.
She said that's why both Democrats and Republicans in the House favored a pay as you go finance plan rather than the governor's plan to borrow money to solve the budget deficit.If it's true that the DFL and GOP "favored a pay as you go finance plan", then I'd guess that the DFL's idea of pay as you go finance is to pay for things with tax increases that would've hurt small businesses, middle class families and the working poor as opposed to the GOP's finding cost savings through reforms. The difference between these philosophies is quite stark.
Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:16 PM
No comments.
Dear Mr. Mindeman
It isn't often that I respond to posts about me. That's mostly due to the fact that I'm rarely mentioned by the Left Blogosphere. In this instance, though, it's important that I respond to Dave Mindeman's 'fisking' of my Your Turn editorial in Sunday's St. Cloud Times.
He begins his tome with his "facts"....and they are worth noting for reference:I don't doubt that everything in that bill was negotiated. Still, the final time that HF2323 was passed marked the only time that the DFL's budget balanced. It's shoddy leadership, if it can even be called leadership, that the only time that the majority party in the legislature balances the budget is after the House and Senate debate the bill for 15 minutes COMBINED with minutes left in the session.
1. While it's technically true that the DFL-dominated Legislature sent Gov. Tim Pawlenty a balanced budget, it's only because the DFL reconvened the conference committee on taxes at 10:30 on the last night. During that meeting, the DFL did a total rewrite, which was debated less than 15 minutes in the House and Senate combined.
OK... that final bill was certainly rammed through. But every single part of that tax bill had been discussed and debated at various points of the budget process. The DFL leadership negotiated with Pawlenty on those very points right up to the end. Finally, they just passed the bill and sent it to his desk to give him one more option to end the budget impasse. He, of course, chose not to sign it.
2. Because the Legislature refused to trim more from their stamp allowance from 5,500 stamps per legislator per year to 3,500 per legislator per year, Minnesota's taxpayers won't save $350,000 for this and next year.Larry Pogemiller was quoted after Gov. Pawlenty's State of the State speech as saying he was looking for a speech to inspire him, a speech filled with shared sacrifice. That he'd say this after rejecting a proposal to share in the sacrifice is pure hypocrisy. This wasn't the only reform that Larry Pogemiller's DFL Senate rejected, either, another point that's been lost on Mr. Mindeman.
Stamps? Now, I realize that Mr. Gross and his fiscal hawks would chastise me for minimizing this philatelic principle, but really it is not a question of a $1 here and $1 there adding up to real money. A better analogy would be...will anybody pick up the penny lying on the sidewalk? The stamps get used...they are not wasted. It was a silly suggestion when first proposed -- and it still is.
3. Under Speaker Margaret Kelliher's leadership, the House collected $181,120 in out-of-session, tax-free per diem. Under DFL Leader Larry Pogemiller's leadership, senators collected $143,500 in out-of-session, tax-free per diem.Let's first deal with the notion that "Gross and his cohorts assume that any payments or even salary to our legislators is always unjustified." Thats's an assumption that doesn't fit this situation. PERIOD. I've frequently said that my problem isn't that these meetings were held. It's that they didn't accomplish anything in identifying wasteful spending or putting some sensible reforms together.
This is another argument that is getting old. Gross and his cohorts assume that any payments or even salary to our legislators is always unjustified and, in their minds, it would seem, government waste. Frankly, if our reps were paid by the hour, I doubt it would add up to minimum wage. Those per diem payment raises were completley justified...and really, the conservatives will always complain about legislative salaries...even if they were pro bono.
Simply put, my disgust with the out-of-session per diem payments has everything to do with a cost/benefit analysis. These hearings cost Minnesota's taxpayers $320,000 in per diem, not to mention all the travel expenses paid. These hearings didn't accomplish anything of value. It's bad enough that if that happened when times were good. It's totally disgusting when Minnesota was facing an historic deficit.
Then, Gross moves on to the legislative "sins of omission":I just spoke with Rep. Gottwalt. I read Mr. Mindeman's statement to Rep. Gottwalt. Rep. Gottwalt says that his Healthy Minnesota Plan doesn't include and hasn't included a HSA provision. The mechanism that drives the savings is a Health Reimbursement Account, which is dramatically different.
1. After the Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee passed Rep. Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan reform legislation on a unanimous vote, the Legislature defeated that reform. If Gottwalt's plan had been signed into law, we would've been saving money before next year's session starts.
