Posted on 05/02/2010 7:19:31 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
By now, much has been written regarding the Republican endorsement of Tom Emmer for governor of Minnesota, not to mention the extraordinary grace of opponent Marty Seifert. The latter's leadership, even in defeat, galvanized delegates into a unified front. This stood in stark contrast to the Democrats, whose gubernatorial endorsement battle had, one week prior, dragged into the dark of night. Remarkable as that story is, there are others from the convention which, while lower in profile, are no less noteworthy.
Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, running for re-election this year, delivered an understated and (in this writer's opinion) under-appreciated speech urging his fellow Republicans to reach out to urban communities which Democrats have taken for granted. Stanek pointed out his previous campaign had been successful in Minneapolis, where citizens posted Stanek for Sheriff lawn signs alongside signs for Democrats. Stanek also listed members of his campaign staff, whose names had a distinctly non-European etymology.
Stanek's message unconsciously echoed that of black conservative Donald Allen, who held a meeting in North Minneapolis earlier in the month, sponsored by the Minnesota Tea Party Patriots. Allen recounted his efforts to encourage the Republican party to reach out to members of his community. Allen believes his neighbors are primed to consider alternatives to unfulfilled progressive promises.
I spent some time during the convention conversing with one of the private security officers contracted to monitor the convention floor, a local black man. He asked, "Who are these guys running for governor?" After entertaining a cursory description of Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert, he asked, "Are they actually gonna do something about jobs, or is this just more <expletive deleted>?" I spent the next forty-five minutes listening to the man's concerns, which ultimately boiled down to three - public safety, economic security, and education, in that order.
By public safety, the north Minneapolis resident meant not getting shot. "You got bullets flying with little babies running around. They need to shut that down. Where are the police?" He blamed the crime on a lack of gainful employment, inadequate education, and inconsistent community values.
As might be expected, the north Minneapolis resident tended to blame cuts in state funding for the problems he cited. However, I was able to solicit agreement that those in his neighborhood are better suited to control their own protection and education than politicians in St. Paul. "They don't care what happens here," he expounded. "Their house is in the suburbs." While conditioned to accept DFL talking points, it was clear this man's concerns and core values could be addressed from a conservative perspective. It is not the kind of task handled in forty-five minutes; but neither is reaping a crop. Such things take a season.
The highlight of Saturday's convention business, aside from an inspiring unity rally headed by Tom Emmer, was the endorsement of three outstanding judicial candidates. Greg Wersal is running for an open spot on the Minnesota Supreme Court. A studious and unassuming man, Wersal surprised delegates with an impassioned speech calling the body to join him in "saying yes to limited government."
Wersal is best known for his work as an attorney arguing The Republican Party of Minnesota v. White before the US Supreme Court in 2002, the outcome of which enabled challengers to run effective judicial campaigns in Minnesota.
By a vote of 5-4, the high court said [Minnesota's] well-intentioned ethics rule imposed an unconstitutional gag order. That rule banned judicial candidates from announcing their views on political and legal issues likely to come before the courtWriting for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the First Amendment does not permit Minnesota to have elections while preventing candidates from discussing what the elections are about.
A challenger has since defeated an incumbent judge in a Minnesota election. Now there is an effort in the state legislature to place an initiative on the November ballot which, if passed, would amend the state constitution to eliminate contested judicial elections and replace them with retention elections. This effort is insidious in a couple of ways. First, much like the recently publicized plan by the New Progressive Party in Puerto Rico to trick their electorate into voting for statehood by phrasing the question in an ambiguous manner (i.e. "Do you want to maintain the status quo?" as opposed to the more honest "Do you want to be a US state?"), the amendment question on the Minnesota ballot would be phrased to take advantage of voter ignorance. Expect something along the lines of, "Would you approve of an amendment to the state constitution making judicial elections more impartial?" or some such highly subjective, friendly-sounding, non-descriptive language.
The second way in which the push for retention elections is underhanded is the misrepresentation of its effect. Advocates say it somehow preserves the impartiality of the court, as if the only way judges come by partial views is through an electoral process. The effort is also cloaked in populist rhetoric, despite a plainly elitist intent. Minnesota State Bar Association President Leo Brisbois said, in a recent response to a legal blog:
It would be the ultimate public insult to our state’s electorate if a mere handful of individual legislators unduly influenced by a very few special interests who see influencing judicial elections as another way to advance their partisan, political agenda should be permitted to take this important decision away from all of the people of this state.
Brisbois's argument would seem to be adequate for dissolving the entire legislative body. If legislators are too "unduly influenced" to make this decision, how can they be trusted to make any? An appeal to the right of self-determination stands absurd next to what would result if retention elections became law; a commenter on the same blog explains, "If a judge is voted out of office [by retention election], or if a judge retires, then the nonpartisan citizens group [established by the new law] would forward a list of qualified potential replacements to the governor, who would appoint the replacement." So, in the interest of serving the people's capacity to "have a voice and a vote," we go from the people electing judges to the governor appointing them? We are meant to believe a body of several elected legislators is too "unduly influenced" to make a decision; meanwhile, one elected governor is immune to the same forces? Please. This is about the concentration and perpetuation of power, nothing else.
Regular readers of True North are familiar with the effort by Derek Brigham, Rick Weible, Mitch Berg, John LaPlante , and Jan Schneider to craft a new document distinct from the party platform which concisely articulates the "guiding principles and values" of the state party for prospective voters and activists. Given that the platform has ballooned to 13 pages of quirky details (i.e. "We support making the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program available annually in every Minnesota elementary school and middle school."), an alternative summary of what the party stands for is in order.
Having been adopted at the CD3 convention a few weeks prior, the Republican Guiding Principles and Values Statement came before the state convention on Saturday. There were vigorous arguments against the document which provoked reflection upon the entire platform building process.
One delegate rose to argue, "Principles are like posteriors. Everyone has them. None are good to look at other than your own. And God made it so we can never see ours." The line got a hearty laugh and some applause from the crowd; but I'm not sure how to derive anything meaningful from it. In point of fact, the principles articulated in the statement are universal to the party membership. Consider points 7-9:
7) The Pursuit of Happiness is essential to our existence; we support equal opportunities not equal results.8) Charity comes best from the heart of individuals and cannot be forced or coerced via taxation and regulation.
9) The law must be applied to everyone equally; no one is above the law.
Are these really statements of biometric specificity which no two people can share? I think not. I think they are pretty dead on representations of beliefs commonly expressed and acted upon by Republican candidates and public servants.
Many delegates seemed territorially indignant, expressing concern the platform was being usurped, or that something was being taken away from them. One rose to extol the virtues of the specificity in the platform (i.e. aforementioned Eddie Eagle language) as both representative of the grassroots and necessary for holding the party's elected officials accountable. These concerns seemed plainly unfounded. The document was clearly submitted as new and distinct from the platform. The grassroots, best represented in individual precinct caucuses, have their submitted resolutions thoroughly eviscerated by time the platform draft makes it to the convention floor. Finally, nothing binds any Republican elected official to abide by the party platform. In short, a platform is not legislation.
The statement was eventually adopted. The sun still shines.
“....urging his fellow Republicans to reach out to urban communities which Democrats have taken for granted.”
This is a must. There is NO area or group of voters we should write off. Conservative principles work for everybody except the moochers. Luckily there are still more producers than moochers and we need to find those people and convince them to vote for our side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.