Invocations: Senator Terri Bonoff Is Correct

Earlier this week a Baptist pastor gave the invocation which opened the republican controlled Minnesota Senate in which he asked the assembled elected officials to do their work exclusively through and in the name of Jesus Christ. The pastor also proclaimed that no one (apparently referring to more than just the assembled public officials) can know God except through Jesus Christ. The invocation lasted slightly less than two minutes and can be viewed HERE. This is standard fare for believing Christians of a wide variety when gathered together in church or otherwise.

The Minnesota Senate being neither, democratic State Senator Terri Bonoff rose afterwords and objected to the extremely narrow--and exclusive--nature of the prayer. As a practicing Jew, Sen. Bonoff could hardly be expected to sign off on the fundamentals proffered by this Baptist pastor nor do her duty to her constituents under those auspices. Why should she? She asked that in the future invocations be less religiously sectarian and more generic or inclusive in nature. The senator is correct.

Regrettably, some in the Minnesota Republican Party have attempted to make political hay over something which should be simple religious decency. MC restrains itself from discussing why there are prayers in the first place at the opening of a public session of government. Tweets about "banning" or wanting to "prevent Jesus Christ" from being mentioned are unworthy of our party. A FOX News article titled "Democrat: Ban Jesus Prayers" is disgraceful. One could be forgiven for thinking that Sen. Bonoff called for invocations to be eliminated. She didn't.

According to the AP as published in the StarTribune, Bonoff simply asked that Senate tradition be observed once more. Visitors who give invocations are asked in a "letter given to [them] by the Secretary of the Senate . . . .'In an effort to be respectful of the religious diversity of our membership (Christian, Jewish and possibly others among them), we request that your prayer be interfaith and nonsectarian.'" The problem with this is what, precisely? Rather than deal with the merits of her understandable request, the basest of political hay is made.

In that same article (which can be read HERE), Sen. David Brown, R-Becker, observed that invocators come from specific belief systems. "I believe we don't have the right to censor their prayers." This is either willfully demagogic or deeply ignorant. The framing of the issue in this way betrays a base political prism (and not a terribly sophisticated one at that) through which religious pluralism is transmuted into opportunism. Mr. Theology went on to say that "there just seems to be intolerance for the name of Jesus on the Senate floor." What on earth is his name doing there in the first place? Moreover, MC is confident that that name is taken in vain daily during Senate doings and mostly by his followers. Preferring not to be beseeched to do one's legislative duties when one does not believe in him is not being intolerant of Jesus. Must this even be said?

Finally, Sen. Brown opined that "[t]here's nobody that loves the Jews any more than the Christians, so that was not meant as an insult or disrespect." Of course. And pork is delicious too, if only they tried it! But MC and Jews misunderstand, apparently. Said Brown: "Rather, it was a show of respect to Jesus Christ — just like our founders showed respect to Jesus Christ and the word of God when they built our Constitution." Someone is watching too much Glenn Beck. MC fears for Sen. Brown's psyche should he ever learn of The Jefferson Bible. Hint: go HERE.

Are MC's republican colleagues so insecure in their faith that at government proceedings they feel the need to proclaim it no matter what the religious composition of those gathered before them? MC realizes that at republican party functions there's a fair amount of invocations of the exclusively Christian kind. MC cringes for its Jewish friends at such events but they insist they can suck it up and carry on in the conservative cause. One doubts the same of those who give such invocations were the situations reversed.

Sen. Bonofff, however, needs improving as well. She said "I'm a very religious woman and believe deeply in God. We honor God in public and our political discourse, and that's proper. But in doing a nondenominational prayer we are honoring him without violating the separation of church and state." No. Invoking Jesus or Yahweh does not violate the separation of church and state. This misses the point entirely but then again MC has not found democrats to be well versed in either religion or the constitution. She should have quit while she was ahead.

