Posted on 04/29/2010 3:20:50 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
What about Emmer? Is he a good guy? Is he better grounded than his primary challenger?
CHECK!
They’re both pretty good conservatives. I’ve always been a Seifert supporter. There has been some petty crap going on between the two recently, but it looks like they have gotten it out of their systems......
I’m just trying to keep tabs on what is going on. If both are good people, then I question why Sarah felt the need to step in and tell folks who she supported.
4/21/2010 10:36:33 PM
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Decades-old drunken driving charges against Republican Rep. Tom Emmer drew new attention and accusations of political mischief Wednesday in the Minnesota governor's race.
[ ... ]
The letter at issue was signed by Sandra Berg of Taylors Falls, but distributed at Seifert campaign expense. Berg disclosed in the letter that her husband and son were severely injured by a drunk driver last year and are still coping with the fallout.
She said fellow delegates need to be aware of Emmer's past and understand it could be used against him during a general election campaign.
"We all know that good people make mistakes, and that Tom Emmer's arrests were made some time ago," Berg wrote. "But to the Democrats, the liberal news media and left-wing bloggers who create and then spread 'news' for widespread circulation, that won't matter."
[ ... ]
"Sandra's letter provides factual information about a vital issue for the delegates to consider: the electability and credibility of candidates," Daudt said.
The letter details a bill Emmer sponsored in 2009 would have delayed license revocation and other administrative sanctions for suspected drunken drivers until a conviction or guilty plea. Now, a license is revoked for drivers who fail sobriety tests or refuse to submit to them. The bill stalled in committee.
An unsuccessful Emmer amendment to a different bill last year would have made DWI records private data after 10 years.
Seifert's campaign and the Berg letter said the changes would weaken state DWI deterrence. Berg told fellow Republican delegates the bill exposed "a potential political blind-spot and lack of self-awareness" by Emmer.
[ ... ]
See more at link ...
By ANDY BIRKEY 4/22/10 8:26 AM
A pair of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) citations ten years apart have come back to haunt the campaign of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer (pictured at left). On Wednesday, the campaign of Marty Seifert distributed a letter by Republican activist and state convention delegate Sandra Berg to delegates criticizing Emmer’s two DUIs. The Emmer campaign called the move an “October surprise.”
“We all know that good people make mistakes, and that Tom Emmer’s arrests were made some time ago,” Berg wrote. “But to the Democrats, the liberal news media and left-wing bloggers who create and then spread ‘news’ for widespread circulation, that won’t matter.”
Emmer’s campaign chair Rep. Mark Buesgens went after Seifert’s gubernatorial campaign.
“We’re all used to October surprises by the Democrats, but we never thought Marty would sink so low to launch this April surprise against a fellow Republican at the last minute before the convention,” said Buesgens. “The fact is that Tom has been upfront with delegates about this issue. They were the subject of a newspaper article last year, and Tom has been very forthcoming about his actions to anyone who asked.”
“Marty Seifert will do anything to win this nomination and he’s clearly more concerned about his own political future than he is about the well being of the Republican Party and our ticket,” said Buesgens. “We are confident delegates will see this desperate attack for what it is and join the Emmer campaign as we take the high road to victory. Perhaps Marty should read his own published code of ethics: ‘Any member of the Seifert for Governor team that engages in negative campaign tactics of a personal nature … will be fired.’”
Emmer also sent an email to campaign supporters.
Drinking and driving is unacceptable.
Like many, when I was young and stupid, I did young and stupid things. I have taken, and always will take responsibility for my mistakes. I was fortunate that I did not cause physical harm to my family or, God forbid, to another and their family. I have used my life experience to be not only an example but a teacher to my own children and anyone I come in contact with to learn from my experience.
I understand my colleague Marty Seifert and his desire to win at any cost, and I know that politics can be a contact sport for many. But even I have to say this attempt to smear my good name (in light of the fact that I have long been public with my past) reaches a new low and ignores the understanding and compassion for others in Minnesota who, after making the same mistake, have gone on to be some of the best leaders and teachers in this state.
I hope everyone, including Rep. Seifert and his political professionals, will keep in mind that it is not only what we have done in our life that matters – it’s what we’ve learned from it. In fact, I not only take full responsibility for my past, I believe it is all of my life experience that has prepared me to lead.
The Seifert campaign defended itself in a statement Wednesday:
“Republican activist and state convention delegate Sandra Bergs family was victimized by a drunk driver. As a result, she was moved to share important information with fellow Republican state convention delegates about Tom Emmers record: two past DWI arrests; his efforts in 2009 as a legislator to weaken the states DWI laws and cover up the fact he broke them; and not sharing this information when asked about a possible October surprise at a recent candidate forum. Sandras letter provides factual information about a vital issue for the delegates to consider: the electability and credibility of candidates. At her request, the Seifert campaign distributed her letter. While there is much in common between Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer on the issues, there are differences too. Marty will continue to run an issues-based, substantive campaign to lead Minnesota forward.”
