Friday, May 29, 2009


MC has been greatly amused by the wide range of reactions to the mere posting of some State Central delegates email addresses less than 24 hours ago. Some applauded, seeing, correctly, that the posting was meant to break the back of the few party hacks who hand out the list to favored allies. Those hacks also prevent other State Central delegates from contacting each other. Why do we allow this to happen? Others saw the logic but suggested posting in ways that prevented spam bots from harvesting them; these people were MC's favorite because they both "got it" but wanted to minimize any downsides. Last were the over the top anal-retentive types MC fully expects to see as walk-ons in the sequel to "Fargo." Good grief people: get over yourselves. You're not that important and if a stray spam email ruins your day you might want to think about getting a life.

Lessons from email gate (a friend of MC sent an email in which someone had characterized this flap as such; doesn't take much in a moribund Minnesota Republican Party, does it?):

1. Your email is not private. Emails are given out routinely but usually to the favored few. This is what was at stake when MC posted the emails.

2. Why does it take a mistake by a candidate for Deputy Chair to have people realize how difficult it is for us to talk to each other? What is wrong with us that we find that normal?

3. The email list of State Central delegates and alternates is NOT a trade secret no matter how pathetically the current leadership may try to assert that in order to bully critics into silence. MC was threatened with just such a lawsuit merely for contacting them! We stood them down and no lawsuit was commenced (pity: think of the video depositions we would have posted here!). So forgive us if we think the spam whiners strike us as, well, whiners. We understand the point but many were creepily baby-ish about it. Back under your rocks with you!

4. If you do not want to be contacted by other Minnesota Republicans you should not be a delegate or an alternate. What's the point? To bark on cue from the Old Guard? We've had quite enough of that, thank you.

5. What will be done about the State Central Committee staying in touch with itself when we meet June 13th? MC does not think itself crazy for wanting elemental democracy in our party. We can both protect the super-sensitive types while allowing contact amongst the rest of us.

6. The email addresses in the post below have been deleted. We have distributed them to enough people that State Central delegates may actually be contacted by activists. Scary!

7. Commence feeling foolish. You know who you are.


patriot said...

Well done John and Barbara!!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for removing the email addresses from the posting. I look forward to hearing from and communicating with my fellow delegates now, and after the June 13th convention.

David J. Hallman said...

What a lot of garbage. You shouldn't have posted the e-mails. It is a privacy issue. If you want the e-mail available to all then make a motion at state central or the convention to let everyone decide if they want that information given out. Then those that post their e-mails will have the choice to opt-out or use a different e-mail address. I am a BPOU and Senate District Chair and I use an e-mail for only BPOU/SD business. When the e-mails were collected of state central delegates people were told that the addresses would be safeguarded and only given out to candidates, etc. It is not your moral or ethical right to distribute them. You are acting like a liberal who thinks that only their opinion matters and that they can walk over others right because they have a higher purpose. Discretion is the better part of valor. God Bless!

Anonymous said...

For me you succeeded in one other area, I will start reading you blog now to see if you make other meaningless points at the expense of the "good guys". Sure the emails are public info but folks still dont appreciate them getting blasted all over the net. The "bad guys" I'm sure read this and unlike you they will use the information to further their cause at a meaningful level. Are you another "activist" unhappy about the way the state party treats you? Sure, lots of room for improvement but first how about clear messages about our positions (can u tell me in an "elevator speech" what our position is on healthcare?), candidates who follow anything resembling our platform, volunteers who acutally would pound a sign or two vs yelling at the TV, and some unity and collaboration amongst the various interest groups (ie Ron Paul folks, pro-gun, pro-lifd, and yes even centrist republicans)...for God sakes I dont even agree with my wife 100% of the time..why should that be our std....nothing personal but your publishing of the emails bugged me

Nathan M. Hansen said...

The heart of neoconservatism (rife on this blog, see "Islamofascist" post, supra) is communism (Ron Paul on the communist roots of "neoconservatism": Consistent with this philosophy of socialism and communism, the authors of this blog have misappropriated private property that did not belong to them.

While I agree there could likely be an electronic ability to securely login and communicate with other members of state central (of which I am a member), this neoconservative/communist conversion of this property was untoward, precipitant, and otherwise not consistent with bolstering the integrity and strength of our party.

These lists posted publically make them largely useless. It takes a lot of money and resources to develop and maintain these lists, and they need to be protected.

Email addresses in an of themselves are not private, but the collection of them, when carefully collected and kept private, can be considered a trade secret. The law protects trade secrets. Lists are assets. If everyone has the list, as in the neoconservative communist utopia envisioned by the authors of this blog, then they are worthless. Would DFLers like to spam our lists? You bet there would be that element in that party who are probably going to do so already as a result of these actions.

It does not appear that you "stood them down" in this case, as you have now removed them.

Jamie said...

The 400 delegates themselves should have the list of 400 delegates. That should be an agenda item in June. At another level of data privacy, the 4-7 thousand BPOU officers (I'm 65B VC with John as Chair) should also be able to communicate by email with delegates before the SCC convention. That also should be on the agenda as a separate item as well as any other levels contemplated. John should not have posted the emails. Responsible data handling is central to any organization.

Malzacher/Gilmore said...

Ah, a Kool-Aid drinker post at last. MC can't believe its good fortune in being called BOTH neoconservative (read Jews!) and communists. This post has made our day.

We are a target because we have been labeled Neocons. And Dr. Paul doesn't like them; ergo his supporters (or some) don't either. MC admits life can be easier when someone else does your thinking for you. Yes yes, we know, we've heard it all before: we outsourced ours to Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, and the rest of the Jewish cabal.

We tire of Ron Paul (so wrong on Iraq) and *some* of his followers even though we were supportive of them having a voice and presence in the party, both at the state convention as well as national. Inclusion does not mean agreement. It does mean a healthy but respectful debate over ideas.