My understanding of this "reform" is that it would move some MNCare recipients into the private insurance sector....with an addition of health savings accounts. Now, we already utilize private insurers for other state health care programs; and the results are pretty consistent. There is an initial savings when the new people are absorbed -- then the rates increase as these "sicker" clients increase costs. And often, the insurers either add restrictions, dump these higher cost people, or raise the rates on everybody. That is why the legislature made the wise move of voting it down with a need "for more study".
Rep. Gottwalt also said that his legislation received glowing reviews from Rep. Thissen, Rep. Huntley and Sen. Berglin. Rep. Huntley even said that this plan should be the model that ObamaCare should copy.
In short, Mr. Mindeman's assumptions about Rep. Gottwalt's reform led to conclusions that don't have anything to do with reality.
Rep. Gottwalt added that his Healthy Minnesota Plan, aka HMP, would affect 55,000 Minnesotans who are on MinnesotaCare who don't have children and that his HMP would've saved Minnesota's taxpayers $30,000,000 per year on that limited number of people.
I mentioned to Rep. Gottwalt that his initial plan affected 84,000 people and saved even more. Rep. Gottwalt confirmed that, then added that the other 29,000 people included families with children. He said they'll need a waiver from the federal government because SCHIP regulations either have to be applied or waived. Rep. Gottwalt said that he hopes that they can obtain that waiver because it would save Minnesotans even more money.
2. The DFL didn't use last summer's hearings to identify cost savings or reforms. If the DFL leadership established their budget priorities, they certainly didn't make them public until mid-April.Mr. Mindeman is right in saying that the DFL proposed budget cuts. It's also accurate to say that the DFL tried finding people to testify at their Listening Tour that essentially said that they shouldn't cut spending. In fact, one person testifying at St. Cloud told the legislators to "have the courage to raise taxes" so that libraries involved in the Great River Regional Library group of libraries would have to cut back on hours that their libraries would be open.
I will agree that there was some wasted opportunities for reform measures this year. But, the DFL legislature sent bills to Governor Pawlenty that had large budget cuts. Let's repeat that: The Legislature sent bills to Pawlenty that had LARGE BUDGET CUTS. They spent an enormous amount of time looking for every avenue of cost cutting (too much cutting for my taste).... and yet, if you hear the Governor and GOP leadership talk -- it was all about spending. Only 1/6 of the budget was balanced by tax increases. That is 16.7%. Is that outrageous? If you have a Governor unwilling to compromise, I guess the answer is yes.
Gene Pelowski even sent out an email asking for a specific type of testimony:
From: Gene Pelowski [mailto:Rep.Gene.Pelowski@house.mn]In other words, the DFL was hoping that enough people would demand tax increases or talk about impending doom if budgets were cut. This wasn't contained within the House of Representatives, either. Tarryl Clark included push-poll-like questionnaires in two consecutive e-letter updates to press the case for raising taxes to avoid draconian spending cuts that the DFL leadership says would've decimated institutions that Minnesotans rely on.
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
This Friday, February 20, there will be a bicameral hearing held in our region. Senators and Representatives from both political parties will be in Winona from 3:30 to 5:30 PM, Winona City Hall, 207 Lafayette St. The purpose of this hearing is to get testimony from affected programs in every level of government, education, health care or service impacted by the cuts suggested by the Governor's state budget.
I am writing you to ask that you or a designee get scheduled to testify. You may do this by going to the House website at www.house.mn and clicking on "Town Meetings".
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs. To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.
Sincerely,
Representative Gene Pelowski
District 31A
My question for Mr. Mindeman and the DFL leadership is simple: Why does the DFL leadership support cuts that would decimate nursing homes and education, then decry Gov. Pawlenty's cuts?
Mr. Mindeman's post assumed two things that weren't accurate. Let me rephrase: Mr. Mindeman assumed something about Rep. Gottwalt's health care reform. he later bought into the DFL's charicature of conservatives in assuming that I detest all government spending. He didn't consider the possibility that I want the taxpayers' money spent efficiently on needs.
Mr. Mindeman doesn't owe me an apology for his shoddy factchecking and his assumptions but he owes his readers accurate information, not assumptions.
Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:05 PM
No comments.
