The Impending Transformation of US Foreign Policy

Oh what a time, what a time to be alive, to be a young person in America.  We have two candidates fighting to the bitter end to secure the highest office in all the world, attacking and parrying in a dance of fiery rhetoric in the foreground of an epic ideological struggle.  A background of analysis and criticism is never static but rather in a constant fluid state, constantly to change how the light is shed upon all that is before us.  Yet, one aspect has been overlooked, I believe.  It has received some attention, yes, but no one has addressed the significance of what is about to take place.

It is easy with so much excitement in our midst to forget something more certain than any forecast, analytical prediction, or gut instinct about who will prevail and who will not.  No matter the outcome of November 4^th, US foreign policy will be dramatically transformed.  In a post 9/11 world, we will see, for the first time in our history, the arranging of a presidential administration to accommodate the challenges of our day.  The Bush administration, transformed as it was by the tragic attack of that September day, was established with very different assumptions from those today.  There was no pressing threat of terrorism on US soil (not entirely, but remember that those attacks on US embassies and the military went largely ignored as far as the “big picture” for foreign policy).  We were not heavily engaged in the Middle East with scores of Americans in harm’s way.  These dramatic circumstances face a new executive on top of the already massive pile of new international realities.  Iran’s nuclear program, China’s first spacewalk, Russia’s invasion of Georgia, EU near-dependency on Russian natural gas, or the assassination of Benazir Bhuto in Pakistan are but dusting of the dramatic events that have reshaped international relations since 2000. 

Choices  must be made, questions answered.  Is China a friend or foe?  If and when do we use force against Iran?  Can we rely on Pakistani help to fight the Taliban?  Will we keep moving towards NAFTA?  Who will we buy oil from?  How firmly do we stand with Israel in their struggle for survival?  How do we approach terrorism- as a War on Terror or as international law enforcement?  If and how will we solve the problem of illegal immigration in the US?  How will we approach world trade, banking, and other economic policies in the wake of the collapse of companies like Baer-Stearns and Lehman Brothers? 

There are two candidates, two ideologies.  One, Barack Obama, advocates US involvement in the world by working to create global healthcare, global education, and global security.  Diplomacy is viewed as the most powerful weapon in the United States’ arsenal and conflict should be averted at nearly all costs.  We must negotiate with enemies in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and anywhere else they may be.  We must not be bold, but cautiously diplomatic.  The war on terror should be approached as a law enforcement issue with police and INTERPOL where killing Bin Laden is top priority.

The second, John McCain, advocates US limiting US involvement in the world to fight terrorism and work to preserve freedom in a world filled with enemies.  Force is that hammer which has served to make the voice of the US heard since the dark days of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Diplomacy is only useful when your words are backed-up by a sincere willingness to stand-up against evil.  We must work closely with allies in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and elsewhere around the globe to create a coalition of free peoples opposed to the hateful Islamic ideology held by terrorist organizations such as the Taliban.  Destroying the Taliban organization cannot be achieved by simply killing the head of the organization but rather only by weeding them out wherever they may reside.  Localized Taliban leadership needs to continue to be targeted.

Both candidates sharply disagree on one issue.  One candidate, Obama, wishes to withdraw prematurely from the battlefield we have fought on for years.  We should simply take a chance that the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet, and we should run for it while we still can.  We will withdraw every asset accept for surveillance and the diplomatic core which will work to help the government.  The second, McCain, wishes to fight terrorism and kill those who wish to murder millions.  Iraq is stable, but not stable enough for us to retreat and withdraw all US military support. We should remain resolved to remain, to fight, until the mission is complete and victory is achieved.  Diplomats cannot be left in Iraq unprotected by US forces until Iraq is ready to defend herself.  Withdrawal would only lead to an Iraq-Iran war and thousands more dead.

It should be clear to anyone that John McCain has solid foreign policy while Obama would set us on a course to put us behind decades of where we are now.  He will endanger or essential alliances and alienate allies.  He will create a pool of instability which will embroil the entire Middle East.   He will cede the future to the Chinese as he avoids proactive trade policies.  He will bankrupt us and hand us to the rest of the world on a very large silver platter.  John McCain will be initiating new foreign policies to strengthen our alliances and check our enemies in the world.  He will get us on track to compete with China for the future.  He will ensure that we do not lose the war on terror.

No matter what happens on the 4^th, foreign policy will look dramatically different.  McCain won’t be another Bush administration, but Obama’s policies are the stuff of lunacy.  It is not an exaggeration.  If you are a student of economics, history, or political science, you will clearly see who the right choice is. 

If you are a student of international relations, like me, you too are wondering what the world will look like in just a few months.  Either way, the world of tomorrow will be nothing like the days past or any of the imaginative dreams conceived of those times.  We are in an entirely new era, in uncharted international waters.  Either the US will become fully entrenched and stretched-out across the globe vulnerable to attack, or we will involve ourselves in strengthening allies in a global war on terror.  For the US, tomorrow truly does bring dramatic change.  What a time to be a young person in America, to watch one of the biggest pivotal moments in US foreign policy.  

