- Lori Grivna won the endorsement to run against incumbent Kate Knuth for the 50B seat. Grivna, who previously served with distinction on the Mounds View School Board and has extensive political experience in the district, lost narrowly to Knuth in 2006 and gets another chance, besting Gina Bauman and Nick Quade for the endorsement on the third ballot.
- The convention selected 16 delegates for the 4th district and state conventions, from a total of 51 interested candidates.
- 132 of the 137 potential delegates to the BPOU participated in the convention, including a highly encouraging number of younger delegates from area colleges, especially Bethel University.
That's the news. Now for a little analysis:
The 2006 campaign in 50B was a rough one and in endorsing Lori Grivna the district has made a sensible choice. While I personally preferred Gina Bauman, who has done some excellent work on the New Brighton City Council, Grivna does bring some specific advantages to bear. She already has established a fairly strong political organization within the district and she has nearly universal name recognition. While I don't think Lori is necessarily a movement conservative, politically she is a lot like the former Republican who represented this district, Char Samuelson. Lori is polished, graceful, quick on her feet and solid on the issues that ultimately matter and because of her contacts, she is well-positioned to make an immediate impact in St. Paul. I won't have any trouble supporting her candidacy, especially against Ms. Knuth. I had an opportunity to talk at length with Lori at the 50B meet and greet earlier in the week and she demonstrated that she understands what went wrong last time. There is ample reason to believe that a rematch will turn out differently.
The most pleasant suprise of the day was the chance to hear two strong candidates who are vying to run against Betty McCollum in the 4th Congressional District. Ed Matthews brings impressive credentials to the race. He is a commercial defense attorney and certified public accountant who edited the law review at William Mitchell. Matthews has been active in party politics in the Highland neighborhood in St. Paul (often a thankless task) and he made a very impressive presentation to the convention and was clearly in command at the podium. The second candidate was John Meyer, a veteran who recently served in Saudi Arabia with the Army National Guard. Meyer is young but is clearly well-versed on the issues and has a compelling story to tell and he made an evident personal connection to the assembled delegates. Either Matthews or Meyer would make an excellent opponent for McCollum, who has long been a singularly unimpressive figure. While it will be an uphill battle to win a seat that has been in DFL hands for 60 years, either of these gentlemen would serve the district and the state with great distinction.
Perhaps the most heartening thing of the day was the amount and quality of the young people in attendance. In the immediate aftermath of the death of William F. Buckley, a lot of conservatives have been wondering if there is a future generation of leadership out there. I had a chance to speak with a number of young people over the past few days and was impressed. I met smart, engaged individuals who have clearly thought about the underlying issues surrounding this election and who are able to articulate their views clearly and with grace and humor. A number of these younger folks ran for delegate slots and I would fully expect that more than a few of them will be going on to the next levels. The enthusiasm and joie de vivre on display today will be needed in the months ahead.
Cross-posted at True North.
17 comments:
Mark,
I'm curious - what did go wrong two years ago in the Grivna/Knuth race, according to Lori?
I'd have to paraphrase it, anonymous, but it boils down to a couple of things:
1) The DFL put a lot of muscle into this race; there were a lot of operatives from St. Paul, Minneapolis and the like who were working the district early. The GOP didn't react to this in time to counteract it. I do find this persuasive.
2) Because Knuth was so young, Lori struggled with the way to address Knuth's obvious shortcomings without seeming mean. Now that Knuth has a record, attention this time will be focused there. I also find this understandable and somewhat persuasive.
3) Lori also believes that the help she got from the state GOP was ultimately counterproductive, because a lot of it was construed as personal attacks. While I'm not personally persuaded by this line of argument, I understand why she felt that way, especially since the tone was different than what Lori tried to convey. The double game in politics is always a factor, though, and Knuth's operatives didn't hesitate to sully Lori's reputation in 2006. Lori may not want to punch Knuth in the nose personally, but she's going to need surrogates to do it for her, whether she likes it or not.
4) She also believes that a lot of Republicans stayed home in 2006 and that Knuth was helped by having her literature consistently placed with that of Amy Klobuchar. I remember that being the case, but since I was immune from the spell that Darling Amy cast on the voters, didn't think that would matter much. While I don't find that argument especially persuasive, Lori did the analysis and asked the questions and that is the feedback she received.
My sense is that Lori has an opportunity because Knuth was sold as a fresh new face who would provide enthusiasm and new thinking. That has now been exposed as a canard - Knuth may be young, but she's just a footsoldier in a very old and cynical party apparatus and now her name is attached to an enormous and unnecessary tax increase. Where Lori will be vulnerable is the school board did raise levies multiple times on her watch, which will make an effective counter-charge. That record is the primary reason I preferred Gina Bauman. Lori understands that now and her literature reflects that understanding. As a delegate to the BPOU, I was able to see how Lori has changed her approach and think it will be effective. The general public will start to see that soon.
Mark -
Regarding your point #3:
The mailings from the state party did not begin until the people in charge there got the sense that there was a good chance that Grivna was going to lose the race. As with most actions taken out of despartion the state mail campaign turned out to be too little too late. The state GOP put up the "Hail Mary" and it was intercepted by the Knuth minions (much like a Favre ruptured duck in the playoffs) with a coordinated effort of "negative campaigning" whining in the letters to the editor pages.
I agree with your assessment that the ads were not counter productive per se. I think they could more accurately be characterized more as "ineffective" in the context of too little, too late.
In my view the state ads were not untruthful. The Knuth campaign put out a lot of flat out lies and innuendo early that personally linked Lori to some actions of the school board (some of which were set into motion long before Lori had been elected). I think Grivna supporters did not effectively respond to these in the papers. Thrifty Scott in particular did a great job of thoroughly debunking these ads over at our blog, but our audience did not include enough of a cross-section of the voters (especially early in the campaign when those who don't pay attention until Halloween don't do any research) to make a difference.
As a veteran of opposing the Knuth machine (I worked against Daddy Knuth 20 years ago) I can guarantee that they will not hesitate to hit with a low blow if they see an opening, and Grivna had better be ready for it this time. And I do believe that she does have surrogates to take care of the response-in-kind that will be necessary :) .
P.S. Sorry about the Favre cheap shot, but as a frustrated Viking fan I just couldn't resist. Please chalk it up to warm up for the upcoming campaign.
Mark,
The items that you identify are accurate, but #4 nails it.
A large percentage of voters are driven to the polls by national and state-wide races alone. Many don't even know who is running for the Mn House of Representatives until they get into the voting booth. In 2006, a large percentage of Republican voters were dissuaded from voting out of disgust for the performance of elected Republicans in Washington D.C. They tried, in vein, to send a message by boycotting the election. In doing so, Miss Knuth walked away with a seat in the House – and $6.6 billion of our income.
Looking at the numbers in Minnesota, there were 96,000 fewer voters in 2006 than in 2002 – the previous mid-term election. This is significant given huge increase in new voters during the 2004 presidential race. The vote count in HD50B was similar. Miss Knuth received a marginal increase over her DFL counterpart in previous years, but the Republican vote count dropped significantly.
To be blunt, in a futile attempt to "send a message" thousands of Republican voters boycotted the 2006 election. In doing so, they gave the keys of government and taxation to Democrats – and they ushered in the $6.6 billion tax hike. The message that was delivered is not the one these silent voters tried to send.
Politicians only hear the ballot box, they are oblivious to silence from those who stayed home. Voters in 2006 said they wanted more liberalism and moderation. Consequently, Senator Coleman has moved more to the left and delegates nationally think a moderate Senator McCain is more electable than Governor Romney.
The dynamics of this election remain to be seen. If those upset with McCain's endorsement abstain from voting, then $6.6 billion is just the beginning. But, if the shock of $6.6 billion leads to electoral sobriety, then Lori Grivna has a fighting chance to defeat Miss Knuth.
Mark,
Thanks for the insight.
All of the points are reasonable, and she was washed away in the blowout that cascaded down from the top, but that shouldn't mask the fact that the generic, consultant-driven nature of her campaign was of a piece with every other Republican campaign that wasn't well received/found credible by GOP voters.
Let's hope we see something exciting in the content of her campaign this time, some specific proposals for real change to warm a conservative's cold heart. It's highly unlikely, but it would be nice to vote for the advance of conservative principles rather than the ratification of the liberal status quo that moderates such as Grivna seem to offer.
Anonymous,
As one somewhat close to the campaign, I can attest to two facts: 1.) Grivna is a conservative – not a moderate. 2.) Grivna's campaign was not "consultant-driven."
When Lori announced her candidacy, I was a skeptic simply because she was on the school board – and there are no conservatives on the school board, right? Not so fast. After getting to know her better, I learned that her conservative credentials were sound.
