Thursday, December 9, 2010

On Losing: Lessons Learned

Tom Emmer conceded the governor's race in the cold of his front lawn in Delano yesterday. Running mate Annette Meeks was nowhere to be found. MC has been alarmed by the reaction of his hard core supporters, ie, those who got the endorsement for him, upon this denouement. Their rationalizations as to his loss are alarming for their continued political tone-deafness and unwillingness to examine the premises upon which they based their earnest support of this candidate. Precisely the wrong lessons are being learned, or spun, from this debacle (there is no other word) and MC is unable to continence them.

First, Minnesota's electoral system works just fine, thank you. Take your fraud allegations, your vapor-filled scenarios of Mark Ritchie's nefarious conduct and your desperate, wholly beside the point campaign for voter photo id and come back when you are serious about politics. By definition, that would mean wanting to win.

These allegations mystify MC and others. We are hardly soft on voter fraud. Did some felons vote previously who should not have? Yes. Is that voter fraud? Not as we understand the term. Did Mark Ritchie steal the election for Al Franken? No. How many times do we have to refer readers to Powerline and the writings of our friend Scott Johnson who analyzed the abject failure of Senator Coleman's exceptionally mediocre local attorneys who did so much damage that when real, national legal talent was brought in the damage could not be undone? MC is at a loss to explain the fetish with which some activists take after Mr. Ritchie. He's always struck us as perfectly average, the type of lesser talent who tops out in the position currently occupied. Why he should be imbued with real talent--albeit wicked--is beyond us and serves only to make him more important than he is in the state constitutional system.

Second, the media didn't drag Mark Dayton over the finish line. This narrative from the hard core is boring, actually. MC doesn't think the Minnesota media is all that tough (this *is* Minnesota, after all) and we can't really find any sustained mistreatment of our endorsed candidate. That he had lousy skills in dealing with them is his fault. Why can't that be said outloud? MC does fault the media and all three campaigns for endless debates. For those not born in Minnesota, as MC was not, there are at times things deeply weird about this state that those born here cannot perceive. We offer the earnest, rote, school-boy debates as a first but not only example.

Three, Minnesota isn't a Tea Party state but that section of the RPM more or less got Emmer the endorsement. A high school mentality reigned supreme in that faction at the convention and no amount of cold, rational argument could convince them of the downsides of their choice. In one sense, MC admires such passion and loyalty enormously and we mean no disrespect of any that in these comments. That said, we found it odd that the singular focus on being (far) right outweighed any studied consideration about the goal of the endorsement process: winning. More than once we were asked: Do you want a third Pawlenty term? To which we now say: well, do ya punk?

How does one talk sense to delegates elated by the endorsement of Tom Emmer by Sarah Palin? This is Minnesota, we emphasized. No matter. Such talk by MC was just so many wet blankets. We'll see, we were told. Indeed we did. Yet we haven't had any of the Emmer convention supporters contact us and say we were right. This is disconcerting. It shows a lack of learning anything from this--that word again--debacle. A poll released yesterday showed Palin's unfavorable rating in Minnesota at 60%. For those still in Emmer denial, that's a majority of the state's population. MC doubts it was much lower in late April when she delivered her hockey Mom loves hockey Dad endorsement. Hooky. If we see another hockey jersey it will be too soon.

Third, pick a running mate of your own choosing, not that of a fringe, single issue outdated group like MCCL's. MCCL, should you not know anything about Minnesota politics, is Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. Apparently this retrograde group vetoed the selection of former and now current Senator Linda Runbeck as Emmer's choice for Lieutanant Governor at the last moment. Her crime was only an 80% voting record on their scorecard. The RPM needs to leave such zealots behind and fast. Carry on in your futile effort to criminalize abortion: it will never happen again in America and MC would urge you to funnel your efforts to women in a crisis pregnancy, one-on-one. This is much more difficult than preening and feeling good about yourselves, playing king makers in Minnesota republican politics. It would also accomplish something, however. Annette and Tom were a match made in hell. Thanks, purity people for that dysfunctional ticket. MC thanks Annette Meeks, though, for going through with the arranged marriage. Her change yesterday in her Facebook avatar did not go unnoticed or, to our mind, unappreciated. In fact, we quite agree.

