The He Man Woman Haters Club Pledge:

I, Frank Long…Member in good standing of the He-man Woman Haters Club…do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to…And especially: never fall in love…And if I do, may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours or until I scream bloody murder.

Apparently Frank, Tom, Vince and Jim (a/k/a Our Gang – the Little Rascals) are still stinging from the League of Women Voters making their buddy Ernie look like the buffoon he is, so they are going to load up, take very careful aim, and shoot themselves right in the foot. (BANG) And then climb back in the treehouse and congratulate each other on their cleverness.

As I read through this rant, I don’t see ANY mention of County issues. Unless there is a nuclear plant going into Carver that I hadn’t heard about, or these clowns think Carver County can opt out of Obamacare… Would it kill you to answer some questions from the community you are running to represent? What are you all running from?

These are people who have NO IDEA what they are doing running for office and how to get a vote. And the BPOU “Leadership” have given their endorsement to three of the four. He-men, if you think the LWV is a tough opponent (and they have made you look foolish twice without even trying), you should go up against the DFL once. I hear they have, like, a platform and stuff.

(Thanks to the two people who alerted me to the letter)

[UPDATE 9/17] the Chanhassen Villager and Chaska Herald have published the letter on their websites.

The Brick City Blog weighed in with “Feckless and Gutless” I like Spanky and the gang better, but we agree that they seem to be avoiding something.

[UPDATE 9/18] Frank Long (a/k/a Petey) has commented on the hubbub on the Chanhassen Villager website. He says there are three debates in the works. Hoefully (for his sake) one of them is about nuclear power…

Vice Beaudette as “Spankey”

Tom Workman as “Alfalfa”

Jim Walter as “Mickey”

Ernie Leidiger as “Porky”

Frank Long as “Petey”

From:Frank Long

To:Audrey Kramer, LWV (and a host of others)
Cc: (various local media)

Open Letter to the League of Women Voters of Carver County,

In reference to your invitation to participate in the Oct. 13 [the true date is Oct 2] Debate Forum. You had stated in an earlier email that you would be contacting us after the Primary Election, as this was received only via USPS, we the Candidates running for the position of County Commissioner (as listed below) have with long and thoughtful consideration, choose to reply to your original invitation. We have reservations about participating in your forum. While your State website asserts that you are a non partisan organization, due to your “official” non- endorsement of individuals or political parties, your organization takes a decidedly leftist view on policy and partnerships. The following are examples of The League of Women Voters Minnesota policy positions.

The LWVMN supported the Organized Labor position on Right to Work Legislation in the last legislative session. An extensive internet search has failed to find an example of the LWVMN ever opposing a Organized Labor position.

The LWVMN opposed letting voters decide if they wanted a special interest group redefining the meaning of marriage. Having lost that battle, you are now in support of the organizations that are twisting the message to one of hate, instead of protecting traditional marriage. An unbiased organization only concerned with equal protection would advocate a civil union solution, not seek to propagandize an issue passed in 32 of our 50 States.

The LWVMN has produced a 17 minute “educational” video that ignores the facts about discrepancies in our voter registration process, such as thousands of voters who cannot be verified as to place of residence or often, existence. These facts are acknowledged by the USPS as well as the Secretary of States office, when questioned directly. Your position is an exact mirror image of the democrat party. In spite of tens of thousands of verified voting irregularities in the last decade alone, in a system that does not lend itself to confirmation and verification, you promote the false narrative that there is no problem. This is an irresponsible position when dealing with something as important as the legitimacy and value of each legal vote. In our opinion your “educational” video is a damaging, partisan disservice to any Minnesotan who views it. The League of Women Voters distribution of this propaganda through our public library system and your exploitation of our seniors at assisted living facilities, all the while continuing to misrepresent your organization as objective is not only disingenuous, but a deceptive fraudulent fabrication . Unfortunately this ongoing mission of misinformation has been perpetuated by those who are afraid to challenge your long standing organization, and the general public’s lack of familiarity with your consistently liberal positions.

Also on the League of Women Voters Minnesota website:
Gun Control: “LWVMN Support restrictions on the sale, possession and use of firearms by private parties in the state of Minnesota .” At odds with our 2nd amendment rights.