A Defense of the Convention Caucus System in the Wake of the SD16 Primary

It is the day after the primary, and the results are showing a 1708 to 1437 victory for Alison Krueger over Mark Olson.  Well, I must admit I was not expecting that outcome.  So, I must congratulate Alison on her victory in the primary.  I congratulate you for refusing to fill-out the questionnaire for the convention, for signing a pledge not to run for the SD16 seat, and for breaking your word on that pledge and openly campaigning anyway.  I congratulate you for twisting the wording of that pledge in ways I haven’t seen since the dark days of the Clinton administration.  I congratulate you on the sums of money which poured into our district from those elitist big-wig liberal senators on your behalf and the slanderous statements they made.  I congratulate you for refusing any form of communication, including official certified mail, to establish yourself as the most inaccessible Republican candidate in this district’s history.  I congratulate you on splitting the MNGOP in our district.  I congratulate you on your future loss in the general election.  I congratulate you for smothering the grassroots.  I congratulate you for lying until your pants burst into flames, for betraying the trust of the duly elected delegates who dedicated no small sum of time to contemplate their decision carefully, and for trashing a caucus-convention system that has been the heart and soul of Republican politics.

This is precisely why Republicans should have fought harder against the introduction of the primary system in Minnesota.  When this nation was being established by those humble pillars of greatness we refer to as the founding fathers, they were familiar with an effective system of choosing a candidate.  In fact, it was originally the method designed to elect the executive of the United States of America.  This system was one which ensured only the best candidates would succeed, but it also ensured that the worst candidates could not simply print a lie or two in the papers only to prevail in a general election.  They reasoned that if neighbors would be able to elect neighbors to deliberate on their behalf as delegates, the voice of the people would be represented.  Theses delegates were charged with the responsibility of representing their closest neighbors.  These delegates would in-turn elect other delegates to represent the area, and these delegates chose delegates and so on.  This would continue until the last convention where delegates would hear arguments for and against candidates, evaluate qualifications and character, and even spend time in prayer and reflection before casting a vote on behalf of those countless neighbors each represented.  This system exists in a similar form today, only similar since the system is in use for the Republican Party.  It is the caucus-convention system.

So, the benefits of the caucus-convention system are that it maintains fair representation of voters and ensures that any decision made is not done so on any whim.  Decisions are deliberate and very well educated as delegates invest huge amounts of time to carry-out their function.  It has been a successful approach of maintaining self-government despite the heavy presence of a dominant two party system.  This is the system that has served Republicans well.

Now, I have heard republicans in the last week, even from within our party, calling for the abolishment of the caucus-convention system to be replaced by the primary alone.  Now, the primary system is one pushed very hard by the DFL for a very good reason: because it makes it easier to lie and get away with it.  Think about that for a second.  People go in mass to polling stations, and they are, many times, voting on the basis of a single newspaper article or two campaign signs in someone’s yard.  Maybe someone heard a good zinger from a candidate on the way to the polling place as the driver just decides who to vote for.  Maybe they hear the DFL’s promises for free healthcare, school, or maybe a car for every family and say in response, “Hey, I’d like that, I’ll vote for that person.”  Think about it again.  The DFL pushes the primary system over the Republican favored convention-caucus system as it plays better to socialist “free-bee” agendas and renders lies as legitimate, effective campaign tools.  I note that the primary system does no better a job of representing the will of the people in a certain district than a convention.  Anyone with a bachelor’s degree should know that in an instant, and most other folks get that too.

So there we have it, two different systems.  But wait a second!  We are missing one more piece of the conversation.  What if we were clumsily using BOTH systems like in the September 9^th primary?  Well, first of all, with the awkward position of having an MNGOP endorsed candidate off the ballot and non-endorsed candidate on the ballot, it becomes unclear to folks.  I mean, it is rather awkward.  Mark Olson still stands as the MNGOP endorsed candidate while Alison has a primary victory under her belt.  Mark Olson won a 2 to 1 victory at the convention and Alison Krueger won a primary with 54.3% of the vote to 45.7% for Mark Olson (yep, close).  So, how do we sort this out? 

Refer back to the benefits of the convention-caucus system: the assurance of deliberative and careful decisions made by delegates on the behalf of their fellow citizens.  And remember the benefits of the primary system: the legitimization of the use of lies as campaign tools, large pools of voters “pulling the lever” without deliberation or education, and the ability to sway voters easily with as little as a clever slogan (maybe redundant to the previous point).  It should be clear by now that the caucus-convention system is far superior to the primary system.

As delegates walked into the SD16 Endorsing Convention over a month ago, no one really knew who this Alison Krueger was.  Mark Olson, on the other hand, almost everyone knew.  His face had appeared in newspapers and on television for months and months prior.  “Maybe,” some thought, “now is a good time for some change, maybe we ought to give this Krueger gal our support.”  Well, many sentiments changed that night as delegates deliberated carefully on both choices.  After hearing Mark’s speech, I think many had warmed to him again.  But what stood-out to everyone there was the oddly angry and empty oral stumbling of what at first glance appeared to be a confident woman.  By the time she was finished with her Q&A time, where she failed to substantively address the questions asked, the deliberating delegates decided she was too dangerous to place on the ballot as an endorsed Republican. 