Sadly, our friend Nate makes his debut comment here by calling us names. It is not condescension on our part when we say we simply don't have time for such childishness.

Substantively, the email list previously posted here has NEVER been treated in a manner consistent with a trade secret. Nate surely must know that it has been used by current party leadership to favor allies and punish critics. He never addresses this point in his response. Contrary to his Carey/Sutton talking points, it takes almost zero money to generate and maintain this list. To claim that making them public makes them useless is to insult our intelligence. MC knew what it was doing when it put a graphic of Alice in Wonderland at the top of this post.

Oh, and Nate, the DFL already has our lists. MC knows this firsthand but let's keep that between us; people feel special if they are fooled into thinking they are part of something secret. Da Vinci Code for Republicans!

The very worst outcome of transparency, from what we can glean from Nate's comment, is that the DFL might spam us. Oh the humanity! We don't want to pick on Nate in this regard as we heard from other whiners as well. Our response to them all, though, is the same: grow a pair.

Here, however, is what MC does not understand:

Ron Carey, Tony Sutton, hop along Darren and other current leadership (Brian Sullivan, Evie Axdahl etc etc) were thugs fit for Chicago in their conduct toward Ron Paul supporters at the state convention and, to a lesser degree, the national convention. MC knows: it was at both and saw such conduct firsthand. Ron Paul supporters, of which, putatively, Nate is one, know this as well.

Though he leads with quoting Dr. Paul, Nate never tells the reader that he recently endorsed

1. Tony Sutton

2. Michael Brodkorb.

We assume when he's told by the old guard whom to support for secretary/treasurer MC will get another endorsement letter in its email inbox. Unless, of course, by hocus pocus it is deemed a trade secret.

Last, with attention to detail and degree of logic from the the Tony "I lost Norm's senate seat for him" Trimble school of law, Nate claims MC didn't stand down the hacks. MC could never teach because we don't have patience in the face of such sloppiness.

MC contacted state central delegates using emails that had come into our possession. MC received a certified letter from, yes!, Tony Trimble threatening a lawsuit and demanding we contact him and return all lists. MC did contact said office. MC never heard from legal counsel for RPM (can we review how legal work is ladled out at the State Central meeting?). The old guard even went after the job of a friend of MC's who used the same list. Stay classy, you thugs.

We posted about the insanity here:

This was the stand down mentioned above.

We are amused that an ersatz Ron Paul supporter has openly endorsed his persecutors and claims, somehow, MC lacks the moxy to challenge the established order. We date ourselves when we recall that old cigarette ad about fighting rather than switching.

We trust our readers to figure out who remains fighting and who has switched. As to the motives for switching, MC never overstates the obvious.

Nathan M. Hansen said...

Childish? I refrained from ad-hominems (e.g., "Kool-aid drinker"). Neoconservatives made that name for themselves. This pernicious and dangerous ideology must be identified and stamped out. Endless war, order out of chaos, and the monopoly of power of the state are all anathema to Republican principles.

Join in an attack on Iran? Sounds like a scam to me. How many more people have to die or be maimed by this evil ideology?

Why don't you suit up and join the IDF like Rahm Emmanuel Mr. Gilmore? If they would have you, are you willing to match your words to actions?

patriot said...

I want to know if everone who has ever shared this list or previous delegate lists received the same threat from RPMs lawyers? Or is it ok if one of the current executive committee members has shared it with whomever they pick and choose. Are they exempt?

MikeWBL said...

I am VERY surprised by some of the postings. The "new guard" ran to replace the secretive, highly controlling, etc. "old guard" and we won!

We ran to put transparency, freedom and liberty into our BPOUs, our CDs and yes even in the RPM! Ron Carey and Tony Sutton stopped Craig Westover, et al from getting the lists of State Central Committee delegates this past week! Dorothy Fleming made this motion but the “Old Guard” voted to table it. The MN Republican Party will repeat our recent losses until we start the free flow of information and start working together to get 1+1=3!

Conservative has the root word “conserve”. Contrary to a previous posting, we conservatives want to conserve and preserve the freedom and liberty contained in our Constitution as well as in the values and principles of our Founding Fathers.

I look forward to our 6/13 State Central Committee meeting. I will fully support a motion to have information on our BPOU leadership, our CD leadership, the RPM leadership and the State Party Office staff openly shared within our Party. To do otherwise is to support the RPM “Old Guard’s” secretive, closed, authoritarian and highly controlling policies of the past. These old school policies are at the heart of our recent losses and are at the heart of the Democrat’s recent wins and Team Obama’s win.

Malzacher/Gilmore said...

MC thanks Nate for his response. Why aren't we surprised it all comes down to Israel, again?

No apologies here for standing up for freedom and helping other people gain theirs. This type of thinking would have the USSR with us to this day.

Thank you but no.

MikeWBL said...

Nathan: Quite simply you, my friend, are just pissing into the wind. You started with the ad-homonyms by referring to conservatives that value freedom, liberty and the Constitution as neoconservatives.

Only liberal lefties in the Democratic Party use the term neoconservatives in an attempt to define the Republican Party. I have NEVER heard a fellow Republican call a conservative Republican a neoconservative. Your posts make me question your true Republican/Libertarian values and principles.

You should aim your piss and vinegar at the liberal left Democrats who have tried to define us and who are ruining this country in Congress and now in the White House.


Drew Emmer said...

You lost me with "neoconservatives"

Drew Emmer said...

Thank you for discussing this important issue. Those who work for our cause should not only be free to, but encouraged to, confab with their peers. Get it on the agenda and let's find a way to open up the process to foster more communication and cooperation.

Imagine if we actually became friends. (I would settle for acquaintances).