Interestingly, at last year's MN GOP convention, the first day's invocation was given by a rabbi. Progress, thought MC. The next day's invocation was given by a Roman Catholic priest who never mentioned Jesus (the theological equivalent, one supposes, of being labeled a RINO). The simple point here is that the Minnesota Republican Party is not made up exclusively of Christians. We have Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and even atheists, God forbid!

One can make a strained case that members of our party can or should or must put up with an exclusive emphasis on Christ. At February's Elephant Club meeting in Minneapolis, Sen. Hall gave the invocation. Before doing so, however, he opined that those who were about to feel left out by his prayer to Jesus sit quietly and invoke whatever other lesser Deity they were foolish enough to follow. Of course the Senator didn't put it in those terms; the condescension of his precise words were almost worse, though. It failed to occur to him that when engaging in spiritual matters before political events, such comments are a sign of failure. MC hopes for a Shinto priest at this month's luncheon, and then a mullah in April, followed by a Hindu priest in May, and then a Buddhist in June. In July let's go all out with a lesbian rabbi!

Seriously, when the invocation is before the Minnesota Senate, such sectarian provincialism has no place. Not only is Sen. Terri Bonoff not wrong, it's wrong to treat her genuine request as a political football. What's next? Fund raising emails from Minnesota Majority decrying the vanquishment of God (ie, Christ) from state government?

Democrats are profoundly wrong on almost all major issues of the day. Minnesota republicans control the senate for the first time since the dawn of creation. They control the house. Their deeply flawed gubernatorial candidate lost to a paleo-liberal in a red wave election. There is much to do and these are serious times. Treating Sen. Bonoff's spiritual request politically is unserious and discrediting. Republicans are better than this and the senate leadership should honor her request. Then everyone can move on to the business to which all members of the legislature were elected to address.

UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch last week rejected a nondenominational approach to the essentially silly practice of praying before senate sessions by burbling: “I’m not going to get into the process of sort of editing prayer.” Why, yes, editing. That's what this entire affair was about! MC supposes she didn't mean to insult people's intelligence but she did. The New York Times has it HERE.

The majority leader is laughably cynical and that's giving her the benefit of the doubt. Who edited prayers before the republicans took over the senate, Senator Koch? Did she have anything to say about not wanting to make members intentionally uncomfortable? No. Did she decry MC's friend deputy chair Michael Brodkorb's misguided tweets designed to hurt democrats over a religious issue? [Those tweets got certified crazies Dan Riehl and Mark Levin into a spittle flecked lather!] Any contradiction there, Sen. Koch? Oh wait: she wouldn't want to edit his tweets either. Got it. Any thoughts about those of us who actually vote you types into office and are made to look ignorant, backwards and foolish as a result of your behavior? Any?

No doubt abusive religiosity goes over well with the Emmer neanderthals with whom the party leadership has allied itself so as not to have a challenge from its fringes at State Central. Mission accomplished. The financial and business benefits of this craven alliance will be explored another time. Feeding into the snake handlers in the party may be (temporarily) expedient but when it comes a cropper MC hopes it takes down only those who made that Faustian wager rather than the rest of the party and its activists.

Sen. Bonoff and her fellow brain-dead liberal colleagues, of course, over-played their hand in spectacular fashion. Not satisfied with having made an easily understood, discreet religious and political point, they obnoxiously insisted on changing the language of the letter given to guest invocators from "requesting" they take the mix of religious faiths in the chamber into account in their prayer to "requiring" it, whatever that truly means. Then, with the whiff of totalitarianism that always attends true liberalism, the paleo-liberals in the senate demanded that anyone in the future who violated the "require" language be barred forever more from being invited back to pray again.

They may as well have fled to Illinois for all the good this tactic did them. It allowed the majority speaker to cast the issue in terms of editing--which it wasn't--and elide the more serious underlying argument. MC, to that extent, can't really blame Sen. Koch but it does wish she had not given in to the most political opportune riposte but acted as a leader in her own right rather than someone well schooled by others.