Switching gears, the convention is over.  However, just days following the convention, Alison began campaigning, accruing outside support from the Senate Republican Caucus and Senator Norm Coleman.  What commenced was a barrage of malicious lies mischaracterizing Mark Olson’s career, his personal life, his court issues, and even his conservative voting record.  Blogs, activists, and Krueger’s hacks spewed material trying to paint Olson as a big spending liberal who was really pro-choice (absurd, isn’t it?) among other things.  All of this after Alison signed a pledge promising she would not run for the SD16 seat.  So, she lies and lies, and folks like me try to explain her lies only to be attacked by all sorts of confused and/or vicious people.  Few have wanted to listen, and many did not heed what I and others have been saying.  As a result, many across the district, buying into the lies of senators, the media, and Krueger’s campaign, voted on the basis of little information for a candidate they probably have never met.

You see, Alison looks great on paper, I mean she does.  However, a little time with watching how she works, watching her lie and backstab, would make folks much less eager to vote for her, which brings me to my point, my crux of this piece.  The campaign for the SD16 seat is an excellent case study as to why the caucus system is superior.  Whose choice, whose decision do we regard as more substantive: the caucus-convention system or an open primary?  Refer to what we’ve talked about, and think about it for a second.  Think of all the lies this woman has told in contrast to the politically inadvisable openness and honesty of Mark Olson.  Really think about that.  Do you trust folks who voted on a whim based on one lie in a paper or some flier sent by liberal Republican RINOs, or do you trust the deliberative and educated decision of delegates?  Both bodies of decision represented Republicans of SD16 (I would mention that the convention goers are also active in the party in addition to being educated on candidates).  Now, I don’t know about you, but it seems clear that the decision of the convention should be held in higher regard than the DFL’s primary system.

This is a crucial point since we still have two Republicans: Alison Krueger- the DFL primary endorsed candidate, and Mark Olson- the SD16 MNGOP Endorsing Convention candidate.  In an awkward demonstration of the horrible primary system, we have an endorsed Republican write-in candidate.  Strange, isn’t it?  Now, when you folks out there who still finally get the message that Alison is a lying scumbag and Mark Olson is anything but, you may find yourself with an Olson sign in your yard after all. 

It’s a bad situation for the MNGOP, and Alison Krueger has made it impossible to unite.  Why?  Well, let’s assume that the BPPOU of SD16 decided to shake hands with Krueger and say “let’s all get along.”  Two problems arise.  First, she is not the endorsed candidate of the Republican Party, which means that if the BPOU did not uphold the SD16 convention’s decision for Olson, they would delegitimize and destroy the caucus-convention system along with their own body.  They would be saying to the delegates, in essence, “Screw you, we don’t want your careful decision.  We don’t care about the time you spent to come to a convention, even though it was far more time than it takes to fill-in a circle in a booth.  Sorry, we don’t care about what you local citizens have concerns about.  This is a campaign, and as such we need to unite so we can keep this seat in GOP hands at all costs, integrity and grassroots be dammed.”  It’s true.  That is what the message would be.

The BPOU is honor bound to defend the grassroots, the caucus-convention system, and the pledge voluntarily signed by candidates which has been so maniacally violated.  Republicans cannot let someone with such huge faults in integrity represent us as a Republican.  Alison is out of touch with folks in our district and is merely gaining support with lies and big money from big-wig RINOs- something, like an eastern Democrat. 

Remember that we as REPUBLICANS are not DEMOCRATS.  I am emphasizing the fact that we are not, despite persistent claims by Democrats, a “democracy.”  If you have taken a civics course or Poli. Sci. course, you should get that in an instant.  We are, in fact, a REPUBLIC.  It is a big reason why I started this blog.  Republicans believe in a responsible government where candidates for the privilege of public office are chosen under deliberation of representatives of citizens (i.e. delegates).  Republican forms of government and the caucus-convention system work to prevent the rise of tyrants or despots who may appear well-intentioned at first glance- Adolf Hitler may be the most glaring example in world history of the consequences of careless decision making.  The founding fathers certainly realized the problem of democracy demonstrated by the Grecian democratic system, where the aim of government and the officials serving it fluctuated violently with public opinion.  Imagine if we relied on polling for decisions today?  What if we removed a President every time his approval rating would drop below 50%?  Our government would collapse as the impulsive emotions of the masses could not be slowed by any institution.  Government would become a violent, ugly, and wholly inefficient affair.

The best way to preserve the grassroots of the party is by preserving the convention-caucus system as it allows the individuals to have a real voice as to concerns and questions of candidates/party officials (criticism of party officials is not afforded by the primary system at all).  It should be the system of endorsement that we the MNGOP should use.  The primary system needs to go, and the pitted battle between a primary winner and the endorsed candidate in SD16 will provide an excellent case study as to why this should be done.  If Alison Krueger wins in November, it will destroy the system which keeps power in the hands of everyday people.  Do not go along with those folks calling for Ron Carey to hand-pick all candidates (and there have been many Republicans saying just that). 

