Tom Horner Snags Newspaper Endorsement and a Small Bump in Polling

By on August 2, 2010 3:43 AM

If it is true that timing is everything, then I suppose that I have nothing. Two days ago, I wrote an article gathering all of the going-ons in the Minnesota Independence Party gubernatorial race. I then watched as for the past two days headlines emerged that would outshine by lowly post. In hindsight, I probably should have waited to gather news on the contest. So, without further ado:

A new poll is out on the Minnesota gubernatorial race. Minnesota IP candidate Tom Horner polls between 13 and 15%, depending on the Democrat included (that party faces a contested primary). All of the Democratic candidates lead in the race, but they have spent lots of ad money early on for the upcoming primary (building name recognition ). Neither, Emmer (R) nor Horner has run ads thus far. No other IP candidates were included in the polling. Take the poll with a huge caveat – it has a margin of error of almost 8% and makes at least one bad prediction on voter turnout for the Democratic primary.

Then yesterday the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the largest newspaper in the state, came out with its endorsements in the race. Their selection for the IP is Tom Horner. You can read the whole thing here, but here is a taste of their excessively glowing endorsement:

Only one candidate in the five-way IP field is gubernatorial material. Tom Horner, a public-relations professional, businessman and longtime Republican activist, ought to easily secure the IP spot on the general-election ballot.
Horner, a former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger, is well-known in state government circles and well-schooled in public policy and organizational leadership. He has mounted a genuine statewide campaign, and is offering thoughtful proposals to address a wide range of state problems.
In the full field of candidates for governor, DFLers and Republicans included, Horner may be the best-connected to the state’s leading businesses, having been a paid adviser to a number of them. And in the entire field, he most convincingly describes how reform of both the state tax code and delivery of services could contribute to balancing the state budget.

Horner faces a 5-way primary for the Minnesota IP nomination, but his main competition for the nod is Twin Cities publisher Rob Hahn. The primary is on August 10th.

