Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant was at the SD 41 Republican Convention last weekend.
The punishment meted out to the two wayward representatives was stern. Endorsement for the fall election was not only denied them; it was bestowed with ease on their opponents, Keith Downey in 41A, Jan Schneider in 41B.
Sturdevant notes just how fickle the Republican base can be:
Applying “DFL-lite” to Erhardt and his late wife Jackie would have been a local laugh line not long ago. A financial planner, Erhardt has been among the party’s most prolific fundraisers and reliable foot soldiers for more than 30 years. He’s run for the Legislature with party endorsement nine times, and has never won his seat with less than 56 percent of the vote. In 2006, he was the second-best Republican vote-getter in his district, behind only U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad.
Let that be a lesson to hard working Republican boosters everyone: display some independent judgment and you may be tossed overboard. Some readers will note that Erhardt’s “RINO” credentials are not limited to his vote for the transportation bill. But I remember the debate over the House’s property tax bill last year (which would have cut the property taxes of 99% of Minnesotans) where Ron Erhardt donned a handkerchief as a mask and accused the DFL majority of being bandits stealing from the rich to provide relief to the poor. Erhardt may be a moderate Republican, but he is still a Republican.
Loading ...
The thing about political parties is that to have any meaning they have to maintain some sort of ideological standard. If they don’t there is not really any point to having a party. The fact that Democrats don’t agree with the standards Republicans set is no surprise. I actually find it encouraging when either party holds their members to the standards which they promote as core to their party’s platform. Especially if doing so might cost them an election or donations. How rarely this happens is evidence of how self-servingly nebulous both parties are in order to win elections. Why should parties be proud of winning elections if they are willing to toss away their standards to do so.
Maybe instead of trying to make the Republicans out to be some sort of monsters for having standards for once Democrats should try standing up for what they pretend to hold as vital beliefs. Their race baiting presidential candidate and union busting local AG come to mind as places to start.
We have watched for a few days now the results of the actions taken by the “over-ride six” and how the party regulars have decided to react.
So here is my question: can anyone come up with similar circumstances where a Dem elected representative was denied endorsement based on a single vote like this. Don’t include times where someone was defeated in a primary (ex - Becky Lourey vs. Florian Chimelewski; and definitely not Joe Liberman — enough has been said about him lately).
Republicans can apply whatever standards they choose. DFLers have their own litmus tests as well. I personally like seeing the GOP in circular firing squad mode instead of the DFL for a change.
What is the quote… “Those the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
Pass the popcorn and enjoy the show as these bumpkins go at it. Offer to hold their coat once in a while and they will defeat themselves…
KH,
the thing is that some of these members are much more reliably conservative than many of their peers in the House. Why is this issue the only one that requires the drastic action of revoking their seniority, denying their endorsement, and supporting primary challengers?
What you’re saying is that there are only three viable political positions in our government: complete conservative, complete liberal, and independent. I think both parties need to make room for a spectrum of beliefs under their ideological umbrella.
Now I’ve gone on record talking about why we should primary some Democrats in the name of more and better Democrats. The thing is that “better” in my book isn’t “more liberal”, it is simply those that aren’t going to cave to political pressure and fear of not being re-elected.
Truth is I also respect the Republicans that voted against their party as long as they thought it was the right thing to do. The reason we currently have only two choices when we vote is because both republicans and Democrats have worked very hard over the years to keep it that way.
Meanwhile the ambiguous nature of the major parties helps eliminate their accountability. Hillary and Franken can pretend to be anti-war candidates despite being for the war just because the party they belong to has a higher percentage of anti-war supporters. Democrats and Republican caucuses alike often tell members when they can vote their conscience and when they have to vote the party line. Members from safe districts will sponsor bills they know members from swing districts can’t vote for because they get the best of both worlds. The safe member gets t look like a champion for the outer wing of their party and seeing district reps get to show how independent they are. It is all a choreographed dance designed to reduce accountability and empower the parties.
That the Republican dispute happened in the open with each side acting according to their belief system is just so rare it appears newsworthy. Especially to the party hacks who can’t imagine not keeping things “in the family” or putting party affiliation above all else.