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.

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.”

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.

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.

Then again, I could be wrong. Don’t tell anyone, but I actually have been…

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.