Status Quo vs. Outside The Box
Earlier tonight, a friend forwarded an email to me that was sent out by Tony Sutton. I found it more than a little interesting because of a couple paragraphs that stood out for me. Here's what stood out for me in Sutton's email:
Now more than ever, we need a seasoned hand on the tiller, someone who can communicate our message, raise the money, build the lists, manage the staff, work with the grassroots and can hit the ground running (now is not the time for on-the-job training).I doubt that Mr. Sutton thinks that he's a better communicator than Dave Thompson. If he does, then he's kidding himself. Dave's a superior communicator because that's what Dave's done for a living.
When Dave met with a group of activists in St. Cloud, Dave's communication skills were apparent . When Nicole Severson asked how he'd reach college kids, he didn't answer directly. Instead, he asked Nicole how she'd do it, which she enthusiastically provided.
The point is that leaders don't feel the need to act like they know everything. Hasn't everyone noticed that the most successful people are the ones that pick their spots, jump in when presented with an opportunity and have a major impact? By contrast, haven't we also noticed that the people who take credit for everything are the ones who don't have a long history of accomplishments?
Frankly, I think that there are few people in Minnesota who are both great conservative communicators and who either have or will have statewide appeal. Amongst politicians, Tim Pawlenty certainly has to be at or near the top of the list, along with Michele Bachmann and John Kline. (I freely admit that Gov. Pawlenty isn't as conservative as Michele Bachmann and John Kline. Still, he's compiled a pretty solid conservative record, especially on taxes.)
Among high profile activists, Dave Thompson, John Hinderaker, Craig Westover and Pat Shortridge have to be on that list. In addition to that impressive list of people, I'd put Ed Morrissey, Mitch Berg and King Banaian on that list, too.
I'd also question Sutton's statement that "now isn't the time for on-the-job training." Isn't this essentially a 'next-in-line' argument? Let's look back to the 2008 election. Were we well served by picking another next-in-line type in John McCain? How many activists and John Q. Public types said that they didn't vote for McCain, that they voted for Sarah?
BTW, that's why I think the favorites for the 2012 nomination don't include Gov. Huckabee or Gov. Romney. If they decide to run, I think the frontrunners are Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin. In 2016, I'd add Bobby Jindal and John Kasich to that list.
I'd also suggest that Mr. Sutton is capable of running a stale, more-of-the-same political party. We need that like China needs more U.S. bonds.
Comparatively speaking, Dave Thompson is ideally suited to lead a movement capable of expanding our base and energizing people who either don't care about politics or who've traditionally voted DFL but who can be reached with a presentation of what it is to be a conservative.
We haven't won enough elections recently because the focus has too often been on 'the party'. Another reason why we haven't won enough elections or raised enough money is because we've stunk at the e-communications thing. nothing in Tony Sutton's resume suggests that he's got that part down. In fact, there's something that says the opposite. Here's a quote from Mr. Sutton from 1999:
Most political experts say the Internet is valuable because a visit to a Web site is active and voluntary, unlike receiving a campaign brochure in the mail. Ventura's worked particularly well in part because of his distinctiveness, irreverence and outsider status. Voters were curious.
"I give more credit to the candidate than to the Internet, and to his TV ads," said Tony Sutton, executive director of the Minnesota Republican Party. "I'd rather have a dynamite candidate and few if no tools, than a bunch of tools and be up against a dynamo."I suspect that Mr. Sutton's attitude towards technology has changed his tune since 1999. Still, I don't know whether he trusts bloggers or if he thinks of us as people to be suspicious of. I don't know if Mr. Sutton is the type who is thinking of the program that will replace Twitter or Facebook. More importantly still is whether Mr. Sutton has a vision for how Twitter, Facebook, the blogs or the next hot software will help with messaging.
I don't have those doubts about Dave Thompson. It isn't that I think Dave's a computer geek. It's that I know he has the intellectual curiosity to check things out. I know for fact that he's in tune with the blogosphere, which means that he's in tune with the activists.
In my opinion, people that know, understand and trust bloggers don't lose touch with what's important. People who read blogs are most likely to have the latest information on the most important things happening that day or that week. That's the type of person we need leading the movement.
That's why I endorsed Dave Thompson long ago.
Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 3:37 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Jun-09 07:56 AM
I haven't endorsed anybody, even to this day, though I was asked to endorse Tony Sutton even before his announcement. I have taken the position that I don't really care who wins, that they are all fine conservatives and generally competent, so all I care about is what their PLAN is to achieve victory. Until a few days ago, all I heard was statements like the one you quote, which are, at best, political jaw-flapping. Then Mr. Sutton produced and published his "11-point plan for victory." It hits all the right points, specifically, and sounds the does the mandatory genuflect to the "grassroots," whatever that is.
