consultants are sandburs

Sunday, April 27, 2014

The drama of GOP House District 8B has reached its climax, if Tea Partier Sue Nelson will simply abide and go away.

Start with the news report, Franson got her 60 percent, no report on how many ballots were taken, beyond "several:"

At Saturday's Republican endorsing convention, Franson won with 60 percent of the vote in a contest with challenger Sue Nelson of rural Perham after several rounds of voting, according to Bill Schulz, secretary of the Republican Party of Otter Tail County.

Given that they are Republicans, and that Franson is experienced, there may be a ---- recount.

Likely not on the recount but the news would be if Sue Nelson were to abide, and that GOP drama would end not with a bang but a whimper. Or some such.

Now, what will Franson say in winning, what will Harpel do, given his implausible contention his suit, timed as it was, has no intention of impeding Franson's political career. (Given how one contention is she owes him money, one expects a rational view would be to hope she keeps the legislative paycheck. Get a judgment, get a garnishment.)

That last City Pages link, with regard to Sue Nelson, notes:

Nelson, meanwhile, hasn't acknowledged this week's controversy on her Facebook page and is instead citing Franson's narrow 2012 victory as her reason for challenging her.

"I see this seat as being in jeopardy," Nelson writes in a post published this morning. "It remained in the Republican column by only the narrowest of margins in the last election. The constantly diminishing election results are simply too close for many conservatives to bear."

That's it for now. What is to be read into "constantly diminishing election results are simply too close for many conservatives to bear" in terms of abiding or forcing a primary? That's yet to be fleshed out by the Nelson camp.

While I was aware of the outcome and wrote the above post, I later cleared email linking to Sorensen's earlier coverage, here. Of interest, Sorensen posts yet more detail, but speculates identically, i.e., have we heard the last from Sue Nelson this elelection cycle, or will there be a House Dist. 8B primary? Nelson appears to be leaving that route open while she, family, and close supporters hash out a course of action.

As an even money bet, she causes a primary and it will be a scrappy one.

_______FURTHER UPDATE________
With primary/no primary still not reported decisively, it took seven ballots for Franson to defeat Nelson by the required supermajority. See: here and here.

Sorensen's coverage unearthed news of what to me is the most intriguing aspect of this rural Minnesota saga. If Nelson does not cave in now, but forces a primary, what role will political for-hire consultant Gary Borgendale play, and will it be play for pay? I cannot envision Franson hiring him for damage control, should Nelson take the high road and shut her effort down at this point. That flyer under Borgendale's name, which Sorensen posted here, remains a curious piece of evidence. That captioned organizational name, "Americans for Marriage and Life," sure rings of astroturf vs. grassroot. An organization of who, Borgendale and his tape worm?

_______FURTHER UPDATE________
From Sue Nelson's campaign Facebook:

_______FURTHER UPDATE________
City Pages should be commended for posting the pleadings in the Harpel v. Franson litigation [but castigated for posting them via Scribd where you cannot download a pdf copy unless you've opened a Facebook account and who would ever want to do anything that stupid]. Aside from judging Scribd, the City Pages post focuses on some of the more troubling [and salacious] parts of Harpel's complaint. In doing that I feel they miss the heart of the entire dispute, that appearing to be at pages 6-7 of the Harpel Complaint for money due, per these screen captures:

click the images to enlarge and read

That's right, a good old-fashioned lawsuit about money. And why not? These, after all, are Republicans.

She promised to repay, the deeper pocket in the situation complains. She did not? Reputation aside, the gist of the complaint is that money is due.

Those considering themselves uber-Christian should not forget Jesus driving the money changers from the Temple. That was the inevitable beginning of the Crucifixion. Challenging the Roman and collabrationist ways and means, and keeping that attitude alive, is what the transgression against the status quo was about.

Mix in a bit of Golden Rule. Harpel pleads that beginning October 2010 and running through August 2011 [hence, onward to some unstated date] he put money in Franson's hands, in excess of fifty grand, and he wants it back.

March 2, 2012, is when Sorensen broke the "don't feed the animals" Franson video story.

One has to wonder, a divorced single parent apparently with custody of minor children and spousal support difficulty, appearing unable to meet expenses without help, how can such a person "do unto" those relying upon state provided assistance, after having herself illadvisedly not explored or utilized that sounder route to making ends meet, then think it proper to record that assistance should not be "done unto others," by well-reasoned and proper state function?

It is a bit mind boggling.

With the experience set that Franson appears to have endured, the litigation timed as it was as to filing, all that; Franson should switch parties from that party which elevates favoring the deep pocket to a near religion, to that party which favors it too, unfortunately, but less so.

What was the mindset at play, to record a "don't feed the animals" video while having the Sword of Damocles poised, if pleadings are true, as it was by the deep pocket player?

FURTHER UPDATE: If you care, Brodkorb, here, has a ballot-by-ballot "box score" for the HD 8B contest. A few "no endorsement" motions were considered but defeated. Franson survived to endorsement, seventh ballot. It reminds me of Revelation, opening the seven seals. Not that I pretend Revelation scholarship as an area of expertise, but comments are welcome from any reader who makes such a claim. I only know that numerologists have had a bonanza time looking at four horsemen, seven seals, number of the Beast, and such. Bless them in their efforts at reaching an understanding. Comments on the number of Nominations Committee reports [one I believe], No Endorsement votes, and such, the numerological implications going with seven ballots, any such comment would be appreciated. I do not understand Republicans, but I do recall, one Beast, one handmaiden of the Beast, and wonder how all that squares with HD 8B Republicanism.

No comments: