With the Palin addition to the McCain ticket, and my dislike of it and the Palin ties to Dobson, Bauer, Perkins, Schlafly, the LaHayes, and others that Michele Bachmann has embraced on that spectrum of "thought," I view it as helpful to disambiguate anything I have said from any chance people might view it as any indication of where the Immelman candidacy stands regarding church and state.
That is why I turn back to email from July.
I wrote:
date Jul 18, 2008 10:03 AM
subject Request to be on emailing for press releases
mailed-by gmail.com
I blog. If the campaign issues any press releases, I request to be on the email list. I would post about the releases on the blog. I am not interested in receiving contribution solicitations, as a contributor. I would receive them to the extent they may be newsworthy in themselves or contain news. The blog is:
http://zaetsch.blogspot.com/
I do not believe I have posted anything judgmentally unfair about the Immelman candidacy. I am not inclined favorably toward either Bachmann or Tinklenberg. I view each as a weak and problematic choice. I view the Anderson IP candidacy as unusual, and have seen a comment attributed to him that offends me.
Similar to Immelman, but for my own reasons, I favored Wetterling last cycle.
I look forward to a filling-out of what "traditional concervative values" means to the candidate. To me it is a newsworthy thing.
To my knowledge, Immelman has not solicited contributions via email or otherwise. I confirmed the reply he then sent as "on the record" and it is self-explanatory:
Dear Mr. Zaetsch,
Because of the "bare-bones" nature of my campaign (to quote Tim Pugmire's MPR report yesterday), I have no immediate plan for issuing press releases; however, I will consult on the nuts and bolts of issuing press releases with some media types I'm acquainted with outside of the political realm. In the meantime, I'll be using my campaign blog to issue periodic policy statements.
I do want to take this opportunity to thank you for your fair, even-handed coverage of my campaign on your blog. In time, I will respond to some of the important issues you have raised there -- and in particular, my campaign slogan of "restoring traditional conservative values."
Since you're the first to ask, I'll relate to you one aspect of what I mean by restoring traditional conservative values:
Although I'm probably in broad agreement with Rep. Bachmann on many of the social issues, I take exception with the recent tendency within a segment of the Republican Party to "theocratize" the political process.
I believe the framers of our Constitution got it right when they established our nation on a foundation of separation between church and state. The rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the bloody sectarian violence we have seen in Iraq offers a worst-case scenario and serves as a cautionary tale of the potentially destructive effects of politicizing religion and religious differences.
I take my cue from Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a traditional fiscal and national security conservative who has not used social issues to drive a wedge between people or to bludgeon his political adversaries. (I was an early supporter of the draft Hagel for president campaign.)
Lest I be viewed as a secularist, let me say that I have given all of my children a Catholic religious upbringing and formal education. While my faith does shape my view of the world, I have no intention of using my faith or religion as a political tool. I believe that's a traditional American value.
Sincerely,
Aubrey Immelman
I have never met or seen Immelman personally, whereas both Tinklenberg and Bachamnn are candidates I have seen speak [Bachmann in 2004, in St. Cloud, with Mark Kennedy, early in the election cycle that year, and Tinklenberg at the Olson-Tinklenberg debate in Anoka, this year]. Even at a distance I believe Immelman outclasses each of those two. Although that is faint praise, I would go further and say that if he were the GOP candidate in the general election, he would have my vote.
Of course, if a quality candidate of a more progressive leaning such as Bob Olson were a choice, I would favor such a person over Immelman on party, policy and ideology grounds. All of the reasons I have for disliking Bachmann and Tinklenberg are reasons for my liking Immelman. It is refreshing to read and be able to believe his recent website statement:
I have not taken any money to run for office, am not beholden to special interests, and come with no strings attached. My first responsibility will be to ordinary Minnesotans in the Sixth District.
[...] I disdain the deplorable level of partisanship in Washington. I will reach across the aisle, where possible, to get things done and will strive to work productively with all reasonable people. Despite ideological differences, we’re all American.
Given where Bachmann and Tinklenberg are at in their campaign money raising [and Tinklenberg, in his lobbying-consultancy], and where Bachmann is in her undivided loyalty to Bush-Cheney without whose fundraising help in 2004 she would have done less well, the "no strings attached" and "will strive to work productively with all reasonable people" statements resonate, especially with Tinknelberg clearly committed to believing James Oberstar is the most reasonable of people, judging from how frequently he's been noted to drop that name in his Tinklenberg Group activity.