Healthcare: “LWVMN favors a national health insurance plan financed through general taxes in place of individual insurance premiums.(1993)”. Forced Government Healthcare.

Immigration: “LWVMN supports incorporating immigrants into our communities by providing access to education, by endorsing the development of secure identification documents, and by respecting the right of law enforcement personnel to perform their duties without the burden of interpreting federal immigration policies. Oppose residents with legal immigrant status running for local office.” Equating legal and illegal immigrants as the same. /Advocating law enforcement to ignore Federal Immigration law.

We have either have attended or participated in several of your debates, we along with many of our like minded friends have submitted questions at these debates. Our questions are mostly geared to differentiating the candidates philosophy’s. (sic) They are well written by informed and involved citizens. They are never chosen. Instead we have sat though questions concerning mining issues (appropriate for the 8th district) and implementation of social justice, a concept that first should be defined and then debated as to necessity or value in a government setting, not delivered as a integrated societal norm. Your premise on most questions presumes an agreement with your world view, most of Carver County residents don’t agree with the liberal/progressive point of view, so as with your questions, to appoint yourself the authority on voting and elections in Carver County is presumptuous and overreaching.

We have agreed that we would consider participating only if you partnered with an organization that could balance your point of view, say a Tea Party organization or possibly the Voices of Conservative Women could bring an even-handedness or parity to a forum that many Carver County Conservatives have not considered legitimate. Fortunately, there are other venues available for people to hear the candidate’s plans, focus, and ability to debate their positions on the issues. As all but one Carver County commissioner candidate claims to be Republican (another may be an independent), a debate “moderated” by a less liberal leaning organization would seem logical and more representative of Carver County’s voting base. Independents such as the Southwest Metro Tea Party or another entity may very well serve our County better than an organization that won’t admit to it’s leanings.

And on the League of Women Voters National Website:
The League believes that the United States should “promote peace in an interdependent world by working cooperatively with other nations and strengthening international organizations”. The league is a strong supporter of the United Nations. This puts the League of Women Voters at odds with an “ America first” strong position of Nationalism. While always an important attitude, it is needed now more than ever in this economy where the US must compete with other Nations that do support and even subsidize industries that compete with ours. The United Nations voting record has not been respectful of our status as a sovereign nation, trying to force gun control, seeking to regulate our use of free market resources, proposing to impose carbon taxes, immigration law and many other policies that do not serve the citizens of the United States.

The League supports a general income tax increase to finance national health care reform for the inclusion of reproductive health care, including abortion, in any health benefits package. Taking a stand against States Rights and Pro-life positions. Hardly objective or unbiased.

The League advocates affirmative action programs for minorities and women and opposes private school vouchers.

The League supports a system for unauthorized (illegal) immigrants already in the country to earn legal status, including citizenship.

The League could support deficit spending, if necessary, for stimulating the economy and opposes across-the-board federal spending cuts except for reductions in defense spending. The League opposes a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Mirror image of the Democrat Party. There is no difference.

The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. The League supports strong federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of these weapons by private citizens. The League supports regulating firearms for consumer safety and supports licensing procedures for gun ownership.
Mirror image of the Democrat Party. There is no difference.

The League supported the Climate Security Act of 2008 (cap and trade) and policies that limit reliance on nuclear fission. The league opposes the proposed Keystone Pipeline project. Mirror image of the Democrat Party. There is no difference.

We are Republicans, we have a point of view that government takes and does too much. We have no faith that the League of Women Voters of Carver County are going to accept that point of view or ask questions that will allow us to talk about those values and viewpoints that are nearly polar opposite of what they (posing as an objective, unbiased organization) promote.

Therefore, barring an acceptance of our proposal to partner with an organization more representative of a more centrist view and the majority of Carver County Voters, we have decided to decline your invitation.

Frank Long Candidate: Carver County Commissioner District 4
Vince Beaudette Candidate: Carver County Commissioner District 3
Jim Walter Candidate: Carver County Commissioner District 5
Tom Workman Candidate: Carver County Commissioner District 2