At any rate, the democrats in the senate have no moral high ground in this matter given their own conduct. Yes, they are smarting still from losing their birthright of being in the majority in the senate. MC can only relish this. But such bitterness from an election defeat ought not to bring out the worst in people though it often does. Had Sen. Bonoff and her colleagues acted in good faith, so to speak, much of the ensuing nonsense could have been avoided. Instead, each side played to the worst amongst it for temporary gain.

The members of the Minnesota senate deserve each other.

The Intellectual Fatuousness Of The Star Tribune

Admittedly, it may not be fair to think of the Star Tribune (ST) as intellectual, coherent or consistent (except in its deracinated '60's thinking) and so MC may be far afield in noticing its most recent foray into the unctuous. But it could not help it when one of its recent editorials about Congressional hearings into Islamofacist terrorism was retweeted by a member of the Fourth Estate. MC admits to not reading on a regular basis the editorials of the Star Tribune; the Nation does it so much better.

Still, the delusional aspects of that newspaper's editorial is something. One hates to be uncharitable but it reads like a CAIR press release. No critical thinking will be found within. Instead, the reader is water boarded with tripe not even President Obama and his hand maidens in the state controlled media would repeat. No so with flyover land editorial boards. Where to begin?

The title gives what little game the Star Tribune possesses away: "Terror Hearings Fuel Anti-Muslim Fears." Really? Aside from the press releases it republishes, the editorial board manages not to tell the reader why this is so. MC thinks, like most of their prejudices and biases, this fear exists in the collective shallow minds of the board. Is it too much to suggest there is a connection between content--both editorial and news--and declining subscriptions? And no, this does not mean the newspaper needs to pander. Ceasing to insult its readers' intelligence would be a huge advance.

As evidence, in the third paragraph (and small paragraphs at that, given the low educational level of its diminished readership) the ST stamps the upcoming Congressional hearing as McCarthyism. No evidence, of course, is adduced for this preposterous claim. But throwing out this claim makes the board feel good about themselves. Remember, readers, feelings are the sine qua non of liberalism.

In the following paragraphs which pass for discourse, the ST mashes together preposterous claims from a wide array of the usual suspects, none of which has a reputation for veracity. No matter: the point is to bludgeon its readers, not persuade them, not to allow another voice into the editorial. This is worthy of a paper which takes itself seriously?

The snow job concludes with this claim: "In short, anti-Muslim rhetoric is fueling anti-Muslim violence and alienating American Muslims." The problem is, ST, no one believes you.

There is no anti-Muslim rhetoric to speak of and the alienation of Muslims seems a story confined to Europe. But MC can't expect the third rate minds of the ST editorial boards to know that much. Really, it's unfair. Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Who's that?

More to the point, how about Abdirizak Bihi, Director, Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center in Minneapolis? He's been threatened by his own Somali community for cooperating with the Congressional hearings. Why doesn't the ST condemn the attacks on him? Why doesn't the ST support this brave man? One would hope the editorial board knew of Bihi: its own paper has reported on him in its news pages.

The editorial slouches toward its predetermined end by quoting the disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center and other organs of the far left, which appease anything Islamofacist, and concludes Muslim auto-da-fes are but an evening entertainment for the hateful Christians of this country. This is, apparently, as sophisticated in her reasoning as Susan Hogan can get. And we thought Obama was out of his depths!

What is most objectionable to this agitprop is the ST's refusal to phone Rep. Peter King, the chair of the Congressional committee which is holding the hearings the aging '60's types see as "McCarthyism." What? The ST is losing so much money, deservedly so, that it can't afford a phone? Even a rotary one, which bespeaks the mindset of the board?

But no, the ST can't see above it's own low water-line. Instead, it serves up insulting editorials like this which any educated person can see through. Then again, they lost that audience long ago. Reps. King and Ellison recently appeared together on CNN's "State of the Union" hosted by the refreshingly decent Candy Crowley. One would never know these two have had an extremely civil public discussion over many weeks about these hearings.