As for Mr. Thompson, I think his stock in trade is that he is a good communicator, and his resume would certainly support that assessment but, frankly, I'm not that impressed. The last time I heard him speak, he made at least three major "stumbles" in a 4-minute speech. Now it may be I'm the only one who noticed, as I tend to do. But for a guy to bobble on a small part of the job but his major forte', while his opponent hits all the right nails solidly on the head, doesn't do it for me.
I know and understand the argument about the "old gaurd" yada, yada, but I hope we can get past that and pick the best person for the job. We'll never get a do-over.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Jun-09 08:32 AM
Jerry, I couldn't disagree more with you. And I don't do that lightly.
Does anyone think that we'd be better off with Dave Thompson debating Brian Melendez?
Does anyone think that Tony Sutton has the charisma to lead a movement?
Tony Sutton is fine if you're looking for fairly close to competent.
Why settle?
As for him stumbling 3 times in a 4 minute speech, I'll believe it when I see the transcript. I've watched him on At Issue a number of times. I heard him interviewed by King a few weeks back. I've interviewed him for almost an hour. I also participated in a meet the candidate get together.
Dave laid out a vision for where the Republican Party of Minnesota needs to go. He engaged the people & got them to share what they knew.
Tony Sutton doesn't engage the grass roots. He hasn't laid out a vision for a Sutton administration. All he's done is said that "we can't have someone who needs on-the-job training".
That's a lame argument, especially considering how quick a study Dave is.
Sutton's "I've got experience" mantra is tiring. What's he ever accomplished? The GOP picked up seats when he worked with Bill Cooper. Big whoop. That was during the Gingrich Revolution. Even then, we didn't retake the majority in the Senate.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 03-Jun-09 02:59 PM
We can disagree, that's OK. We've arrived at different conclusions based on different definitions of the problem. I could be wrong, but I have the feeling you have not read this:
http://www.tonyforchair.com/plan/
That's what made the decision for me. I don't consider that having a chair that can successfully debate Mr. Melendez is the principle consideration. I don't think communications ability in general is that important; we can hire good communications people, and should. Mr. Thompson has proven himself a good communicator, and one might think that translates to good "leadership ability," but I'm fairly certain that is only one component of it. I've worked with Tony enough to know that his leadership style is more quiet and grassroots-oriented, call it consensus-building, rather than a flashy "inspiring" style that I'm not sure I would attribute to Mr. Thompson. There's a difference between an entertainer and a leader, and I don't say that to derogate Mr. Thompson's known or expected abilities, it's merely my observation.
My decision, at this point, is based on finding the person who has a clear and detailed roadmap for what the State Party, as a whole organization, needs to accomplish. The person who has such a plan is going to be much better able to accomplish the multitude of things that must be done than the person with the best speaking ability-- we've seen how the latter works out.
As for Mr. Sutton's liability for the Party's current distress, I point out that his position is not as the Leader of the Party. Like it or not, Secretary/Treasurer is a more or less administrative role. His is only one voice on the Exec Committee, and not the one setting the agenda. It might even be said that his closeness to the action-- his experience-- makes him the better candidate, having seen in detail how the mistakes were made rather than the macro results.
Let's add one more: Two years ago the State Party was roundly criticized for pulling money out of local races and borrowing funds to make a final push for Gov. Pawlenty's election. In 20/20 hindsight, that has proven to have been the single saving grace of the current situation. I sometimes think we all get caught up in a storyline without considering what "the rest of the story" is.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Jun-09 03:16 PM
Jerry, If people think, as you say you do, that communications isn't an important qualification for our state party chairman, then the conversation ends right there. We desperately need the next chairman to have that cold.
Second, on the issue of leadership, Dave's leadership abilities aren't because he's a great communicator. Dave's leadership abilities are tied to his skill in getting people to offer great ideas, then making a decision. This was on display at his recent visit to St. Cloud.
He engaged people, he listened as they offered ideas, then he pulled those ideas together to form a coherent strategy based on the activists' ideas.
THAT'S WHAT LEADERS DO!!!
Finally, saying that "we can hire good communications people" is missing the point. We need a great public advocate. Having a good communications staff is important but having someone a leader who isn't a great communicator is vital.
The things that the communications team puts out are important because they're primarily meant to inform the activists & occasionally John Q. Publilc. It's important that the chairman be a great communicator because that would be a valuable tool in taking our message of principled comservatism to John Q. Public.