But, Lori spent many years working with liberals on the school board and had to be more a diplomat than a movement conservative. Keep in mind, as soon as fellow school board members learned that – big gasp here – a Republican was in their midst, they asked Lori to step down as their chair. To get along with these folks, you have to out-think them rather than boldly move them to the right. Ultimately, Lori couldn't fully shake the liberal label that sticks to school board members.
Still, your observations are quite valuable. In politics, perception is reality. The 2006 Grivna campaign did advance conservative principles. In 2008, they will need to do a better job of getting their message out.
Keep drinking the GOP Koolaid GMan. Grivna is the candidate the the GOP reptiles wanted and she is what we got.
Mark's statement saying Grivna is not a movement conservative qualifies for understatement of the year. He was right on with the view that she is another Char Samuelson who was a disaster for true conservatives.
Grivna is at best a moderate and may end up being a RINO if she manages to get elected. Knuth is a mega disaster and Grivna would be substantually better. Getting a B- to replace an F would be real progress for the HD. But let's not have any dilusions or wishfull thinking that she is what most of us would consider a true conservative.
Anonymous,
Please know this – G-Man is part of the crew at Boots On, which is a quintessentially Kool-Aid free zone. Everyone on that team has impeccable conservative credentials.
Lori will be a better candidate this time and if she gets the help she needs, she'll beat Knuth. And I know this much; had the conservative voters in 50B and 53A not sat on their hands in 2006, T-Paw's veto would have been sustained.
Anonymous,
I'm real curious. How was your perception of Lori Grivna formed? Who are the GOP reptiles and how did they attract Lori? How have you become so convinced that Lori is a RINO in waiting?
Rather than debating a conservative ranking system, I am sincerely interested in what formed your opinion of Grivna's conservative credentials. How much is gut feel and presumption versus actual knowledge of the candidates positions on the issues?
Is it possible that Grivna's 2006 campaign simply failed to introduce her views to you? Or, were your perceptions formed before her campaign began?
You are right that Rep. Char Samuelson's record was a disappointment, particularly her second term. But, I find it most curious that you perceive Lori to be "another Char" for I fail to see the similarity (politically speaking, of course).
Mark, thanks for the kind words about Boots On. We certainly do our best to avoid the Kool-Aid.
call me anonymous #1, as I am a different bloke from the second anonymous who appeared here.
First a response to g-man on Norm Coleman: These politicians do enough polling to know that conservatives stayed home in 2006. How he would conclude that the election results were an endorsement of liberalism is beyond me. If ALL Republicans stayed home and Democrats took every elected office, would that also constitute an endorsement of liberalism? Of course not.
What the consultants that run the GOP have told certain of their clients is that they can win without these conservative voters, Governor Pawlenty being the prime example (he won in spite of the fact that so many conservatives stayed home). Here's the ugly truth: Coleman heard the message sent by conservatives in 2006 - he has chosen to ignore it.
What you have is a stare down between the moderate/liberal Coleman wing of the party and the conservative wing. The Coleman wing believes it has the conservative wing over a barrel - they will vote for him no matter what, as they will have nowhere else to go for relief from Democrat policies. They're pretty sure that conservatives will blink first, and judging from what I read here, he's calculated exactly right.
And when Coleman digests THAT message, that conservatives will vote for him no matter how liberal he votes, look out.
As for anonymous #2, I mostly agree with your statement. Your B- grade is more than fair. Consider:
There aren't a lot of "conservatives" capable of matching a DFLer in supporting the agenda of Education Minnesota, such that EM endorses neither candidate, but Lori Grivna managed that in her 2006 race against Knuth. That was quite a neat trick.
The following link will take you to Knuth's 2006 campaign website. You won't find Education MN in her list of endorsements.
www.kateknuth.org
GMan,
No question about your conservative credentials. I just wonder if you are getting the strait scoop from the party machine.
If Lori Grivna couldn't get her message out in the last campaign, what makes you think will she this time? Could it be that she doesn't have a conservative message other than what she has been programmed to say to people like you and me? During the last campaign she really frosted me when she came out in support of the levy. She didn't have any problem getting that message out!
Why do I think she is a moderate or RINO? a) multiple term school board member b) support for tax levy while running as a Repub c) from the same BPOU that gave us Samuelson d) lack of enthusiasm when delivering a conservative message.