Fourth, reject players behind the scenes with agendas. MC would be looking at Vin Weber, our own insider and who, by rights, should be anathema to the Tea Party and anti-establishment types that at the convention got Emmer the endorsement. Does MC have to do *all* their thinking for them? Vin is the quintessential corpulant lobbyist trading for decades on his slender Congressional service. Apparently, because Tony Trimble was childhood friends with Vin and Jack Meeks he remains ensconced in the RPM providing 3rd tier legal advice. Lovely. Then there's Laura Brod, more spoken about than seen. May it remain ever thus. She trashed Marty Seifert to a degree none of his other detractors did. MC says no more about her, karma being what it is. Brian Sullivan stood insider-cheek-to-insider-cheek with Vin Weber in throwing his, um, weight to Emmer. He still can't be bothered to attend RPM state central committee meetings, understandably so. He'd float right away. Like Evie Axdahl, he needs to be fired and replaced with real people. MC has it own replacements in mind.

Fifth, don't nominate graceless people like Tom Emmer. Can the ur-base handle that? After the election results were announced, he vanished for a week. Would the purity people have put up with that from Marty Seifert? Of course not. Yet in this instance, they excused it, if they even admitted it. Do you know how tiresome you people have become? A good friend of MC's said before the endorsement that she didn't even know how to pronounce Marty's running mate's last name. That would be: @SivarajahMN Call me, Sue Jeffers, for pronunciation lessons. But kindly do not be proud of your ignorance in not being able to do so. It's just more of the nonsense MC fears in going ahead with republican candidates in 2012.

As for any of you who supported Emmer at the convention, we await your apology. MC told you but you persisted in your know-nothingness. When it comes to 2012, stay silent. We republicans who want to win can figure out a winning path on our own. With you Emmer supporters, we repeat what we just went through. You have nothing to offer our future except defeat.


Anonymous said...

Amazing that suddenly Sue Jeffers complained about not being able to pronounce @SivarajahMN's name since she seemed to be able to pronounce it when praising her as county commissioner on her radio show previously for stadium votes, etc. or when she was with Twin Cities Republican Association when they endorsed her for county commissioner. But that was then and she would not want to be reminded of the stadium discussion since her candidate did not support the taxpayers. Funny also that Laura Brod is not called a RINO when she supported public funding of a stadium along with the Dems. Guess she is a chameleon rather than a RINO.

Anonymous said...

You have a thing with Laura Brod, don't you...
I never saw any negative comments from her about Seifert at your comments about that are strange. Also, you seem to think that she was not around, but she was all over the state helping Republican candidates. I personally saw her helping legislative candidates in tight races across the entire state and she was active in the Governor's race as well. Brod is a team player and a key player in our party whether she runs for anything or not.

Besides, if you want to talk about where people were -- why are you not writing a blog post lamenting how your friend Seifert who after a gracious concession, he took his ball and went home and was nowhere to be seen during the Gubernatorial election and did nothing to help Emmer.

MikeWBL said...

MC is again spot on in their analysis.

An objective analysis can only conclude that we endorsed the wrong candidate. Emmer was defeated by a manic/depressive recovering alcoholic!

The polls at state convention time clearly indicated that Seifert would beat Dayton but Emmer would lose to Dayton. The only reason it was so close was Horner took DFL votes away from Dayton (KSTP election day poll).

The key lesson learned is that winnability is absolutely critical in a 55% Democrat and 45% Republican state.

Craig Westover said...

As a converted Emmer supporter at the convention (I originally supported Pat Anderson and still feel she would have been the best governor from either party), let me respond to your comments.

