Brick City Blog

The only candidate forum in the State House 47A race occurred this morning.  I wasn’t able to attend due to a work commitment, but fortunately we have the Twitter streams of two local Republicans — Jim Sanborn (Waconia City Council member and campaign manager for State Sen. Julianne Ortman) and Jim Nash (Waconia Mayor) — to recap the event.  And, to no one’s great surprise, Rep. Ernie Leidiger said some things that defy explanation.

Like this:

Yes, that’s right.  Ernie Leidiger is calling for elected officials to be held to a higher standard.  This coming from the tax avoiding

View original post 456 more words


8 thoughts on “Ernie’s Whoppers

  1. Unfortunately, their comments weren’t entirely accurate. Julianne was great, the two uber-liberals were awful, and Ernie is being taken out of context in some of these tweets. I’m pretty disappointed in these two so-called delegates for the GOP, who obviously have some sour grapes to grind. I think Julianne may deserve better counsel than these two. Childishly sending out these tweets was beneath them and their positions.

    • 1 – you don’t grind grapes, sour or otherwise.
      2 – are you saying Ernie didn’t say what they tweeted? Please elaborate.
      3 – “so-called?” are they delegates of the GOP or not?

  2. Yeah, I know. It’s a mixed metaphor. Axe to grind, sour grapes,, blah, blah, blah. One of my quirks. I do that intentionally. It’s good for a silly moment. You know, add some lightheartedness here and there. I can’t be totally serious, even in front of a judge. But I can make them smile.

    Anyway, the snippets that were tweeted were Jim and Jim’s take on one minute answers from Ernie. He did say, for example, he wished there were more of these debates like this one (meaning the forum put on by the rotary club). It wasn’t actually a debate, but I think everyone knew what he meant by the comment.

    Ernie did say he never got a job from a poor person, in response to to Pickering’s class warfare rant for higher taxes for the wealthy…. yadda, yadda, (see any Barak Obama speech for details). I don’t know where the 2 or 3 comment came from or what Sandborn even meant by that. I certainly don’t recall anything about that.

    The comment that Ernie said his job creation plan was to tell businesses that they are the job creators is absurd. He certainly said a lot more than that, including lower tax rates, and making Minnesota more competitive with our neighboring states.

    And yes they are both delegates, and Jim Nash is even a precinct chair, and should apparently be reminded of this and the duties this position requires, including supporting of endorsed candidates. As delegates, there is time for conjecture and selection of candidates. Choosing to berate a candidate after endorsement is just plain out of line, and will be remembered by many when comes to future party proceedings.

    • So you don’t see the foolishness of Ernie saying he wished there were more debate/forums after refusing to participate in the League of Women Voters forum?

      I think we all realize that Twitter is 140 characters and you can’t get a whole response verbatim. I don’t read anything in your response that contradicts what was tweeted, only adds your viewpoint to what was said.

      Glad I could give you a forum to set record straight on Ernie’s comments.

  3. I don’t see any foolishness in this remark. He wishes there were more non-partisan candidate forums. I see no contradiction there. Ernie sees the LWV as the activist organization that it is. Just as the left-wing commissioners refused to come to a conservative forum, the conservatives refused to attend the left-wing forum. No surprise, really.

    I don’t expect a tweet to be 100% accurate. But these were clearly meant to show a fellow Republican in a bad light. It’s against the rules for a precinct chair to do so.

    I’ve asked the Jim’s for explanations as to what their purpose is for doing this. I’ve yet to hear a response. I can tell you the Party is very upset with them for what they’ve done, and their actions will be addressed.

  4. Thank goodness the Carver County GOP is going to step up and address its rogue Tweeter problem. Do they intend on doing something about the guy they endorsed who defaulted on a $500K government guaranteed loan and had $144K in tax liens against him?

  5. Those are aginst his business. They have nothing to do with his duties as a Representative. Anyone whos knows a thing about small business and running one that has run aground, knows there is nothing unusual about this situation. Apparently, Sean, you have reviewed the books for this organization and know exactly how this came to be. I’m guessing you haven’t, since those who have have not found any wrong doing, including the state, the IRS, etc.

    I’m not talking about these two being in trouble with the Carver County BPOU, which they are to some extent. There’s little we can do about it. There is an endorsement process. We followed it to the letter, and there are duties which we are bound by as delegates, precinct chairs, board members, etc. These delegates chose to endorse Ernie, just those in my district chose Joe Hoppe. Interestingly enough, Joe breifly had a challenger, for all of about a half a dayor so. In the end, he beat the challenger and received endorsement as did Ernie.

    The tweet episode, as I mentioned, does break rules, most definately for the precinct chair position, and these rules are established at the state level, as I recall when I was a precinct chair, not by the BPOU. The state provides a document of chair duties at the caucuses, and these volunteers are expected to follow those rules. I’m not sure what the state can do about it either, other than a firm reprimand. And that may have already taken place for all I know. I’m not privy to internal state activities, and even if I was, I wouldn’t comment about those actions in a semi-public format without an official statement or clearance to do so, because I would learn of this through official business.

    What the Jim’s did was a public matter, as demonstrated on both of your sites, which is the only reason I’d even talk about it. For example, if they had even once addressed these concerns with the board, (they have not, which would be the appopriate action, especially before publically do so), we wouldn’t be talking about their feelings in regards to Ernie.

    Ernie’s business problems have nothing to do with violating public trust in the man. If he were involved in criminal activity, or was under criminal investigation, we’d have something to talk about in regards to removing support for him. But that most certainly is not the case. He’s merely a businessman caught in a tough spot due to rapid decline in revenues, including incurring bad debts from his own customer base, which led to his infortunate circumstances. It’s hrdly grounds for stripping him of an endorsement, or for that matter, determining if he’s fit for office. The two don’t mix. In fact, I suggest, that by his actions of working to recitify these financial issues, Ernie has demonstrated that he is a stand up guy, and he’s not running from his obligations, but rather the opposite is true. He’s working to address them as best as his situation allows. That’s hardly reason to knock the man.

  6. Pingback: Let’s Go To The Tape, Round 2 | Brick City Blog

Comments are closed.