If the state party is given an ounce more power and we abolish the caucus-convention system, our state will soon look very similar to the USSR- and that is no exaggeration.  Want communism?  Support the primary.  You want Republicanism?  Support the caucus-convention system.  Freedom depends on it.

Alison Admits She Broke Her Pledge

Well, I could not believe it.  I mean, I really could not believe it.  A brochure paid for by Alison Krueger’s campaign?  Has she lost it?  I ask because it is now the single biggest blunder in the tale of the 2008 SD16 special election.  She went from signing a pledge promising not to run, to claiming she signed it under duress, to claiming the language had to do with only “openly campaigning,” and now to her openly campaigning in pursuit of the SD16 seat.  What happened to her being a woman of her word?  Did she decide the endorsements from Coleman and the State Senate Caucus Republicans were just too good to pass up?

Look at it from a purely cynical, practical, strategic point of view.  Krueger is running against Olson on the basis of integrity, as did Mary Kiffmeyer when she won the HD16B seat.  She wants folks to trust her as the reluctant servant who has toughness, integrity, and communication skills to offer along with being a more “electable” candidate than Mark Olson.  But then, to my utter amazement, I see that brochure “paid for by Alison Krueger for Senate.”  She attached her name?  Oh no!  Everyone will know she is really campaigning now!  Everyone will know she broke her pledge to delegates!  Proof of what I suspected from the start- Alison had no intention of honoring her word.

I am truly disappointed to say this, truly.  When I first heard Alison had filed, I said, “Fantastic!”  I did not know her, and had only heard she was a strong conservative.  Then I heard Mark was running, and after more information on Krueger (there seems to be this assumption that she doesn’t even HAVE a closet where skeletons could hide), I became less enthusiastic.  A few days prior to the convention, I was leaning towards Olson, but did not rule-out Alison.  Maybe she would be someone worth having in office.  Her speech and actions at and following the convention have put away any such silly thoughts forever.  I hadn’t left the convention before rumors circulated that she would run an underground campaign.  As a result of Krueger having to skirt her pledge, her “non-campaign” was reliant on hacks like Herwig and the liberal Republican Senate Caucus to do the dirty work.  They were quite right to ensure their names were attached to literature.  After all, if there are others out there campaigning on her behalf, who is she to stop them from expressing their opinion?  Thus, she was able to run a machine while “keeping” her pledge.  No longer.

I recall a brief phone conversation I had with her where we were discussing her comments to the St Cloud Times where she claimed that the pledge merely stated she “would not actively campaign.”  She said “Not actively campaigning means that you are abiding by the endorsement; if you weren’t abiding by the endorsement you would be actively campaigning.  To me, it’s the same thing.”  Well, Alison, you got it just about right- thanks for admitting it.

It is an enormous political blunder she has made with the release of her literature, website, etc. as it will send a clear message to citizens that we can never really be sure if she will follow through on her word.  She has said that despite the pledge, she is going to actively campaign against the endorsed Republican candidate.  So much for her word I guess.

Interesting bit- if you google Phil Herwig, you will find him in the "Political Graveyard." I guess it was a zombie who visited SD16.  

At least it explains all the yelling.

http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/herring-heslop.html

Herwig's Warning- The Invisible Machine?

The BPOU Executive Committee of SD16 had just finished preparations for their August 19^th meeting and had just begun when they were visited by someone who was to many a complete stranger.  Phil Herwig, a conservative Republican with a well-regarded reputation for organizing and winning grassroots campaigns, joined the meeting.  After a clear explanation of who he was and what he did, his remarks surprised the committee.  Herwig conveyed that he thought the SD16 Endorsing Convention was a shameful embarrassment and fatal mistake for the MNGOP.  His tone was respectful and sincere, but was loud enough to eventually get the BPOU committee removed from their meeting place on account of the disruption.

In the course of the heated yet civil exchange, it became clear that something once suspected is indeed a reality.  It is now clear beyond any doubt that there is an underground machine operating to work against the MNGOP endorsed candidate, Mark Olson.  Herwig mentioned in the exchange that this machine had “big donors” and “literature ready to go.”  He believed that the result of the SD16 Endorsing Convention would mean a political “gorilla war” on the grassroots level in a fight amongst Republicans for the SD16 primary.

Herwig’s crowning moment was when he demanded that the BPOU leadership of SD16 overrule the decision of delegates and throw out the endorsement of Olson.  This is a surprising and outrageous demand coming from a man of his experience, since he would, no doubt, know that there really are not any provisions under which the BPOU leadership could challenge the decision of delegates.  The delegates have spoken, and the BPOU is unable to do anything about it. 