No, instead what one can see on television is a report on this subject with a representative of CAIR brandishing the StarTribune editorial. The term useful idiots comes to mind. The list of arrested and convicted CAIR officials is long but MC doubts that the ST has any interest in bringing this to its readers' attention.

One can only surmise that the mindset of the Star Tribune would fit perfectly well within the smug confines of the "anti-Zionists" at National Public Radio. Fortunately, people can get correct and broader information from other sources than this fading, aging, beyond-parody newspaper.

Jennifer Rubin has a smart take on the national left losing their minds over these hearings. Go here to read her.

UPDATE: A reader points MC to this cringe-worthy rambling of a Jewish female rabbi. Really, you can't make it up and fiction can't compete. The sanctimoniousness of the piece has to be read to be believed. Another useful idiot.

MC To Host The Only Minnesota RNC Debate

Minnesota Conservatives is pleased to announce that it will host the only debate for the race for the Republican National Committee. One committeeman and one committeewoman will be selected from Minnesota at the State Central Committee meeting on April 16th.

MC is particularly pleased that The Uptake has agreed to cover this event and live stream the proceedings on the web so outstate delegates and alternates and others can participate. Web viewers will have an opportunity to ask questions via email or Twitter. Details about online participation will be forthcoming. All declared candidates but one have agreed to participate and MC believes the one remaining will agree shortly. Please share news of this event with your fellow activists and conservatives. MC encourages use of the comment feature to suggest approaches to the format and the question and answer session. This debate is for you.

WHEN: Monday, March 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.

WHERE: O'Gara's Irish Pub at the corner of Snelling & Selby in St. Paul, MN. Event will be held in the annex within known as The Garage. Signs will be posted.

COST: None. Kindly have a beverage of your choice to show your thanks to O'Gara's for agreeing to hold the event.

FORMAT: Current plans, subject to change, will have each candidate give an opening statement for 3 minutes. Questions strictly limited to 1 minute will be taken from the audience and from online viewers. Candidates will have 2 minutes to respond.

Women candidates will debate first for approximately one hour. After a 15 minute break, the men candidates will debate.

MC encourages suggestions designed to make this event successful.

ONLINE VIEWING: The Uptake (click here http://theuptake.org ) will have more information and links as the date approaches.

MC would be grateful if readers could share news of this, the only debate, for the RNC.

Purity People & The Debt Ceiling

No conservative is for more debt so the recent posturing by some among us over the looming extension of the federal debt ceiling, while not surprising, is discouraging. MC refers, of course, to the purity people who seem not to be going away despite ample failures due to their rigidity and political tone-deafness. The errors of their approach seem to take on new shapes or manifestations.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is the most recent disappointing example. She is fundraising via an online petition to just say no to raising the federal debt ceiling. Her position is irresponsible and MC isn't about to be lectured by anyone about being soft on the national debt. But to take advantage of people's increasing alarm about the issue in such a way as to benefit financially while failing to educate them on the consequences of raising the ceiling is just wrong. Bachmann is not dumb, despite her detractors' claims and, it must be said, her occasional verbal gaffes. MC is consequently mystified as to her conduct. Click HERE to see her PAC solicitation. Could there be less information provided?

MC was initially leery about the prospect of a Speaker Boehner (and that was before his cringe-inducing crying jags) but now must correct that impression. Boehner seems measured, sober and careful. Above all, he seems to have listened very well indeed to the shellacking heard around the world. This only bodes well for a continued GOP controlled House of Representatives.

However, Boehner himself has said that the vote on raising the debt ceiling will be an adult moment for freshly minted Congress members hailing from the tea party movement. And indeed it will be. No responsible elected member of Congress would allow the United States to default on its financial obligations. Bachmann's demand that the USA go "cold turkey" on debt is relatively insane, to use a neutral term. It works well, apparently, for heroin or cigarette smoking. The international, interconnected financial system? No.