Party reptiles are the good old boys who run the show that gives us candidates like Char Samuelson and Lori Grivna. I got so disgusted with the way caucuses get manipulated by the power brokers I dropped out of that scene long ago. I heard from my kid that things haven't changed much this year. Do delegates really pick the candidate if the delegates are picked by the good old boys and their buddies?
I never considered the Education Minnesota endorsement mentioned above but it does make sense and is further evidence for my case.
I hope Grivna wins because the alternative is alot worse. A B- is alot better than an F. But don't insult my intelligence by telling me the Repubs are running a conservative.
I'm getting confused with there being two anonymous types on the thread, but a few observations.
1) Re Coleman: I take your point, but he's a separate issue. We'll get to that race soon enough. Based on what I know, Lori Grivna is a lot more likely to be reliable than Norm is. If it were possible to be a pro-life Democrat, Norm would never have come across the aisle.
2) You'll both have to watch how Lori campaigns this time around. Her message will be a lot more clear this time around and Knuth has definitely made a lot easier, too. The contrasts will be pretty obvious to all.
3) As for the RINO thing - I know, it's frustrating to all of us. Everyone on the conservative side would prefer more conservative candidates. I preferred Gina Bauman because she's rock solid conservative, whereas Lori might be somewhat less so. But Lori got the endorsement and there was no evidence at the BPOU that any cabal of reptiles or good ol' boys were steering things Lori's way. Both Gina and Lori are Gina are part of the 50B leadership.
I suspect that Gina lost because the people who were responsible for nominating her spent too much time belaboring the New Brighton angle during their presentations, thereby alienating potential supporters from the Arden Hills precincts. I can't prove that, but you could sense uneasiness among some of the Arden Hills delegates as the process played out. I also think Gina knew it as soon as it happened, because she made pains during her presentation to the BPOU to talk about how important Arden Hills, Shoreview and Fridley are.
But that's over with now. Nothing more to be done about it. Lori's the candidate and she'll need the support of every conservative in 50B. Kate Knuth must be defeated. Once that happens, we can certainly talk about what needs to happen next. First things first, though!
Mark,
FWIW, I understand that Shoreview delivered 16 of its 17 delegate votes to Lori.
She just did a much better overall job of turning out potential delegates on Super Tuesday and making sure they were elected - the results on Saturday were practically baked in the cake that Tuesday night.
That's the way the game's played, for better or worse.
Anonymous 2,
Let me ask your question a different way. If ALL conservatives boycotted Election Day, then why would any candidate cater to them? Why cater to those who don't vote?
My conclusion about Coleman's interpretation of the election is supported by correspondence that I have had with the Senator regarding the 2006 election. I suggested that many Republican voters, including those who worked for his election in 2002, stayed home in 2006 out of disgust that Republicans were acting like Democrats. Here is a portion of his response:
"I do not believe the message from last November represented an affirmation of any ideological or party agenda. What I have heard traveling around the state is that Minnesotans are fed up with the partisanship, negativity and overcharged rhetoric. We need to put the partisanship aside, find common ground on the issues, and work together on solutions." (January 2007)
He certainly didn't get the message that conservatives were fed up and wanted more partisan action from elected Republicans. Which gets me back to my bigger point. In politics votes count – silence doesn't. If you want to send a message, you cannot boycott an election and hope it gets delivered.
If you want to send a message to the Senator, don't wait until November. Contact his office – often. And get involved at your caucus, become a delegate, and find someone to challenge the Senator for the party's nomination.
Regarding Lori Grivna and Education Minnesota, as you aptly pointed out, Ed-Mn did NOT endorse her. If Lori supported the agenda of Ed-Mn, then they surely would have endorsed her. It would have helped re-affirm their alleged non-partisan status.
Anonymous #2,
It is not my intent to insult your intelligence. I won't elaborate, but I can confidently say that your grasp of Lori's political views is incomplete.
School board membership and support of a levy does not a RINO make. Let's keep some perspective here. Supporting a $6.6 billion tax hike can earn one the RINO moniker. Endorsing a school board levy – not so much. Let us not forget that even our icon of conservatism, President Ronald Reagan, approved tax increases.
To digress, I think Lori's endorsement of the levy was a mistake. On general principles, I oppose any tax hike because there is plenty of money already collected to cover constitutional obligations. Congress needs to reorganize it's priorities to spend money wisely. This is why Lori ran in 2006 and is running today. As a school board member she had to work within constraints of current spending formulas -- government has a way of controlling where it goes. Lori was acting as a member of the school board when she endorsed the levy. But, as a state representative, her objective was (is) to restructure the way schools are funded to make better use of our taxes – and give back savings from wasted spending.