The overarching argument made by Herwig for the actions he was going to take, to do everything in his power to work against Olson, was a strategic one.  It was a flawed argument, however.  From a cynical point of view, yes, the widespread misconceptions of Olson’s case make him less than an ideal candidate for whom to work to get elected.  It is enough to cause some Republicans to fret over which party will control the seat.  However, working against the delegates’ decision and the local party cannot possibly help keep SD16 a Republican district.  It is, even from a totally cynical standpoint, far more politically advantageous for Republicans across the state to just get behind Olson.  It would be a gesture of good will to the local BPOUs and reflect the MNGOP’s dedication to their grassroots process and the delegates who participate in it- something cherished by so many, including myself.  Attacking Mark Olson will only succeed in making it more difficult to hold the seat in the election.

One element of the argument by Herwig was that Olson’s race will affect every other race across the state.  I agree, and believe that no matter what happens at this juncture, the SD16 race will do much to shape the results of the November election for Minnesota.  However, while Herwig believes that allowing Mark Olson to proceed with the GOP’s blessing will negatively affect the party of family values, I disagree on two points.  First, if the GOP elites (and yes, I refer to those senators) had just left this alone, I think everyone would have had the sense to say, “Wow, the delegates of his community want him back to serve in this position; they must know something we don’t.”  If Republican Party leadership (yes, referring to some elected officials) stopped attacking Olson and falsely slandering him as a “wife beater,” this comparatively small race would be of little concern to anyone.  Secondly, Mark Olson has one of the most conservative voting records in the Minnesota House of Representatives, accompanied by a record of speaking out and fighting for issues concerning the family.  If we are the party of family values, than this unabashed Christian conservative fits the bill.  In any case, if Mark Olson’s race is hurting Republicans outside his district, it is because the party elite have made it so with their arrogant interference, causing a backlash for some and furthering unnecessary misinformation for others. 

The disruptive meeting of the SD16 leadership was a shot over the bow of local conservative Republicans by those determined to oppose Olson at any cost.  They have made it clear they are going to work hard to see he does not get elected.  It seems they will certainly try to stop him, even at the cost of the SD16 seat.  How ironic that these Republicans argue against the endorsement of Olson on grounds of electability and losing the SD16 seat when by pressing such an argument they risk ultimately losing it by their interference.  It seems at least Norm Coleman is willing to lose the SD16 seat to keep Olson out, but many certainly are not.  Any Republicans who want to see our party in control of the Minnesota Senate should get behind Olson along with the steadfast standard-bearers of conservatism.

There is one more issue I want to address concerning this rather interesting exchange.  BPOU leadership, delegates, and opposition to Olson all agree that he is a candidate challenging to get elected.  However, Herwig and others have pushed very hard for a candidate they have never met, Alison Krueger.  I note again that Krueger’s performance at the SD16 Endorsing Convention was less than superb, to say the least.  Few delegates were enthused.  The fact of the matter is that there was a very short period of time for anyone to file for the SD16 seat since Betsy Wergin waited until the last possible moment to accept her PUC job.  If she had fairly and considerately informed local BPOUs of her intentions to give up her senate seat earlier, there would have been time to have a broader, more vibrant field of candidates from which delegates could choose.  However, thanks to her dump and dash tactics employed with SD16, the choices were limited indeed.  Anyone at the SD16 Endorsing Convention would have seen that Mark Olson was a far better candidate to serve the district than Alison Krueger.  If there is one person to blame for the mess in SD16, it is, without doubt, Betsy Wergin.  How much easier it would have been if she had told anyone in the local leadership that her seat would be vacated.

Drew Emmer's Unreliable Account of SD16 and Wergin

Drew Emmer has said some pretty stupid things on the DME blog this last week (don't bother spending too much time over there unless you like verbal abuse).  Despite the fact that he knows the system well and saw our conventions, he is wrong in the many false statements he makes.  I am surprised and disappointed at how many times Drew Emmer has been twisting the truth throughout this process.  He has spoken as an “authority” on the SD16 Endorsing Convention because he was there.  Well, I was there too, and Drew Emmer is an idiot for getting so much wrong.  I’ve watched this thing from the kick-off.  Drew, I am very disappointed in some of the things you said.  The blog posts are posted below, interrupted by my responses.

 

Drew Emmer Says: 
August 13th, 2008 at 8:40 am: The characterization that the Minnesota GOP endorsed Mark Olson is indeed what the left will gravitate toward. In reality SD16 endorsed Olson. More specifically, the folks in SD16 who bothered to show up for the special endorsing convention. Mark & Heidi deserve credit for winning at the endorsing game. A game they know well and executed deftly last Thursday. They rallied support from within their network of friends in and out of the district and they won.

The GOP did endorse Mark Olson.  You may not know this, but only SD16 can endorse a candidate for the GOP… oh wait a second, you knew that!  You know how this works.  Don’t try to confuse folks on what happens.  You bet SD16 folks were the ones who endorsed- they are the only ones who can.  Mark Olson IS the GOP endorsed candidate, period.

A “game?”  Are you seriously characterizing our conventions as mere games?!  You have run them before, you know how they work.  Everyone who participated in this sought to facilitate the delegates deliberations and decisions.  We here believe that these conventions are very important and should not be toyed with.  Perhaps you are one who plays games at our conventions.  Was it not you, a citizen from an outside district, who was illegally attempting to speak on issues, make points of order, and interfere in our convention?  You came in and spoke at our convention in violation of the convention rules to try to play games to help your candidate win.  You charaded as a delegate, trying to create a favorable climate for your candidate.  You were not a delegate to the convention, you knew that, yet you interfered.  You knew that was wrong but you did it anyway.