20 Comments

paulie August 6, 2010
Glad you liked it. 🙂
Michael Cavlan RN August 4, 2010
Paulie
thanks. read it. The Star wars analogy link was fascinating.
paulie August 4, 2010
Cavlan, let me know if you get a chance to read that and follow the links.
paulie August 4, 2010
Hey Paulie. Got a question.
How do Libertarians see getting around corporate control and abuse?
For example, how do you guys see keeping the corporate healthcare system in check? Since they control the gubment, courts, media (potential jury pools) and University studies etc etc.
Serious question
End corporate welfare, both direct and indirect (EG: US Highway system, military-petroleum complex, prison industries, eminent domain abuse, corporate personhood, noncontractual limited liability, liability caps, effects of taxes, red tape and occupational licensing in discouraging self-employment and encouraging people to be corporate employees instead, etc).
More indirectly still, the gov’t school system discourages the independent thinking required to be an entrepreneur, while encouraging the groupthink mentality that works best with big government and big business institutions.
In healthcare, allow alternative practioners and healing methods; see http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap5.html
for how we got here, with clues on what to undo.
Also:
Posted by Roderick Long at http://praxeology.net/aotp.htm#1:
Those who see government power and corporate power as being in conflict, and those who seem them as being in cahoots, each have a point. The alliance between government and the corporate elite is like the partnership between church and state in the Middle Ages: each one wants to be the dominant partner, so there’s naturally some pushing and shoving from time to time; but on the other hand the two parties have a common interest in holding down the rest of us, and so the conflict rarely goes too far. The main difference between “left-wing” and “right-wing” versions of statism, as I see it, is that the former generally seek to shift the balance a bit farther in favour of the state (i.e., toward state-socialism) while the latter generally seek to shift the balance a bit farther in favour of corporatism and plutocracy. (In the U.S., the reigning versions of liberalism and conservatism are arguably both more corporatist than state-socialist; but the liberals are still a few notches farther toward state-socialism than the conservatives are.)
But whether the special interests who are the primary beneficiaries of state power are mainly within the state apparatus or mainly outside it, the actual application of state power remains much the same. Hence it is a mistake to suppose that the corporatist-plutocratic version of statism is in any interesting sense less statist than the state-socialist version.
But it is an all-too-common mistake – and this tendency to underestimate the chasm between free markets and corporatism is enormously beneficial to the state, enabling a slick bait-and-switch. When free markets and government grants of privilege to business are conflated, those who are attracted to free markets are easily duped into supporting plutocracy, thus swelling the ranks of statism’s right wing – while those who are turned off by plutocracy are likewise easily duped into opposing free markets, thereby swelling the ranks of statism’s left wing. (These are the two tendencies that Kevin Carson calls “vulgar libertarianism” and “vulgar liberalism,” respectively.)
As one of the villains in The Fountainhead explains in a moment of frankness, talking about the choice Europe was then facing between communism and fascism:
“If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective.
The largely (though not completely) illusory conflict between state-oriented Palpatine and corporate-oriented Dooku in the Star Wars prequels is a nice dramatisation of the same principle.
This dynamic applies in particular to the debate over health care policy. The contrast between, say, the Canadian and American approaches is frequently described – by both sides – as a contrast between a “governmental” or “socialised” system on the one hand, and a “market-based” or “free enterprise” system on the other. But the American health care system bears little resemblance to a free market; instead it represents massive government intervention on behalf of private special interests, from insurance companies to the medical establishment. The choice between the American and Canadian models is simply a choice between different two different flavours of statism – each with somewhat different vices, it’s true (e.g., do you prefer higher prices or longer waits?), but ultimately coming down to a matter of the percentage to which control of your healthcare is exercised by people sitting in government offices as opposed to being exercised by people sitting in governmentally-privileged “private” offices – but in either case by ambitious, avaricious apparatchiks who aren’t you.
So what would a libertarian approach to health care policy look like? At a minimum it would have to include:
1. Repealing laws that have the effect of cartelising the medical industry (e.g., the licensure monopoly granted to the A.M.A.), thus artificially boosting the cost of medical care.
2. Repealing laws that have the effect of rendering the labour market oligopsonistic, thus artificially lowering people’s ability to pay for (and collectively negotiate for) medical care.
3. Repealing laws that shift healthcare funds from the 25%-devoured-by-overhead voluntary sector to the 75%-devoured-by-overhead coercive sector, thus decreasing the amount of healthcare that gets to needy recipients.
4. Repealing laws that transfer the power to make medical decisions for individuals from those individuals to centralised bodies, thus increasing the impact and scope of fatally bad decisions and suppressing the competitive signals that allow the identification of better and worse policies.
5. Repealing laws that wiped out the old mutual-insurance systems (basically HMOs run by the patients instead of by corporations) and empowered insurance companies at the expense of patients.
6. Repealing laws that suppress innovation and distribution in the pharmaceutical industry in the name of “intellectual property.”
Until the unlikely day when the Republican Party embraces this program, let’s hear no more of their favouring a free-market approach to health care.
Robert Milnes August 3, 2010
What is needed is for a woman libertarian to announce for LP presidential nomination NOW. To take on Root et al. & to start PLAS for 2010 elections before it is too late. & to formulate a fusion ticket for 2012. If Ruwart hasn’t the political will to make use of her wherewithall with the radicals, someone else should step up to the plate. The most obvious-a leader of the radicals-is Susan H.
Michael Cavlan RN August 3, 2010
Dear God
So who are these “Green Party” people from Minnesot-ah in DC?
The Green Party candidate is Farheen Hakeem who is running WITHOUT the GP endorsement. Creating quite controversial in the Minnesot-ah Green Party.
Running also is Ken Pentel who was the most recognized Green in Minnesota. He is now running under the Ecology Democracy party..WITH their endorsement.