More to the point of this thread, Lori obviously didn't get her message out to you. This is the very reason that I asked how your perception was formed. While I do want to assure you that Lori is far more conservative than you think, I am more interested in understanding what you learned from her last campaign. Lori needs to do a better job reaching voters like yourself this time around.
Regarding the selection of candidates, there are two things that you should know.
1. It is very tough to find a good candidate – sometimes tough to find ANY candidate. The pay and the hours might be great for a recent college grad living at home, but not for someone supporting a family. It can be difficult for those party reptiles to find the perfect RINO to nominate. [subtle sarcasm alert]
2. Based on a survey of 172 of the 700+ caucus attendees, 60% were first timers. Many, maybe half of those who became delegates to the convention were among these newcomers. It is EASY to get involved and to have a direct say in the endorsement process. Like Mark said, good old boys were not selecting our nominee, your neighbors were. You could have been too had you not given that up on that scene. Gina could have used your vote.
Mark,
My sympathies for the loss of Favre.
And, thanks for the comment space!!
I was a first-timer to the caucus and a first-time (obviously) delegate to the BPOU. I have to say, I missed the reptiles. Didn't see them anywhere. It was very easy to get involved, and to make my voice and opinions heard. I wanted to try to move on to the next level, but I'm likely moving out of 50B before November and didn't think it fair to take that spot from someone else.
I really struggled over whom to vote for between Gina and Lori. In the end, I voted for Lori because I really trust Gina -- and fear for what would happen without her in New Brighton. We need her in city council, and I hope she'll stay as long as she can.
Nick seemed to be concerned about federal issues. We don't share concerns at the state level.
I have no reason to fear that Lori will be a RINO. My parents are lifelong teachers and lifelong Republicans. They support levies, but they're not RINOs. They'd rather see money spent differently, but they know that when schools don't get their way they make it hurt the wrong people. They feel like they're over a barrel because if the levy is shot down the schools take it out on people who need it to teach the voters a lesson. They could decide not to put a TV in every room or not to hire another diversity coordinator, but they don't. I disagree with my parents, but levy support doesn't always indicate a RINO.
I was impressed that the BPOU process is really grassroots. I had assumptions about party machines and hand-picked candidates, and that's just not the case. At least it wasn't this year.
Anonymous #1 here...
g-man, nice attempt at spin regarding Grivna and Education Minnesota, but it's well known that she worked hard to head off a Knuth endorsement by EM in their contest. The fact that she didn't eventually receive the endorsement doesn't mean that EM didn't find her views to be aligned with theirs - it's very common for organizations like EM to not endorse either candidate when both satisfy their policy criteria. The NRA has been known to do this from time to time when both candidates are found acceptable - they see no point in alienating one of their allies with an endorsement of their opponent.
And the idea that a non-endorsement of Grivna by EM, when granting an endorsement could have burnished their nonpartisan credentials, proves that Grivna was not on the same page as EM is fanciful.
The fact is, EM found Grivna and Knuth to be similar enough in their view of public education, and sufficiently in line with EM's view, that they took a pass on endorsing. And that, frankly, is EM's idea of non-partisanship when a DFLer is involved.
(And please, don't tell me that EM declined to endorse in that race because they found both Knuth and Grivna too conservative for their tastes...)
g-pok, I had wondered if people in New Brighton might make that calculation regarding Gina, that she's just too valuable on the NB City Council to lose. With two acceptable candidates to choose from, it perhaps made sense to allocate them for maximum benefit - keep Gina right where she is and send Lori to St Paul. It's certainly a sophisticated choice given the available options.
Anonymous #1,
You make a fair point that EdMn could choose not to endorse when they like both candidates. But, it is still a stretch to interpret such inaction as conclusive evidence that Grivna supports their agenda.
Nonetheless, the process by which you perceive Lori's view on the issues (education in particular) is quite valuable. The school board + no MnEd endorsement = must support MnEd agenda formulation is particularly interesting. Flawed and wrong, but valuable because it identifies an area that Lori must address.
Rest assured. Lori does not support MnEd's agenda. No spin here and not based on our exercise of MnEd speculation. But, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to ask the candidate directly – then help me tell other conservatives that Lori is worthy of their support.
Post a Comment