Mark Olson’s “friends” were not to blame for your loss.  He had the support of more than just friends.  In fact, many of his closest friends were absent on account of the convenient short notice of the convention.  Mark Olson didn’t push and prod people to stand with him.  People did that all on their own.  Mark Olson didn’t even need to finagle to get the support he needed, a thing reflected in what was a landslide victory.

Alison signed a pledge to not actively campaign against the endorsement. So did Mark. That’s a pretty significant commitment and definitely shows respect for the will of the delegates. I do not expect Alison to waffle on that pledge. Her integrity is far more precious to her than a senate seat. In the unlikely event that she passively wins the primary, since her name is indeed still on the ballot, well, then she has a whole new situation to deal with.

Alison has already violated the pledge when she encouraged folks who didn’t like the outcome of the endorsement convention to vote for her!  The pledge was to abide by the endorsement, not this “not actively campaign” trash you and her are throwing around to cover your butts.  The pledge reads:

“I _____, as a candidate seeking endorsement from the Republican Party of Senate District 16 to run as an endorsed Republican candidate for the SD16 seat in the fall of 2008, hereby agree to abide by the decision of the Republican Party Senate District 16 2008 Endorsing Convention.  I will not run against the Republican endorsed candidate for the SD16 seat should the aforementioned convention decide not to endorse me.”

This pledge was signed under no duress and read in front of the entire convention.  Alison Krueger has mischaracterized the pledge signed at the convention as stating that she “would not openly campaign,” adding that “If people in the district don’t like what happened, that can still change at the primary.” (Taken from St Cloud Times, August 9^th)  It appears she is actively working to win the primary outside of the public eye to avoid violation of the pledge, and I wonder very much how much you are trying to help her do just that.  We in SD16 expected an act of sportsmanship, a public endorsement by Krueger of the endorsed candidate.  The pledge was clear.  Abide by the endorsement.  If she is such a great Republican “activist” who is an asset to the party, why has she not publicly rejected the ridiculous endorsements of both the State Senate Caucus and Norm Coleman?  If she is “respecting” the will of the delegates, why doesn’t she do this?  The fact is she doesn’t respect the will of the delegates.  If she was, she would have made a public statement backing the endorsed candidate.

We here in SD16 know quite well that there is a machine working underground to get her elected.  Her actions speak as loud as her words.  She promised to abide by the endorsement, and she better do all she can to discourage people from voting for her so her integrity is not flushed down the toilet, if it hasn’t been already.

Mark Olson unfortunately did not qualify for public subsidy. In the rush to assemble delegates for the endorsing convention, he failed to raise the minimum required to activate the share of public money. That’s $15-20K he will not have in his coffers to wage battle against Democrat Lisa Fobbe.

My understanding is that Mark didn’t want to take money from the state to run as a matter of principle.  Are you sure it is because he missed the deadline?  How do you know?  Is that what Mark Olson told you?  He didn’t, because Mark Olson never had any intent to file for the public money.

My personal regret about the endorsing convention is not so much the outcome as the way it was conducted. Senator Betsy Wergin served SD16 honorably.

She was not allowed to address the convention. She was not even allowed to be seated as a delegate even though she was a delegate! Her family and friends were not allowed to attend as guests. That’s just bush-league. Betsy deserves an apology and local leaders need to raise the bar of behavior in their ranks.

You liar!  You were there, I was there, and I have the records proving she was never a delegate to ANY of the HD16B or SD16 Conventions!!  She would have had to have been elected at caucuses in the fall, yet the PCR reports show she was not.  The sign-in sheets for the HD16B convention showed she was NOT a delegate or alternate.  She should not be allowed to vote, she should not be allowed to speak on issues, she should not be allowed to interfere in the convention as you suggest.  You know nothing!  The fact that you got this dead wrong shows how willing you are to twist the truth and play “games” while everyone else is simply trying to facilitate the will of the people in an honest grassroots process.

 Betsy Wergin nearly screwed the entire district when she waited until the last possible second to announce she was taking the PUC Commissioner spot for her BROTHER.  She never told ANY local GOP leadership that her seat would be vacant soon and a special election would be needed.  She never told BPOU Executive Committee officers that they needed to start looking for candidates, which is one of the biggest responsibilities they have in their job capacity.  We in SD16 were given no time to prepare for her sweet pay raise and bon voyage from SD16. 

Betsy Wergin tried to illegally seat non-delegates to vote at the SD16 convention.  Bryan Lawrence of the Baldwin Town Board, attempted to seat himself as a delegate.  When a BPOU officer asked what he was doing, he said that Betsy Wergin had called him to come to the convention, saying “I was told I was a delegate.”  Betsy Wergin evidently attempted to seat Bryan Lawrence as a delegate illegally.  The PCR reports show that Lawrence was never at an SD16 caucus, meaning it is impossible that he was a delegate or alternate.  Betsy Wergin would have known this.  His name appears on no delegate list- I am 100% certain, as I have the records in my hands right now!  Thankfully, he was not seated thanks to vigilant eyes. 