William Kristol is a big fan of Bachmann, as is MC for the most part. Kristol, fortunately, is not a purity person but an adult. He has come to admonish the Congresswoman for this exceptionally regrettable position. Click on the title of this post to read his comments. MC especially liked:

"This is irresponsible. I've seen no plausible plan that would enable us to go "cold turkey" (to use her term) fast enough or dramatically enough that we could reduce the deficit to zero in a few months--which is what would be required if Congress were not to authorize an increase in the debt ceiling.

If Michele Bachmann has such a plan, she should share it with us. If not, she should withdraw her endorsement of the "cold turkey" petition, and help figure out what legislation could be attached to the debt ceiling or passed separately that would further the cause of real spending restraint and reduction. But there's no turkey cold enough to enable us to avoid raising the debt ceiling."

Purity people can no longer grandstand on principles immune from the real world. Just this weekend past Bachmann said on CBS that she lived in the real world. If in fact she does, she will vote to raise the debt ceiling the minimal amount while extracting the greatest concessions on spending cuts. This is what adults do. This is what leaders, as opposed to politicians, do.

MC notes in closing that despite her rhetoric, Bachmann has not refused the pay raise Congress recently granted itself despite PR stunts designed to make her appear against it. Yet democrat Congressman Tim Walz has.

Purity people have run out of room in having it both ways. They should remember that while they posture as the ones watching "the establishment," they themselves are being watched. Media saturation and fund raising prowess are no longer sufficient for not walking the walk. And it will be the very base they profess to represent that will hold them to account.

Happy New Year 2011

MC wishes to thank its supporters and detractors for a most interesting year. MC attempts to fill the gap in regular thinking on the right in Minnesota politics. Sometimes, this wins us praise from the other team. MC knows the type of "republican" to whom that is anathema. That reaction doesn't bother MC at all. Really, those purity types have given us Senator Franken and Governor Dayton. The coming new year is an opportunity for them to be quiet. If they don't take that opportunity, it will be enforced upon them. Enough with losers. MC is in it to win.

The End Of Social Issues & The Last Republican

Francis Fukuyama famously wrote an article later turned into a full length book "The End of History And The Last Man." Buy it by clicking HERE. Be forewarned: it contains a lot of Heidegger. To MC's mind, not a bad thing but surely not to everyone's taste.

His critics mostly misunderstood his thesis but proceeded to take it to task nonetheless.

Consequently, MC feels (a dreaded word, really) that its critics will do the same with this post. So be it. MC is up to the task.

What, then, are the social issues? The tiresome ones, of course. Abortion, same-sex marriage, and, well, that's it, isn't it?

Abortion will never be illegal in America. No, the analogy to slavery is not apt. Conservatives should shun ridiculous groups like Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. MCCL is mostly concerned about paying its ossified staff good salaries. They save no unborn. They take you for and treat you as suckers. Do not enable the charade to continue any longer. Give your money and time to the the Catholic church or any other legitimate group that reaches out to real women in real distress. You will be doing good. Don't forget to try to act like Christ either. Tough sledding but that's what you signed up for.

Same sex anything: it's over. Isn't it slightly creepy that some care about how others achieve sexual satisfaction? The marriage debate is real and MC is not for same-sex marriage but really, if civil unions flourish, who cares at the moment? MC favors social change organically, to use that silly word. Put it to a vote. Then follow what the people say. More or less, this is a good guide to social comity.

MC supposes this approach would defund the silly Minnesota Majority, which, apparently, exists only to raise money to pay its lone staffers Jeff Davis and Dan McGrath. Readers, send them no money at all. And voter photo id? A solution, as Joe Mansky said, in search of a problem.