And from Vote Smart ...
Campaign website biography ...
They’re both pretty good conservatives. I’ve always been a Seifert supporter. There has been some petty crap going on between the two recently, but it looks like they have gotten it out of their systems......
Maybe not yet ... See Post #7 ...
It was hot for a couple of days, but it has been pretty much been forgotten by the local media, for now......
Going back 20 years to dig up dirt on someone seems a bit below the belt to me. No, DWI is not an offense that I take lightly. I still question if this should be grounds twenty years later to deny a guy a public office. And if not, then why bring it up?
That fact is, he wasn’t convicted of DWI in 1991. Either the case wasn’t strong enough, or something else was at play here. And that means that this person went back nearly 30 years to find dirt on Emmer.
IMO, if you have to bring things like this up, then you’re not very confident of your own abilities, and the idea that the best person will win out at the polls.
If this guy has kept his record clean since his last DWI, I wouldn’t be inclined to deny him office.
I will add, I’m not convinced that in all cases a person should have their license taken away before trial. It would depend on their record. With priors, I would be a lot more inclined to.
If a person is driving safely, but is pulled over for a minor infraction, say elapsed tags or a light out, the officer could smell their breath and give them a field sobriety test. Failing that, the driver would be arrested.
I am not convinced a person with an offending blood alcohol level that was driving in a safe manner is as much of a threat as society deems them to be these days.
I’ve seen people with no alcohol drive terribly. I’ve seen people with too much alcohol drive very carefully.
Still, the law is the law. Working to keep people from drinking and driving is important. If this guy has been clean for nearly twenty or thirty years, I say let bygones be bygones.
I made some comments on this information above in post six.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2503402/posts?page=6#6
Here’s the trouble, as I see it, from what I read about it... he wanted to put through a bill that would have made his convictions, “private” after ten years... (and these were more than ten years ago)....
Now, the way I see it, he should have stayed as far away from a bill like that, as possible, because by pushing that kind of bill, it looks like he’s trying to benefit himself directly by this kind of legislation, with the idea in mind that he was going to be running for governor later on...
That’s not a good thing to have him doing that sort of thing ... at least, I don’t think so ...
Excuse me. I believe that was post 11. SAT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2503402/posts?page=11&11
If a person has kept their record clean for a full decade after a first offense, I’m not as inclined to disagree with clearing the slate.
On the one hand you have the guy supposedly doing himself a favor, and on the other hand you have a person with few scruples that shows why it might be a good idea.
If Emmers had done something in the last few years that the public wasn’t aware of, I would consider it of public interest to out him. This just seems like a data dump before an election to me.
I don’t particularly care for that type of politics.
Whew... all of my horses for one good link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2503402/posts?page=11#11
If Emmers had done something in the last few years that the public wasn’t aware of, I would consider it of public interest to out him. This just seems like a data dump before an election to me.
Well, before I go into that, let me say that I never heard of this guy before a few threads on Free Republic... so I don't have anything against him, politically, from before. I never heard of him.
And then secondly, I'm not voting in that election as I'm from another state, and it's far away from there. I hardly hear about any news from Minnesota.
But, having said that, and just talking in general ... I would prefer that stuff like this come out and be "dumped" on the public during the GOP fight, within its own camp -- because I can assure you that if it's not done then -- you'll hear about it during the general election, with the Democrats choosing a good time to dump it on the public...
So, I'm glad they did it now. And furthermore, even with them doing that now, you can still count on the Democrats bringing it up during the election (if he gets the GOP nomination) -- and they'll even be bringing up what i just said about him apparently trying tp push through legislation that would benefit his own DUI past.
At least now everyone can be prepared for what's going to be hammered on during the general election, if he gets the nod.
If the person thought it was germane, I would agree with getting the information out there a month or so before the election. It we’re talking about a week or less, it’s just a rotten thing to do.
Perhaps they are a month or so away from the Primary. I don’t know.
This is how I’ve seen it, and I do think there are rational arguments for the other vantage point.
I realize the Democrats will probably mention it. And if it’s public knowledge when they do, it’s better. I agree with you on that point.
I’m not inclined being all that crazy about a poltician who fashions leglislation to serve himself. They can really go hog wild on that path in the Congress if he ever gets that far.
If they are truly both conservative, unload the baggage no matter what Palin says. She might own him a favor like McCain.
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.