Betsy Wergin’s husband, Richard, also attempted to obtain an Official Voting Card and vote as a delegate before a BPOU officer stopped him.  Betsy Wergin did nothing to help us in this process and has done much to make it more difficult.  I suspect she was playing “games” just like you.  SD16 leadership should not apologize to Wergin, but reprimand her for her actions at the convention and for her total disregard of the BPOU leadership in the run-up to the special convention.  She should have told the BPOU Chairs at the very least of the pending appointment and special election.  Her not doing so made it a hellish experience for those rushing to get the convention together in only 3 weeks.  It prevented the BPOUs from doing their jobs and nearly prevented them from serving the will of the delegates. 

Drew, you should apologize to the Senate District for you interference at our convention and the twisted facts you continue to spew.  You are dead wrong here!  Do not play a violin for Wergin.

August 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am:  Senator Wergin was not seated as a delegate. It is my understanding that she was elected a delegate at her precinct caucus. And she has been seated as a delegate at all other conventions. I’ve never heard of a delegate showing up and not being seated. I do not know why she was not seated. Perhaps someone running the show will clarify that.

Wergin should not have been a delegate for the HD16B Convention, the HD16B Endorsing Convention, or the SD16 Endorsing Convention.  If she was ever seated as such and voted, that was illegal.  Records for the conventions and caucuses show she was never a delegate or alternate.  She was not elected a delegate or alternate at any precinct caucus.

You say you have “never heard of a delegate showing up and not being seated?”  Well, Mark Olson did just that.  At both the HD16B and SD16 Endorsing Conventions, Olson refused to be seated even though he was, in fact, an elected delegate.  PRC forms from the caucuses and convention records verify this.  Mark Olson refused to be seated out of respect of the delegates.  At both conventions, he simply wanted to present himself as an option to let people decide for themselves.  I haven’t heard of this happening before either, Drew, and it is just one more example of Mark Olson’s character and integrity.

There was a motion to change the rules to preclude anyone not a delegate/alternate or resident of the district or candidate family member from delivering an endorsement speech. The gal that read the motion said they wanted to “prevent party elites and politicians from unduly influencing the outcome”. It was so cool to almost be banned from this convention as I am none of the above. Unfortunately the motion failed after Mark Swanson spoke up and straightened the joint out. Would have been an honor to be banned but it just wasn’t my day I guess.

The motion was not directed at just you, but glad you got the hint.  That motion should have sent a signal to everyone that we do not like outside meddling.  Too bad the State Senate Caucus and Norm Coleman didn’t heed that before they stuck their noses into it.  Senjem was there to see that happen I believe; he should have known better.

The rationale behind barring Betsy Wergin’s family and friends from attending as guests so as to see/hear her farewell address is a mystery to me. They were turned away at the door. Every “VIP” in the room was allowed to speak except Betsy.

Not “every VIP” was allowed to speak.  Ron Carey rushed up and took control himself without asking the Chair for permission to speak.  Interesting how Carey took the time to talk about uniting the party behind its endorsed candidates, “We need to support our endorsed candidates.”  How ironic. 

Betsy’s family was attempting to interfere in the convention as previously mentioned.  Also, there was no time for a farewell address by Betsy Wergin since she did not give us time to prepare for the convention.  As a result, the state party stepped-in without local consult and chose the place, time, and registration fees.  They sent the info out in the convention call (with incorrect address information) before we in SD16 had a chance to say anything.  The MN GOP reserved the Princeton High School for too short a period.  It was their brilliant scheduling that forced us to ensure the convention moved along.  If Betsy wanted time to speak, she should have told us what was going on way before she did- she shouldn’t have just dropped it on our laps so last minute and take off running.  Getting a call in the middle of the night hours away from office filing deadlines to find out you need to find candidates to fill a senate seat is not the way to treat your BPOU leadership.  I guess she didn’t care since she doesn’t have to deal with SD16 in her new plush position.  Also, I do not believe it is customary for candidates to give a farewell speech at an endorsing convention.  Note also that Betsy Wergin was not running for another office, thus she had no reason to speak.  I don’t believe she ever asked to speak in the first place.

The first ballot took about 1/2 hour to count. The second ballot was counted within 10 minutes as we were up against a mandatory 9:30pm adjournment. In fact, there was a motion to adjourn before the vote tally was rushed to the podium. But the chair decided not to recognize the motion to adjourn even though he reiterated it over the sound system. And the vote totals weren’t close to the total from the first ballot. I guess there may have been folks who left. But it didn’t look like anyone left.