The left was mightily disappointed in the lack of right wing outrage when DADT was repealed. Do they not understand that their favorite enemy, Dick Cheney, has an openly lesbian daughter in a committed relationship and has come out, so to speak, in favor of same sex marriage? In this Mr. Cheney is ahead of MC. Go figure! The military concerns, to be sure, are of a different order yet MC could not help but think that if those exceptional Israeli soldiers have no problem, why should we?

The point of this post is that no matter what one may think about this or that issue, the social issues as we once knew them are over. Indiana governor Mitch Daniels said as much recently and this generated a small boomlet in the the blogosphere. Michael Barone weighed in and dismissed it all as so much nonsense. The American people, the ones the left professes to love and care for but mocks at every opportunity, have moved on.

They want jobs, less government, less debt. The left can mock them all it wants in order for their dwindling numbers to feel better about themselves.

But, paradoxically, it is the American people who have now put the knife to social issues they themselves have outgrown. Can the blood suckers on both sides of the aisle do this?

One can hope.

The Census: Conservatism Confirmed

MC emailed the link of an interesting article to friends of this blog earlier in the day. They in turned tweeted it to their followers who in turn retweeted it and so on. The focus of all this attention? An exceptionally insightful and comprehensive article by Patrick Ruffini on the recently released census results and its implications. Click on the title of this post to read it.

It is always easy to overstate any given case or outcome in politics (or in politically biased science, for that matter, think global warming junk science). Yet here the data, collected only once in a decade, is truly astounding and vindicates the essentials of the conservative position. MC highlights this article not to boast or preen; that way lies hubris and defeat. But MC is sure its readers will agree with Ruffini that "this week's numbers were the most ringing endorsement of the Republican governing model since Rudy Giuliani towered over the vested interests in New York City." Good for us. More importantly, good for the American people.

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.

Republican Purge Problems

At the end of a long state central committee meeting December 4th a motion was made from the floor to "renounce" those republicans who publicly supported Tom Horner for governor. Those named were pretty much has beens although they included two nominally republican former governors and one nominally republican former senator. While much outrage was directed at these miscreants, an observer could be forgiven for wondering if delegates have too much time on their hands or are unable to think of a productive use with which to put that time. Having just won control of the state legislature a large segment of the delegation promptly looked backward and in a manner that made the RPM look petty, small and foolish.

The final vote on this ridiculous motion was 59 to 55. Lost in media reports, almost understandably so, was the fact that this motion split the party. Why would republican activists insist on proceeding with a course of action that would damage the party? Because these type of activists insist on being right and pure rather than effective or useful in winning elections. MC would have enjoyed listening to them explore why their candidate for governor failed in spectacular fashion in a wave election but no such self-reflection was forthcoming. Instead, another target was chosen and off they went: smug, self-righteous and tone-deaf.

Those opposed to the motion, including MC, tried to point out that this group of republicans should not be given the attention the motion would bring. How this motion would be perceived by the press and general public was dismissed out of hand by these Robespierre wanna bes. Needless to say, the publicity has been uniformly negative.

Unfortunately, there is a large overlap of these types of delegates with those in the RPM who think our entire election system is fraudulent, that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is a communist or pals around with them and who see a conspiracy of some sort around every corner. This is a worrisome development on many levels, not least of which is the diversion from focusing on how to govern best in 2011. It also constitutes some sort of political pathology that will poison the party if left unchecked.

Our friend Craig Westover has a very different take on the issue and explains his position with his usual eloquence. Click here to read him.

MC doesn't care for those republicans who endorsed Horner any more than those delegates who thought the purge motion was a good idea. In our view, the cure was worse than the disease. These people are not moderates, either, and there should be no doubt about that. The best approach to outliers or those who have left the reservation is to ignore them. The need to punish is usually one best to avoid.

Now we'll have to live down the wholly expected media attention, the memes of civil war in the party and the glee of the recently defeated democrats. All this, of course, will pass. But the mindset that caused it is not likely to pass, at least quickly, and at some point in the near future the RPM will have to deal with the purity people who erode what they insist they wish to strengthen: the GOP brand.