First, I agree the Minnesota electoral system played no role in the defeat. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it works just fine. As Atonin Scalia says “Government by unexpressed intent is … tyrannical,” and in its opinion, “unexpressed intent” is precisely the basis on which the Minnesota Supreme Court sought to resolve outdated election law promulgated by regulations generated by the Secretary of State. From a post-election perspective, the state party missed a golden opportunity to be the adult in the room by talking about fraud and personally attacking Mark Ritchie. Election credibility depends on two factors: voter integrity and turnout. Acceptance by the public of election results – winners and losers – depends on all people believing that no voters were disenfranchised and only eligible voters voted. Minnesota’s current system is weighted to turnout. Election reform is needed (including photo ID) that ensures only eligible voters vote, but any election reform of the process must also provide an assurance that people won’t be disenfranchised. The GOP can build a positive image by pushing the adult rather than the whiner position.

Second, I agree the media did not drag Mark Dayton over the finish line, but it certainly did not help Tom. I also agree and will say, and have said, that his campaign and the party did not do a good job dealing with the press. The Minnesota GOP regards the press as the enemy. We give them sound bites without substance. Let me say here that one very good reason to do that is that is what the press wants. Pat Anderson’s campaign was based on substance. A year before the election Pat was putting out “365 days 365 ways to a better Minnesota and had put out more budget and policy proposals than any of the candidates had by the final weeks of the campaign. Politics in Minnesota took note of substantive nature of Pat’s website. The Pioneer Press singled Pat’s campaign out for framing the election issues. Unfortunately that kind of coverage was the exception, not the rule. The point being, the press wants sound bites and conflict more than substance – unless it doesn’t, and then it complains. Nonetheless, Tom’s campaign didn’t provide a lot of substance and the party machine provided plenty of ammunition to paint the GOP in a negative light.

Let me add that I do believe the media hurt us in the campaign, but it was a harm the party earned. The Minnesota GOP has a negative brand and we have no political capital to overcome gaffs. Tom was smeared in the campaign, but that’s politics. The GOP makes it too easy to believe every bad thing said about its candidates by constantly focusing on the negative and personal attacks. It is noteworthy that we won the local retail races where people could meet our candidates one-on-one; we lost every statewide race where party brand was important. In turns of image, Tom started way behind, and I will give you that his campaign did not do enough to preempt letting the opposition frame him. Part of the problem might have been money.


Craig Westover said...

Your Tea Party comments cloud the real issue – at least for me – and that is just how far should the party compromise principle for victory? As I wrote in True North Post “Why I am supporting Tom Emmer” I found Tom to be a man of integrity with a firm set of core principles. I disagreed in some cases with how he acted on those principles; I did not support his vote of the sales tax referendum for the stadium, for example, but his explanation for that vote had a firm conservative rationale. Marty on the other hand justified his vote for terrible energy legislation by saying he knew it was wrong but the governor wanted it and he voted for it to support the governor. When given a choice between right and wrong, he chose “wrong.” Some might find that loyalty praiseworthy. For me it was a deal breaker. It was compromise I could not abide. I also found the negative campaigning against Tom to be more of the same old GOP style that gives the party a bad brand. I felt that Tom’s style gave a better image of conservative principles. I wanted to win, but I wanted to win in the right way.

To your point about Sarah Palin – any endorsement is a two-edged sword. It will rally some and alienate others. The same, if I can jump ahead to your discussion of Annette Meeks as running mate, can be said of choosing a running mate; it will excite some and turn off others. A problem, not necessarily a bad one, is that the Minnesota GOP delegates one must campaign among to win the nomination is not, as you point out, representative of Minnesota. Again, speaking to my experience with Pat Anderson’s campaign, she would have made a much better general election candidate than she was a candidate for the nomination. Pat is as much the real deal as anyone I have met in politics, but in all honesty, even she had to tip-toe around some issues and pressures from gubernatorial campaigns after she switched to the auditor’s race to be acceptable to the party activists. I think Tom ran into the same problem once he won the nomination. He won the nomination his way and assumed he could run the general election his way. He found that he couldn’t. His personal style didn’t translate into running a campaign organization. When he turned to the old guard campaign people, his campaign became far more efficient, but it lost some of the spontaneity and the strength of Tom’s personality. Personally, I was very proud of Tom throughout the campaign and especially so in the final days leading up to the election. He stayed true to his message and I think Minnesota will be better off than had we ran a candidate with a less sincere but “winning” message. I think that covers your third and fourth points.

