The seemingly coordinated campaign by Republican operative Michael Brodkorb, Norm Coleman, the Senate Republican Caucus and others to fight against endorsed wife beater Mark Olson apparently didn’t include the people actually involved with the “grassroots” endorsement, the people in the Senate District 16 GOP and the leadership in the CD6 GOP.
From SD16’s Chris Kumpula [via]:
I find this statement to be entirely insulting to the Republicans of SD16. The folks who came to the SD16 Endorsing Convention were chosen by their neighbors to represent their neighbors’ desires and concerns at the convention. They came to decide on who would be the better candidate to run for the vacant seat in SD16-…
Also, as Chris Kumpula comments on Brodkorb’s site:
This is disgraceful on the part of everyone having to do with this letter. Our people made their choice, we don’t need big whigs telling us we’re incompetent. We in SD16 decided Mark Olson, and the State Party and senators from OUTSIDE our district can just deal with it.
Ken Avidor recorded audio of Jason Lewis on KTLK talking with Chris and the MN CD6 GOP Chair Mark Swanson who are quite displeased with the “clear campaign to expel” Olson. Chris says:
I can’t tell you how shocked I was to see the letter from the Senate State Caucus basically insulting all the state delegates that came to our convention and made their decision. Saying “No, you people are too stupid. You’re just country hicks. You don’t know what you’re doing.”
Strangely, the the MN GOP “is not moving yet” and cannot get Ron Carey to speak one way or another on the issue. Although on Jason Lewis’ show, MN CD6 GOP Chair Mark Swanson says flat out: “We support the endorsed candidate.”
There is a huge divide between the “grassroots” efforts of the SD16 GOP and the Congressional District 6 GOP and the likes of Brodkorb, Coleman and the Senate Republican Caucus that want to tell the people of SD16 what they should and should not do.
This is the pinnacle of elitism. A bunch of elitist, Republican party hacks have gotten together and decided to override your choice. That’s what rubs me the wrong way.
I recommend listening to the whole thing to hear all the statements as well as the context.
Continued coverage at Blue man in a Red District, Dump Mark Olson, What the Republic Can Do, Lloydletta’s Nooz and Comments.
UPDATE: A couple more posts on this at Liberal in the Land of Conservative and Rook’s Rant. Both are good reads. Also, regarding some of the attempted distractions in the comments, it is clear who Lewis is referring to. I stand behind my words.
Loading ...
I’m all for local control. If a locality wants to elect someone, then let them. They can go to St. Paul and serve, advocate, vote, etc. Now, I personally think you can find someone better to serve than Olson, but I’m not going to tell the fine people of Big Lake what to do.
I also think that the caucuses in St. Paul are overrated. Why should it be such a “club”, where you are invited to join the caucus or told not to. Go to St. Paul, represent your peeps, vote, and that is what you are there to do.
Caucuses increase the power of the constituents. It is smart for representatives to caucus.
First, let me say that I personally don’t know ten people who give a damn about what Jason Lewis says. To me, Jason Lewis is the ultimate elitist. He’s a guy who ran for Congress in Colorado as a pro-choice moderate. He only supports Michele Bachmann and maybe John Kline. He hates every other Republican in the state — especially Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman. If you don’t do what Jason says, then you’re a RINO, etc.
Second, I’ve thought that for years the real elitists are the delegates. There are 80,000 people in a State Senate District. Out of the 80,000, 97 said they wanted Mark Olson. But what’s really elite about them is they want to tell their neighbors that they can only support Mark Olson and don’t want them to have another choice. They think they know more than their neighbors which is why they only want a handfull of people picking who runs and who doesn’t. The same is probably true on the DFL side, but I can’t say for sure because I’m not as familiar with their endorsing system. I only know that the DFL has a long history of having the endorsed candidate for major offices go down the tubes.
It’s time to end the caucus system as we know it today and go to a primary system. Let the candidates pay their $100 filing fee, buy a new pair of shoes and knock on doors to get their name out.
lojasmo,
I didn’t see your post before I made my comments. I disagree with you 100%. Caucuses increase the power of only a handfull of people who get involved in either the GOP or DFL party politics. Caucuses hurt the rest of the 80,000 consitutents in the district who either aren’t hard core Republicans or Democrats or who hate the current caucus system. If you want to increase the power of consitutents, you need to get more people involved in picking the candidate and more folks voting in the polls.