Against Challenging The Election

The day after the election MC asked: who lost the governorship? Our analysis still stands, we believe, upon re-reading that post a month and a day later. The question we now face, however, is whether Tom Emmer should challenge in court the election results after the ongoing recount concludes and the almost certain certification by the Secretary of State that Mark Dayton won, that Mark Dayton is, incomprehensively, Minnesota's next governor.

The answer to that question is no, Tom Emmer should not contest in court the outcome of the election for governor. We were appalled that Emmer vanished after the election--some leader!--and appeared a week later to give a defensive, graceless 19 minute press conference without once ever thanking his staff or supporters. Cue Kennedy's comment about Nixon: no class. Where, pray tell, was his running mate Annette! Meeks? She was a no-show at the ersatz press conference. MC can't exactly blame her, can't exactly absolve her absence either. Emmer's supporters insisted he should be the the GOP nominee because Seifert was too establishment. Meeks was formerly Newt Gingrich's chief of staff. We are not certain how much more insider one can get and her selection split Emmer's far right base in the party. The omens were bad coming out of the convention and the campaign's subsequent hapless performance only underscored them.

MC understands perfectly well the campaign's request to the Minnesota Supreme Court to engage in reconciliation before the state canvassing board met. This claim would have been time barred after the board met. We don't believe, having said that, that its argument was particularly persuasive or well grounded. Contrary to many of our friends' protestations, the Minnesota Supreme Court got the decision exactly right. We can't judge its analysis because it has not yet issued its opinion in the matter. We do believe, however, that its considered opinion is likely to intentionally close off any arguments based upon its decision in a subsequent election challenge. One apple. One bite.

Currently the recount proceeds apace with the occassional flared nostril of a volunteer or election official providing the only passing drama. We pity our friends in the media who have to cover this as though it were the Coleman/Franken recount, which most assuredly it is not. The observations on Twitter about the recount are worth their weight in, um, ballots or something.

Which brings us to our present position: all known facts indicate that Dayton has an insurmountable lead that cannot be overcome either through the recount process or a challenge in court. There is no path, despite being given such assurances.

We have read in news reports of our friend Tony Sutton, chair of the RPM, saying that reconciliation and the vouching issue could provide a basis for a court challenge after the inevitable certification in Dayton's favor. MC doesn't see it. To be sure, anything could be ginned up as grounds to justify an election challenge in court, the effect of which is to leave the current, what's his name, governor in place. The salient point is that with such an enormous lead (these things being relative) the average Minnesota voter will be repulsed, and rightly so, with actions that smack of gaming the system, of bad faith, as politics not really as usual in squeaky clean Minnesota. MC is sorry Senator Coleman had such abject, lousy lawyers last time out but getting a better one from DC this time won't do the trick. The dog barks, the caravan moves on and all that.

MC must, however, admit that it is not privy to all of the facts and circumstances that the party and Emmer have at hand. We don't mean to suggest that a court challenge should be foregone if there are, in fact, real and credible issues that warrant such. Having paid excrutiatingly close attention for the last month, though, we'd be hard pressed to name any. Hence our concern that actually contesting in court the governor's election would look to be nothing more than an obvious attempt to keep a republican governor in office while a republican legislature proffered up for the former's signature legislation that Dayton most likely would not sign.

MC stands for Minnesota Conservatives and as conservatives we don't believe voters are stupid. Our fear is that their disgust will be taken out on republican candidates--especially in the senate--in 2012. That's the self-interested take. But there is also the idea that we as republicans and conservatives stand for something, opportunism not being one of them. We hear endless trashing of Dayton. We get it. We also offered up to voters such a flawed candidate that he could not beat Dayton. A little humility is in order from the crowd that got Emmer the endorsement. His performance with the press recently not only leaves much to be desired but reveals the candidate for himself. We're not sure there ever was a mask but if so, it has slipped and the man behind it is unappealing.

We're surprised we're surprised.