Fifth, I said I was proud of Tom throughout the campaign and after. I could write off some of his action by saying “that’s Tom being Tom,” but it’s deeper than that. You’re not going to find Tom Emmer doing what he’s supposed to do because other people think it’s what he’s supposed to do. I find that an admirable quality but not altogether convenient and certainly frustrating for those trying to run a traditional campaign. Deal with it. At its core, Tom’s behavior is a fundamental honesty that I hope he never loses.

I feel no need to apologize for supporting Tom Emmer. I will apply the same criteria in looking at 2012 candidates as I did in judging Tom. If I have a suggestion it is that all of us in the party take a good hard look at the image of the party as a whole rather than invest all our hopes in a candidate that can, by strength of personality, make us winners. An “R” after a candidate’s name should be a positive, not a negative.

Anonymous said...

The sad reality is that Emmer ran a lousy campaign.

At the time of the GOP state convention, he had raised about the same amount of money that 5th-tier DFL candidate Tom Ruvavina had raised.

Without money, Emmer was off the air all summer long. Meanwhile, ABM was slamming him and, in the process, defining him on the TV airwaves as not only a drunk driver but a self-serving one to boot. While Emmer effectively rebutted that line of attack by Seifert prior to the GOP state convention, he never responded to the ABM’s attack. His silence was both defeaning and problematic.

To compound Emmer’s problem, he screwed up on a slow news day in July. Hoping to take advantage of the long July 4th holiday, Emmer held his now famous “$100,000 waiter” press conference in Saint Paul. I was there with others and our mouths dropped at the stupidity of it all. Even the Emmer convention supporters were astounded.

By the time Emmer had moved to turn thing around by bringing in the [here, the purity people should stop reading and avert their eyese to prevent eye glare damage and/or damage to their political sensibilities] the "neo-cons" from Norm Coleman’s campaign, the damage was done.

It was liking getting grades of straight “F” for half the semester and then hoping to get enough good grades to get on the honor roll. The hole had been dug and it was too deep for Emmer to emerge.

Emmer, as MC notes, was a "flawed candidate". That he ran a flawed campaign should be no surprise. We (meaning many of us Seifert supporters) predicted that.

Anonymous said...

To those trashing Seifert for not helping Emmer...The Emmer campaign NEVER, I repeat, NEVER reached out to Seifert after the convention. Who's fault?

Anonymous said...

Funny that some of the Emmer supporters are now going to lecture and admonish Seifert about being a "team player" -- when Tom Emmer and Mark Bueskens boycotted the Republican caucus when Seifert was leader. Talk about taking your toys and going home. The reality here is that the lines of attack on Emmer leading up to the state convention were proven to be true: he didn't have a professional and competent campaign staff (exhibited by bungled staff response to tip credit fiasco), he couldn't raise money (exhibited by no money to respond to drunk driving ad), he was a loose cannon (exhibited by 100 thousand dollar waiter comment), and would not be able to win over Independents and conservative Dems (exhibited by election results).

The hard facts are Emmer couldn't win in a historic year for Republicans against an extremely weak candidate in Mark Dayton. Emmer may be a good guy but he should never be a statewide candidate again for the GOP in Minnesota (though he might sell well in Pallin's Alaska or in Cheney's Wyoming).

Anonymous said...

Some Emmer supporters say that the liberal outside groups would have spent the same amount of money attacking Marty Seefert, Pat Anderson, David Hann, or any other GOP candidate. I agree with that assertion. (look at 2006 -- I think the dem groups outspent Pawlenty by a larger margin than this year, 3 to 1 maybe)

The bigger point is that Emmer came to the race with great baggage (controversial votes and statements, drunk driving legislation, etc) and his early campaign structure was not prepared to deal with issues that came up and was not prepared to help Emmer raise the necessary money. All these things were brought up during the endorsement but Emmer koolade drinkers decided they didn't matter.

Once Emmer was endorsed the money that was dumped on his head was much more effective than it would have been versus pretty much any other candidate who had less baggage and was prepared to run statewide.

MikeWBL said...

