Sue Jeffers Slugging Away at the GOP Machine

Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

For those of you watching Sue Jeffers’ Libertarian/Republican campaign story unfold, this one really rocks:

Sue Jeffers’ Address to the 2nd District Republican Convention
Bucking Party Leaders, 2nd Congressional District Welcomed Jeffers to Speak

Prior Lake, Minnesota – Bucking orders from state Republican Party higher-ups, 2nd District Republicans welcomed Sue Jeffers to address their convention on Saturday. State Party chairman, Ron Carey, as well as Tony Sutton (Minnesota GOP Secretary/Treasurer) and their considerable entourage, who registered as convention guests were in attendance.

Many delegates approached Jeffers, and expressed excitement that they would finally hear the message that some party officials wanted to squelch.

Sue was introduced without incident or challenge, was met with applause from the delegates and delivered her speech. She was interrupted at one point with spontaneous applause, when she said, “My goal is to open the debate about the candidates we support. We must put candidates on the ballot that believe in the party platform and will work to further our principles. You, the delegates have the power to take our party in a better direction. Recognize that power and use it.”

The roughly five-minute speech began by addressing the concerns of some Republican delegates about her connection with the Minnesota Libertarian Party. From there, she moved into failures with current leadership, and discussed some of her conservative ideas for improving state government.

Jeffers’ speech was applauded, but not everyone in attendance was happy to have heard from her. Tony Sutton, State GOP Secretary/Treasurer, member of the State Executive Committee and attending the convention as a guest addressed the chair to express his discontent, saying, “I am offended that a person from another political party was allowed to address the convention and attack our Republican incumbents.”

No one offered discussion to Sutton’s “point of personal privilege,” and Convention Chairman Mike Lindsey moved swiftly to other convention business.

A convention delegate brought a six-page piece of literature printed on blue paper to Jeffers’ Campaign Manager, Dan McGrath’s attention. The blue lit-piece, which attempts to discredit Jeffers’ Republican credentials, had no attribution. State campaign law and Republican Convention rules forbid anonymous campaign literature. Under convention rules, any literature not containing a disclosure identifying who prepared and paid for it is to be removed from the convention, along with the party responsible for distributing it, by the Sergeant at Arms.

Delegates told McGrath said delegates told him that the blue-lit was produced and distributed by party officials. Jeffers didn’t choose to make an issue of it, and left the convention shortly after her speech.

The improper literature didn’t escape the delegates’ notice, though. A lengthy debate about the presence of the anonymous piece began after Jeffers had departed. Party officials, attending the convention as guests were asked repeatedly if they were responsible for the piece. They denied any involvement.

Following the convention, Jeffers and her Campaign Manager stopped by the governor’s mansion on Summit Avenue in St. Paul to join in the protest of a stadium tax without a referendum. The protest was organized by Citizens for a Stadium Tax Referendum.

  1. Okay, I’m fairly supportive of the Libertarian/Republican cross nomination stuff… but…

    “The roughly five-minute speech began by addressing the concerns of some Republican delegates about her connection with the Minnesota Libertarian Party.”

    Her connection with the Minnesota Libertarian Party?

    I thought she was a member of and the candidate of the Minnesota Libertarian Party… not just a casual “connection” as in my cousins brother’s great aunt cousins twice removed nephew who lives in Poland “connection.”

  2. Sue is a member of the Libertarian Party and has the LPMN endorsement, but she has not accepted it yet. She hopes to challenge incumbent Republican Governor Pawlenty and get the Republican endorsement. If that is not successful she plans to accept the Libertarian Party endoresmment and run as a Libertarian. She has been a life-long Republican but has grown disenfranchised with it (understandably).

  3. Candidates in MN can only run as one party. One reason why I’m looking forward to moving to New Hampshire soon, with the Free State Project, since NH allows fusion candidates. In NH Sue could run as a Libertarian-Republican or any other combo.

  4. So what is the LPMN going to do if Sue wins the Republican nomination? Not run a candidate and vote for the Republican nominee?

    Please note, I’m not being critical of the LPMN or Sue here… I just want to know the facts.

  5. If she were to get the Republican nomination, which is highly unlikely, I’m guessing that the LPMN wouldn’t run a candidate. I would vote for her either way, except that I’ll be in New Hampshire by then!

  6. Which items in the platform do you take issue with? I think lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation, preservation of civil rights, better education, protecting public safety and defending our country are good platform planks. It is the execution of the platform (or neglect thereof) by some elected Republicans that I take issue with. Reading the Republican Platform document, I think 90% of it could have been written by the Libertarian Party. Again, the problem is the application of the platform.

  7. Well, perhaps I was overgeneralizing in my beliefs about the MNRP’s platform – after all, in Texas, our Republican Party’s platform includes bringing God back into government and purging the world of gays – worded slightly more palatably, though not much.


    I don’t even know where to begin with my disagreement, it is absolute and total. I must not be Libertarian at all.

    Preemptive wars of paranoia, Bush is deity, PATRIOT act, hegemony, First Responders largesse to state and local jurisdictions, funding this and that, Millenium Challenge Account, blah blah, WTO, basically all of it.

    Lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation , etc is nowhere to be found in any consistent, logical way. Typical Republican thinking is abundant. It says one thing and then promptly provides details that will produce the opposite effect – and this is in the best cases. There is not one whit of credibility to any of it, even when the rhetoric is good. It’s like reading “I’m going to let you live… by chopping your head off” and expecting it to make sense.

    You should just know it’s going to be bad when they worship Lincoln and Bush right off the bat.

  9. If she runs on the LP ticket will she still be adhering to the GOP platform? I took the time to read their platform and I must say there’s not anything there I’d call Libertarian. Does she plan to drop that from her campaign if she’s repudiated by her beloved GOP?

  10. Perhaps Sue Jeffers referred to the platform of the Minnesota Republican Party, which @ 10 pages, has 86 pages less bullshit than the national Republican platform.

    The Minnesota GOP Platform does include a call to extend the Patriot Act, and a call to ban abortion, support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage, and it commends Governor Tim Pawlenty “whose visionary, energetic leadership has set the course for hardworking
    Minnesotans to enjoy economic growth, better schools, and a richer quality of lifefor generations to come”

    Given the commendation of Governor Pawlenty, it makes little sense for Sue Jeffers to invoke the Minnesota Republican platform in her campaign.

    With due respect, I think it is her ego, not her ambition, that has made her seek the Republican nomination.

  11. Since I’m at school at that .pdf kills this computer, I’ll have to trust Gene with regard to the MNGOP, but if it’s as he says, then I trust that Jeffers is just playing politics with the platform comment.

  12. Regardless of the platform version used, there is not a huge amount of common ground. If she runs as a libertarian will she support the LP platform?

  13. I think you guys have entirely missed the point. If she runs as a libertarian she has zero chance of wining the election, if she runs as a GOP she has a small chance of wining. She is trying to increase her odds of wining. As for her platform, I think it is safe. When it comes down to it most unthinking people are uncomfortable with the full-blown LP platform, I think a republican-libertarian crossover is good for the party. It raises awareness and may get some to look up the LP, besides a libertarianish republican in office is far better than an army of loosing libertarian candidates.

    I believe that many republican voters are actually libertarian in some way shape or form, but will not “throw away” there vote by voting for a 3rd party because the are afraid the democrats would win. I think this is becoming more and more common thanks to the crap job the republicans are doing in DC.