The Minnesota GP will probably loose it’s ballot access this election cycle.
Just like state after state after state.
So, time to carry on. Building, organizing an opposition to the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system.
Like we really mean it.
Green Party Conservative August 3, 2010
Talked to some folks from the great north Minnesotah…today in Washington D.C.
Just man on the street interview stuff.
They were very impressed by the Independence Party candidate for Governor..Horner…
Said they were voting for Tom Horner. Horner is also the Green Party candidate…right?
Michael Cavlan RN August 3, 2010
Paulie
LOLOL
Yeah, it was pretty funny.
Hey Paulie. Got a question.
How do Libertarians see getting around corporate control and abuse?
For example, how do you guys see keeping the corporate healthcare system in check? Since they control the gubment, courts, media (potential jury pools) and University studies etc etc.
Serious question
paulie August 3, 2010
kool aid…lol, good one
Michael Cavlan RN August 3, 2010
My statement stands.
I will leave it at that.
However, in Minnesota there is a growing group of folks who are giving up onn the Dems, Repubs and repub lite AKA MN Indy Party.
At our funndraiser last night we sold glasses of Kool Aid (Blue and Red) for a buck each.
It was a big hit with the crowd
Danny S August 2, 2010
As far as my individual policy on writing stories, I prioritize newsworthy events. Neither of these candidates has popped up in the last couple of weeks, so I haven’t written articles on them.
No, it is not “political bigotry”. Horner has made the most headlines as far as Minnesota and third parties are concerned, so he happens to have the most articles concerning Minnesota.
Michael Cavlan RN August 2, 2010
Sigh
Political bigorty continues. The great glorious Star Tribune negects to mention the other candidates. Those that must drink from a diferent fountain. Eat at a seperate lunch counter.
Ken Pentel and Farheen Hakeem.
Sorry to see Indy Political Report supporting the political bigotry.
I was at a fundraiser last night. It was a fundraiser for my own campaign for Congress. Ken Pentel was there and he spoke to the crowd.
The man is stellar and quite frankly, the “progressive” community in Minnesota does not deserve him.
Dianne Goldman, there is a rule in politics and it covers the media as well. It is called the golden microphone rule.
If you have the gold or speak on hehalf of those who have the gold, you get the golden microphone. Those who have the golden microphone or gain access to it have one rule.
Keep the microphone away from those who speak on behalf of those who do not have the gold.
Oh and as an aside, our fundraiser raised a total of $825. with no money from those who have the gold.
We have the best democracy money can buy.
In Minnesota and elsewhere.
Green Party Conservative August 2, 2010
Tom Horner has achieved an amazing feat winning that endorsement.
Congrats to him and the Independence Party of Minn..
NewFederalist August 2, 2010
Settle down, Bob. You’re just upsetting yourself unnecessarily. There, there… better?
Robert Milnes August 2, 2010
I’d call it a fiasco if the eventual nominees ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. AND that a possible November WINNING fusion ticket fell into the LP’s lap with the campaign of former U.S. Senator & anti-war activist Mike Gravel. A Gravel/Ruwart ticket could have been promoted as a fusion(progressive/libertarian) ticket. This possible ticket wasn’t even recognized. & how is it a former U.S. Representative got more nomination votes than a former U.S. Senator? FURTHER, another possible fusion ticket -Milnes/Ruwart was lost in the BTP elections. Tom K. ruined everything by running vp instead of withdrawing & getting Mary to run vp.
What is Mary’s problem, anyway?
NewFederalist August 2, 2010
PSLA can save America. PLAS cannot. PLAS is fatally flawed.
Robert Milnes August 2, 2010
The most recent try was with Mark Hinkle chair & Richard Winger & my local GP affiliate. Together via email. No further responses.
& I sent Mary R. a forward of an email to Tom K. I proposed that Mary declare for the LP presidential nomination NOW. If she is interested, why not? In 2008 she & Barr, the eventual top 2 waited until just about the last minute while the rest of us schmucked around suffocating from Ron Paul sucking out all the air(contributions & volunteers). Except for the few who could finance their own campaign.
THEN, my proposal was to shortly thereafter Mary could announce-at press conference-that she will try a PLAS campaign. This would be more directed at trying to salvage the 2010 elections which are undoubtedly ALL LP candidates will lose. THEN-again at press conference-she & I jointly announce the Independent fusion ticket.
Negative response from Tom. No response from Mary.
If anyone is interested in trying to salvage the 2010 elections you should speak up.
& if you want to avoid another fiasco in 2012 like we had in 2008, you should speak up.
Deran August 2, 2010
“Robert, your comments are not pertinent to this story. But thanks for sharing.”
lol. indeed. Are his comments ever pertinent?
Diane Goldman August 2, 2010
Robert, your comments are not pertinent to this story. But thanks for sharing.
As a volunteer on the Horner campaign, let me report that Tom is being very well received in traditional MN IP stronghold areas as well as the Iron Range and SE Minnesota. His endoresment by the Trib shows that he is the only candidate in the Govenor’s race, of all 3 MAJOR parites, who has a detailed plan on fixing our $6 billion budget deficit. Also in the poll, there were a large number of undecided voters.
Only the very far left and right voter are rejecting Horner. And the primary is Aug. 10 not Aug. 9th. Thanks for reporting on this race.
Robert Milnes August 2, 2010
Hi Jack!
Let’s review. I have described how all the GP & LP have to do is maximize & coordinate their vote & could get a close plurality win in a defacto 3 way race- GP OR LP40%/dem 30%/rep 30%.
Fill all ballots with a GP OR LP candidate & you could sweep out ALL the dems & reps!
Fusion ticket-a GP/LP ticket in 2012 could win.
Then introduce all the necessary legislation & start appointing progressive OR libertarian judiciary.
Reaction? A few lols & some nos. Most notably from paulie, Tom K. & Mary R.
Everybody else? Stone silence. Candidates-no reaction. Few even want to mention or discuss it.
Let alone try it.
Incredible. Amazing. Tragic even.
Losers.
It must be some sort of mental disease or defect.
I thought Teddy Roosevelt failed in 1912 but maybe we have learned some since then & try again in 2012. But nobody seems interested.
Except maybe d. eris with his PLEA. Pathetic.
I guess it will take even more terrible things to happen for things to get bad enough to get spoiled Americans off their asses. Disgusting oil spill in the Gulf. Oh well. Most Americans eat something every day so it is not that bad. Taxed to death? Not quite. You’ll be ok. 2 wars at once enough? Guess not.
Oh well. What’s the weather? I’ll go to the store & buy something today!

Comments are closed.