Laura Brod can easily defend herself.

Laura is one fantastic conservative Republican who has a great future ahead of her as candidate for Governor (after we experience the Dayton disaster!), as candidate for US House or as US Senate (Laura would easily defeat Al Frankin!).

Laura was one of the most approachable Reps in the MN House and held her own against everything the DFL through at her. I especially enjoyed working with Laura on common sense property tax reform that the DFL blocked in committee and the DFL voted against floor amendments offered by Laura Brod.

Laura represented the poor, the unemployed, the seniors, etc. by offering a property tax limit of 6% of household income. Once again, shame on the DFL for forcing people to pay 10,20 or 30% of their income on property taxes if they lived in their homes for 30, 40 or 50 years!

Anonymous said...

Why is it that everytime the GOP faces a recount, we hire the law firm of Stumble, Fumble & Grumble to represent us?

Anonymous said...

Tell you what. I am not in a position to offer the apology you seek , since I went into the convention a strong Seifert supporter. I came OUT of the convention a strong Emmer supporter, however, and I won't apologize for that unless those who didn't would care to apologize to Minnesota for the harm that will befall us all. Imagine if the legislature had turned out differently!

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

Maybe the only reason Laura Brod supported Emmer was because she was unable to run for governor due to health concerns and was happy to support someone who would lose so she could run in 4 years. After all, it is all about Laura. She talks a good game but if you look at her voting record she is a RINO. She is running around promoting herself to run against Klobuchar--a race she will surely lose. Go for it Laura so the GOP can be done with you.

MikeWBL said...

It is clear that you do not know Laura Brod, her district or her voting record. Laura scored 87 by the Taxpayers League of MN. This is very high for a district like she was in.

Laura should run against either Franken or run against Dayton. She would do very well against bozo the clown & against rainmaker.

Let's start talking about Klobuchar's voting record. That is why she can be defeated in 2012.

rsbarc011 said...

I live in Northeast Minnesota. My wife and I saw a countless number of Dayton ads. However, we did not see one Emmer ad. I mean we did not see one Emmer ad. You can not win an election when you do not advertise your candidate. I was very disappointed with the way this campaign was run. I was upset with the Republican Party for it's lack of support.

The response that Seifert did not come out and support Emmer because he did not ask for it is an immature, grade school mentality excuse. I heard this excuse from my kids and I will tell you the same thing I told my kids. You should not have to be asked to help some one just drop the pride and selfishness and step in and help. This response revealed to me why the Republicans are not in the Governors office. Everyone for themselves. It screams "If I do not win you can forget about my help." Stop acting like Democrats. If Republicans want to win it will have to be as a united party with everyone pitching in to help.

All this post is doing is crying in the beer. For "PETE SAKE" grow up and let's focus on what can we do to put a Republican in the governors office next election.

Anonymous said...

Just a moment to face reality:

Emmer was simply a bad candidate. The first three ads run by the liberals: Emmer's drunk driving (even though Emmer's supporters said it was "common knowledge" at the convention, after losing the general election, they said voters only knew because Seifert's supporters released it! Can't have it both ways); Emmer missing hundreds of votes in the legislature (campaigning instead of doing his job)and the infamous $100k waitress comments). None of these ads could have been used against Seifert, nor Pat Anderson, nor Kohls, nor Hann or even Leslie Davis(I'd note Seifert had a clean record, perfect attendance in legislature and smart enough not to stumble on silly comments about waiteresses).

Several County GOP Chairs told me at State Central that Seifert did have great things to in speeches to say about Emmer at several party events in the summer. However, Seifert got a Foundation Director job mid through the election and was not allowed by his Board to campaign for anyone, including his successor in the House. Ask his local party chair about it. Stop the "blame Marty" parade for goodness sakes! Since Emmer stormed from the GOP caucus after losing, you can imagine how he would have acted if he had lost the endorsement.

It's hard to believe that a raspy-voiced bar maid is a leader in our party. She runs against our GOP incumbent Governor in a primary in 2006. What would people of her ilk say if David Hann, Paul Kohls, Marty Seifert or Pat Anderson had done so this year against Emmer?