Chris. We were referring to the republican and democratic caucuses at the governmental level.
lojasmo,
I misunderstood what you meant. My apologies. I thought you were talking about precinct caucuses.
http://fobbeforsenate16.homestead.com/
Even though it is not what this thread originally was discussing, I completely agree with Chris on the local caucus point. I don’t say abolish the caucus, but lets not make it binding for the parties. Take the Bonoff / Madia / Hovland race — about 50% of the delegates wanted Bonoff, and about 50% of the people wanted Madia. It all got sorted out by the party in the end, but why not let the people of the district decide in September? I’m saying the same thing about DC1 and Davis and his GOP opponents — it is good for democracy that it will be decided in a primary, although bad for the GOP in CD1. It shouldnt’ have to be bad.
Regarding caucuses at the State Capitol, I just don’t see what it accomplishes other than horse-trading and coercion from party leaders. Let the elected officials be loyal to their constituents and vote their consciences.
Aaron Landry = Liar. Contrary to Landry The Liar’s (aka Team Franken’s embedded blogger) headline, I don’t believe Jason Lewis ever said my name on his radio show. Numerous bloggers spoke out against Olson endorsement. Lewis frequently referred to the “bloggers” on his radio program. Aaron Landry has a serious problem with the truth.
DtM,
I agree with you about the first district too. Two Putt Tommy mentioned on MDE that he’s concerned that the primary system will lead to money having control. That’s not the case down in the First. Senator Dick Day is the underfunded primary challenger to the big money endorsee Davis. I think the underfunded grassroots challenger will not only topple the party endorsment too but will tell the big money guys they backed the loser.
Well, Michael, at 6:09 in the audio Mark Swanson states that “Mr. Brodkorb can write what he wants”. Moments later, Lewis talks about a campaign led by THE blogger. Now he may not have said your name explicitly but you cannot deny that you are THE blogger in question. So, you might not want to go throwing the term liar around so flippantly.
Aaron Landry is not a name you can trust.
Political Muse: I wasn’t the first Republican blogger to speak out against Representative Olson’s endorsement - that honor goes to one of my favorite bloggers, Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring Blog. But I’m still very proud of my post about Representative Olson. Lewis frequently referred to the “bloggers” who spoke out against Olson endorsement. Numerous conservative bloggers spoke out against Olson endorsement and Lewis never mentioned me by name, nor did he discuss the name of my blog. I could be one of the “bloggers” Lewis was referring to, but I wasn’t singled-out by Lewis as was Senator Coleman and the Senate Republican Caucus. Lamdry is claiming I was singled out by Lewis. I’m not afraid of getting called out on Jason Lewis’ program - but Landry’s post is dishonest. I don’t enjoy writing this, but Aaron Landry is a liar. I believe Landry knows the truth, but chooses to lie. It’s really sad.
So, Chris and DTM: Are you saying parties should not endorse?
Sure, a party can endorse. But a party endorsement shouldn’t carry so much weight, given the fact that a plurality of voting Americans claim they don’t identify with a party.
I’d like to see 2/3 + of all races have a competitive primary. It would be healthy for the state and the nation.
Wife beating candidate causes a small but hardly noticeable argument among the Republicans. Should wifebeater win all will be forgotten. Hohum.
As a GOP activist, I recognize the endorsing convention’s right to endorse the candidate of their choice. What Michael & I did, however, was voice an opinion that this endorsing convention made a poor decision, one which we vehemently disagree with.
As for Jason Lewis, he doesn’t speak for my type of conservatism. He’s a neanderthal.
As for Michael, I’ll trust him because I’ve dealt with him over the past several years. He’s hard-hitting but he’s accurate. When he writes something, it’s accurate.
My thoughts on Mr. Landry? Methinx he’d better do better research before jumping in the ring with Michael.
Finally, Lewis talks about the elitists having it in for Rep. Olson. What’s interesting is that I’ve heard from lots of low-profile activists from across the state. They agree with Michael & I. They think that the endorsing convention got it wrong.
Are these low-profile activists elitists too? They are by Mr. Lewis’ standards. Forgive me if I’m not presuaded.
So…. let’s see what Rep. Mark Olson is reading thee days…
Jason Lewis was clearly referring to Brodkorb among others, when he referred to certain bloggers. Brodkorb’s post on the matter was what made the Star Tribune - and despite Lewis’s professed distaste for the Strib and the Pioneer Press, he reads both for show prep. Brodkorb’s post made Bloghouse. Gary Gross’s did not. 6th CD chair, Mark Swanson referenced Brodkorb by name.
I believe the reason Lewis didn’t mention Michael Brodkorb by name is that his station doesn’t want any more potential legal problems. It’s one thing when Lewis rants about public figures - it’s another when he rants on about private citizens - Brodkorb is in between on that score. I believe station management wasn’t happy with Lewis’s rants about Karl Bremer in Stillwater (which included Lewis and a caller discussing going to Bremer’s house) - and getting called out as “Thug Radio” on the Minnesota Independent.