The chair did the right thing and recognized the motion to adjourn.  However, officers of the convention with delegated responsibilities needed to give reports to the Chair on where the ballot count was out.  It was my responsibility at the convention to report to the Chair where we were at with time.  I needed to deliver a time estimate on vote counting right as the motion to adjourn was introduced.  His recognizing me to give this information does not violate Robert’s Rules of Order as it was a delegated function of the Chair in compliance with the convention rules.  The motion to adjourn does trump all other motions, but if you are referring to my timer report, you are wrong as it was not a motion, point of order, etc.  The motion to adjourn was a sneaky attempt to end the convention without an endorsed candidate- perfectly legal, but sneaky.

The reason it didn’t look like anyone left is that a heap of people changed their vote after hearing no substance from Krueger in the Q & A.  Olson handled the Q&A much better.  I personally talked to two persons who gladly switched their vote after the Q&A time.  If anyone left, it was likely Krueger folks who realized they had made a mistake.

But the way they treated Betsy was awful.

Betsy treated us awfully despite the constant and unwavering support from the BPOUs in her district, even after a few of her votes that angered conservatives.  How does Betsy reward this hard work for which there is no pay (unlike her old and new job)?  She makes it as difficult as possible for the folks in SD16 to find candidates and endorse them.  Mark Olson is the best we have, and it’s a solid choice to endorse him.

August 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm: If a person has a right to stand against someone’s endorsement for voting to override the Governor’s veto, don’t they have a right to oppose an endorsement for whatever reason they want?

You are suggesting that the Senate Caucus Republicans, senators who have nothing to do with SD16, should be able to work against their own party’s endorsement?  Party officers, from the BPOU level on up, are constitutionally required to support the endorsed candidates.  Shouldn’t these “Republican” senators be held to the same standard?  Shouldn’t they respect their jurisdiction and respect the decision of SD16?  Even if the Senate Caucus has this right, why do they not use it to oppose the Override Six who backstabbed Republicans across the state?  Why is it that the Senate Caucus will only take this extreme and unreasonable measure against a diehard conservative?  And don’t tell me it’s an ethical issue- everyone with the facts should know that is not what this is about.  Many Republican senators serving there now should have had their integrity questioned much, much more than Mark Olson’s.

SD16 chose Mark Olson without regard for his recent legal history. That was their choice.

No, they chose Mark Olson with the greatest regard for Mark Olson’s legal history.  It’s just that everyone knew that he was an innocent man.  Mark Olson’s legal history was in the forefront of the convention, there is no way a soul voted without regard to that history.  People support Mark Olson because he is an innocent man with extraordinary integrity.  People inside the district here have tremendous respect fro his integrity.  Frankly, I think his integrity was proven to folks in SD16 as he never tried to hide anything during his case.  He was open and honest, and still is.

You are right (wow).  It was SD16’s choice to endorse whoever they want.  That’s our right.

Frankly, I’m surprised at the number of people calling for an outright mutiny over this issue.

I’m not.  You know that the Senate Caucus doesn’t like the idea of a conservative Republican coming to their chamber.  They are desperate to keep him out for their own motives.  Their actions are an affront to everyone in SD16, delegates, alternates, BPOUs, and Republican voters across the State of Minnesota.  We in SD16 are fighting to keep elites out of our business.  We know how to run things fine ourselves.  This is a battle over the principle of elites and the establishment crushing the voice of the party grassroots.  This is a hugely important battle.

 I used to have a lot more respect for you then I do now.  The only reason I have taken this long to respond is so I could verify everything with the PCR forms etc.  Please be careful to never get this far off the facts again- you are a very capable convention chair, not the most common of things.  I'll be watching what you say much closer for now on.

A Sample Letter

This is just one of the letters forwarded to me being sent to GOP Leadership, Senate Caucus, and anyone else working against the SD16 endorsed candidate. There are a lot more yet to come I am certain. Just wanted to show folks outside our district how SD16 citizens are reacting. The letter reads:

------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Senjem, and Mr. Carey,

For the party of local control (at least the Republican Party once was, but it seems much of the 'Platform' gets thrown under the bus at election time) you seem to be sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. No matter Mark Olson's past - he is the endorsed candidate of SD16. He was legitimately selected by the seated Delegates and Alternates of SD16. These delegates and ONLY these delegates were selected by their neighbors to represent the areas interests in SD16. Please respect the process and SD16's wishes by graciously and cheerfully accepting Mark Olson into the Republican caucus come next year. I believe that it is the Party's responsibility to support the endorsed candidate, lest one can be REMOVED from the party. Please note your recent actions are easily deemed - not supporting the endorsed candidate Mark Olson. If you didn't notice there is some 'ire' against the Party and RINOs demonstrated at the State Convention. You may think you can get the candidates elected while ignoring the conservative base - I'm afraid you will be sorely mistaken come November. Just so we're clear here... bud out of Senate District 16. Those of us who have lived in the area know both candidates very well. We chose the best candidate and we will stand behind him. If you continue to meddle in our district, look for us in your district when you are up for re-election. We'll be watching your votes and your personal behavior for information for letters to the editor in your local papers.

Have a Great Day!

Ron, please extend my apologies to the unfortunate MNGOP fund raiser who called earlier today... I did not mean to take out my disgust at the party on him - but I must insist on directing my financial support directly to the truly 'conservative' candidates.

Signed --------