I've had delegates who supported Emmer wish they could hit the re-set button. One friend said she loved the 7 kids and the hockey background! She now wonders what in the world she was thinking. She was a Hann supporter and switched to Emmer, even though Hann told her he couldn't win.

Do any "original" Emmer supporters realize they got a chameleon candidate? Against ethanol subsides at convention and for them at FarmFest? Against the political subsidy program before the convention and signing up for them quietly the day before the deadline? Rejecting "pork projects" before the convention, but for the St. Cloud Civic Center funding at a debate in St. Coud? Against rail funding before convention but "considering it" when in Rochester? Honesty anyone?

Craig Westover doesn't like Seifert's vote/rationale on one vote, the same as 75% of the House GOP and Governor Pawlenty. Will you be so critical of Laura Brod, who cast the exact same votes when she shows up for an endoresment? No, I didn't think so. It's obvious that Westover, like many of the Emmerites simply don't like Seifert, for whatever reason they need to explain more than always rationalizing Emmer's dumb comments and votes while denouncing almost anything other candidates have done.

It's also funny that Norm Coleman and Vin Weber slunk around the convention for Emmer. Had they backed Seifert or anyone other than Emmer, his people would have said, "See! I knew that candidate was a RINO because Norm and Vin are for him/her!" It's ok, because they were for Emmer (wink).

I still have the button that says "We want to WIN in NOVEMBER" from Seifert's campaign. Too bad no one paid attention while they had a chance.

Let's face it folks: we lost to the worst, most horrific candidate for statewide office in the country this year while it was the most favorable environment for Republicans at any time in modern history. It wasn't the media, Mark Dayton's appeal, voter fraud or whatever rationalizing your are trying to do. Simply put, we ran the wrong candidate.

Anonymous said...

And yet the DFL ran the "worst candidate... in the country"? How can you say the GOP ran the wrong candidate, and the DFL did not? Saying we ran the wrong candidate is simply wrong and worse, it's trying to avoid the lessons we can and ought to learn.

Tom Emmer won the nomination fair and square; my guy Seifert didn't. From there on, what should we have done differently? ANY candidate backed by a united GOP should have beaten Dayton like a rented mule/jackass. It sounds as if, from this discussion, that it is as simple as not having a united GOP, and you have only yourselves to blame.

Let's not fret over the last war; let's learn something for the next one.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

Is it true what I've been told that Sue Jeffer's is running for the MNGOP Chair?

MikeWBL said...


Please say it isn't so that Sue Jeffer's is running for anything! She has been the kiss of death for most candidates that she has supported.

Anonymous said...

Tom Emmer lost by just 8,770 votes... That’s just over 2 votes per precinct. Even in MN, the only state that voted for Mondale over Reagan in 1984, we were only 8,770 votes out of 3,128,795 from having an unabashed Conservative Republican Governor. That’s why I will continue to support the nomination of future conservative gubernatorial candidates.

The GOP could have sealed the gubernatorial win if any number of things happened differently.

1) Marty Seifert could have helped raise money and stumped for our endorsed candidate. That would have guaranteed a slam dunk win for the GOP.

2) More GOP members who did not support Emmer in the endorsement could have jumped on board instead of trying to be proven right by pouting and refusing to work together to achieve our common goal of a GOP win!

3) At the very least, those who did not support the Emmer endorsement could have kept their mouths shut instead of ripping on Emmer and his campaign (e.g. MC). Those negative actions by GOP insiders created more negativity and surely made raising money more difficult. Once again, we are our own worst enemies!

4) Yes, the campaign could have gone better but what campaign goes perfectly?

For Republicans who prefer to back more moderate "electable" candidates, you need only consider the predicament of the Pawlenty campaign near the end of his re-election bid. Pawlenty, was in deep trouble in 2006 before a huge gaff by the Hatch campaign gave the Republicans a victory. Tom Emmer’s campaign was one small gaff by the Dayton camp from victory.