This all being said: Michael Brodkorb is correct in stating that the headline is inaccurate, and should be changed.
lojasmo,
Ideally, parties should probably not endorse. I think it would be best if we just had primaries and let the voters decide. Frankly, I think we’d have better candidates all around and we’d have greater voter participation than we have under the caucus system. Even if the parties still endorsed, I think it would still be best to scrap the caucus system and have primaries.
I wonder what it says that Mark Olson is currently leading the Primary Election Poll I am conducting right now. Is the pro-domestic assault vote more energized than the anti-domestic assault vote in the Republican Party?
Chris, I’d say the reason Dick Day could and probably will beat Davis, is that Dick Day is well-known throughout the district from his decades of public service; and that Day is the exception and not the rule.
Abolishing the caucus system in favor of primaries “sounds” like good policy, but what we need to recognize is there are always unintended consequences to legislation, and I’d argue “the better they sound, the more likely the unintended is there.”
Two Putt,
I think the most obvious “unintended” consequence of having primaries is that candidates who are perceived as more electable will beat out candidates who are perceived as more electable.
Chis, I would hope you were correct; but I’m not so sure. I really feel eliminating caucus for primary will unduly escalate the influence of money.
Then again, I could be wrong. Don’t tell anyone, but I actually have been… ;-)
In defense of precinct caucuses: First of all, anyone who gets up the gumption to get off the couch and actually show up can attend a precinct caucus. There’s nothing elitist about it. There’s something activist about it, though. If you don’t care enough to show up (it’s free and all are welcome), you don’t have a voice in the endosing process. Same as if you skip the polls, you don’t have a voice in deciding elections.
Caucuses and endorsing conventions ensure that people who actually care and are engaged make decisions. It’s endorsement by elected representation, like our republic. Caucuses and conventions represent republicanism. Primries more closely resemble pure democracy. This argument actually breaks down as republicans (caucuses and delegates) vs democrats (primaries) in the classic sense.
If you want to know why Republicans have done so well in this seemingly blue state, you need look no further than the caucus system. This system has allowed DFL party hacks to pick lousy candidates again and again and again. We haven’t won an election for governor since 1986.
I don’t know if I would call caucuses themselves elitist, as that is such a bogus term anyway, but your insinuation that people who don’t attend are people who don’t “get off the couch” certainly is elitist. The caucuses require a (or sometimes several, if you go on to other caucuses) several hour committment, which is difficult if you can’t get off of work, have young kids, or are old or otherwise unable to get out for several hours to participate.
Dear Mr. Brodkorb,
I would think a man of your intelligence may be able to tell there is a difference between a lie and an error. Your immediate conclusion is that Mr. Landry is lying in his post and the first thing you write is that Mr. Landy is a Liar. My congratulations to you for not including “pants on fire.” This direct accusation indicates that you have information that suggests the assertions being made are intentional and not an error. You seem to have evidence that Mr. Landry’s post about you being included in the Lewis show is not accurate. I am not disagreeing with your posts citing why you think it is wrong. However, I’ve yet to read any evidence you have that Landry’s post here was done intentionally and not in error. We’re all human, Mr. Brodkorb. Mistakes can and do happen (even if our President can’t remember any he’s made). A mistake does not make one a liar.
I personally don’t believe that you are an elitist, Sir. Elitists would correct the facts and let the readers decide from themselves. I know, Joe Six-Pack isn’t a fan of logic, facts, and reason, but that it the way an elitist would have approached the situation. You decided to go down the name-calling route instead without posting any evidence that shows the apparent/alleged error was intentional. It truly says something about your character and it definitely isn’t “elite.”
If said “elitists” truly wanted to control the outcome in SD16 they would have made their displeasure with Mark Olson’s candidacy known BEFORE the endorsing convention. To suggest that anyone should be precluded from having an opinion about the decision of the SD16 delegates runs counter to the Constitution.
The idea that Alison Krueger was chosen by a group of aggressive party elites is patently false. The only insider that influenced Alison was Senator Betsy Wergin when she asked Alison to run. I believe much of the SD16 displeasure with Betsy’s suggestion to run Alison was that Betsy didn’t clear it with the SD16 folks first. Considering Mark Olson supporters chilly regard for Senator Wergin it’s not hard to understand why she would make her suggestion independently.
The MNGOP had nothing to do with Alison Krueger’s candidacy. Ron Carey did show up and address the endorsing convention. But the state party organization did not recruit Alison nor did they promote her candidacy.
The best possible outcome for all of us would be if Mark Olson could clear his name legally and have the whole domestic flap removed from his record. Short of that, the left will use it against him evermore.
And everyone is welcome to their opinion.