Comment 4 by First Ringer at 03-Jun-09 03:55 PM
Gary,
I don't give two figs about who wins the GOP Chair race but Gary, with all due respect, I think you're transplanting the role of candidates and elected officials onto the role of party chairman. Party chairs don't lead movements - they elect endorsed candidates.
I would certainly like a more effective communicator than Ron Carey but I doubt that his debates with Brian Melendez - or really anything to do with Mr. Melendez's communication style - had any effect on the outcome of the last two elections.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Jun-09 06:13 PM
I'll respectfully disagree that about what changed the outcome of the last 2 elections. Ron Carey's inability to communicate what the GOP stood for was like taking a major weapon from our arsenal.
The arguments that Carey made were feeble at best. It was all negativity all the time, too, which is the perfect recipe for losing elections.
While I agree that our candidates have to assume the role of primarily leading movements, it's pathetic to see them trying to spread the message, then have our state party chairman being inept at being an ambassador to John Q. Public.
I'd further argue that Ron Carey didn't have a clue what the activists were thinking the vast majority of the time.
Comment 5 by The Lady Logician at 03-Jun-09 09:30 PM
Ringer - I have to ask...when you say "...I think you're transplanting the role of candidates and elected officials onto the role of party chairman. Party chairs don't lead movements - they elect endorsed candidates." how do you expect the chair to do that? There has to be some mechanism for exciting the donors and activists that are NECESSARY to getting the endorsed candidates elected...don't you think?
LL
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 04-Jun-09 02:21 PM
LL, do you really think "exciting the activists" is the mark of a leader? I've always found the most effective leaders to be those who say "OK, here's what I think WE need to do." At the early stages, that's followed by "comments, suggestions?" and then we go.
Gary, I agree that communications ability is a good thing to have in a Chair, but I don't think we have to have a professional, certainly not to the exclusion of all of the other necessary qualifications or "desired skills" of a Party Chair. IMHO it doesn't take much except an ease with public speaking, a certain amount of don't-give-a-damnism and the knowledge of the simple truth. All in all, fairly common in the GOP, even among the candidates.
Talent vs. Experience
Tony Sutton continues to talk up his experience as the biggest reason why he, and he alone, is qualified to be the next chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota. Mr. Sutton talks constantly about how conservatives can't affrod someone who needs on the job training. Let's scrutinize Mr. Sutton's statements.
The lit piece I posted about wasn't sent to me by the Sutton for State Chair people. It was sent to me by a reader of this blog. Everyone who follows thing closely knows how badly broken Voter Vault is. Further, we know that it's been broken for quite awhile. Has Mr. Sutton's experience, and the experience of Ron Carey's administration, helped correct the voter lists? Or is it that, despite their expertise, Voter Vault still hasn't been fixed? Aren't we better off when we've got a talented leadership team rather than an experienced team?
Frankly, the best voter lists are maintained by CD-2, thanks in large part to Janet Beihoffer's organizational abilities and her ability to inspire enough people to help maintain those lists. That's why talent and a plan matter far more than experience.
How often has Tony Sutton's experience helped energize Minnesota's conservative activists? BONUS QUESTION: Has Tony Sutton inspired new people to join the Republican Party? If they have, they don't seem to have shown up on recent Election Days.
What the Republican Party needs, both locally and nationally, is a talented, principled leadership team. Let me explain why that's important from my perspective.
Experienced people are rarely visionaries. It isn't often that they're the type of people that inspire exceptionalism. More often than not, they're people who do good work behind the scenes but who aren't equipped for bigger responsibilities.
How would experience help Tony Sutton if he debated Brian Melendez? Would experience help Mr. Sutton make points that would paint Mr. Melendez into an intellectual corner? Is it more likely that Mr. Sutton's experience wouldn't help him in that situation?
I don't want, nor does the Republican Party need, someone capable of making the same tired arguments that the Carey administration made. I want, and the Republican Party needs, people who can eviscerate Mr. Melendez's arguments and inspire people to join our movement.
Simply put, I want someone who will hand Brian Melendez his ass in a debate. Experience doesn't mean much in that setting.
Let's summarize things this way. Experience hasn't helped us tighten up our voter lists and it hasn't helped Republicans make the compelling arguments that need to be made to rebuild the party.
Isn't it time that we picked someone with superior communications skills and who can inspire people to join our movement? Frankly, I think it's long past time.
Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:42 AM
No comments.