Just imagine what might have been, if we Republicans would have circled the wagons after the endorsement process and hung together. We could have run the table. A majority in the house and senate with a Republican governor would have allowed us to control the redistricting process. We could have changed Minnesota politics for a generation. As it is we have only ourselves to blame for this lost opportunity.

John Hugh Gilmore said...

MC appreciates the comments from a person well known to it. The identity will not be revealed. Anyone can choose to remain anonymous. MC wishes this person had chosen to reveal their identity but that was their call. Two responses:

1. Marty Seifert was not at any time asked by the Tom Emmer campaign to do anything at all. Nothing. Zip. Yet this, this!, is the first comment made as the reason Emmer lost the race for governor. The fact Emmer ran a far right, incoherent campaign is not mentioned.

1.5 Readers may not know that when Seifert was being elected as Minority Leader in the House Tom Emmer several times "passed" when asked for his vote. Eventually, he left the floor altogether rather than vote for or against Seifert. This is a leader? No, this is a man child. Perfectly in keeping with the man who went underground after losing the governorship in an election GOP landslide and did not appear in public for over a week. Does one need any more evidence about the lack of character of this blowhard?

2. Points 2 & 3 are combined here, given that MC is somehow singled out as contributing to Emmer's loss.

Do readers notice that the commentator never once addresses the lousy campaign Emmer ran? Saying no campaign is perfect doesn't count.

MC wanted Emmer to win. MC is who it is: vote Republican. The commentator blames MC for saying what everyone else but the tone-deaf staff new: Emmer was blowing it.

It doesn't occur to the commentator to think that if MC wanted Emmer to lose, it would have stayed silent

3. MC has no time with this blinkered fool who thinks the Pawlenty analogy has any traction. It was this very same person who said to MC on the floor of the convention: do you want a third Pawlenty term? To which MC said: It beats a Dayton first term. Q.E.D.

4. MC needs not this commentator to imagine what could have been. That's why we were for Marty Seifert who would now be governor.

MC hopes the commentator posts again, this time with an apology for backing a lousy candidate you could not see through but MC did.

And now this idiot wants to run for the RNC?

Anonymous said...

There is no shame in losing, if you can honestly assess your own performance and say that you prepared well, put your best game on the field, and did all you could to win. On the other hand, a close defeat in a big game is always a very bitter pill to swallow, especially for those members of the team who know in their hearts, that they failed their teammates.

Unfortunately, the team members who showed up and left it all on the field, will for all eternity, have to sit in the bar, or attend the reunion, and listen to the bitter excuses of those who let them down. Every time the big game is discussed forever more, it’s those teammates that can’t get over it and want everybody to hear their excuses. Worse yet, is those team members who never even got in the game trying to sound like they know something about how or why it was lost.

Tom Emmer lost because just enough of his teammates (Republicans, and others on the conservative side of the political spectrum) bailed on him and let him down. It’s unfortunate that Tom and those who stood with him and fought hard for a victory will have to listen to the incessant whining of those who let the team down. I guess that’s just one of the burdens of leadership. We missed a golden opportunity because we didn’t hang together.
“As always, victory finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan.” Galeazzo Ciano (Italian politician)

Anonymous said...

There is no shame in losing, if you can honestly assess your own performance and say that you prepared well, put your best game on the field, and did all you could to win. On the other hand, a close defeat in a big game is always a very bitter pill to swallow, especially for those members of the team who know in their hearts, that they failed their teammates.
Unfortunately, the team members who showed up and left it all on the field, will for all eternity, have to sit in the bar, or attend the reunion, and listen to the bitter excuses of those who let them down. Every time the big game is discussed forever more, it’s those teammates that can’t get over it and want everybody to hear their excuses. Worse yet, is those team members who never even got in the game trying to sound like they know something about how or why it was lost.
Tom Emmer lost because just enough of his teammates (Republicans, and others on the conservative side of the political spectrum) bailed on him and let him down. It’s unfortunate that Tom and those who stood with him and fought hard for a victory will have to listen to the incessant whining of those who let the team down. I guess that’s just one of the burdens of leadership. We missed a golden opportunity because we didn’t hang together.
“As always, victory finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan.” Galeazzo Ciano (Italian politician)