« LIVE-BLOG OF 2008 REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION | Home | LIVE-BLOG OF 2008 REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION #2 »
MDE AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 30, 2008
I was elected as a delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention today in Rochester. I am honored and humbled by the support from my fellow Republicans today.
I can’t wait to attend the convention in a few months. Since I am now a delegate, I’ll be posting more updates on the upcoming Republican National Convention on Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 41 Comments »
41 Responses to “MDE AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Congratulations MDE! Although I wasn’t a delegate, I was glad to see that you ran for national delegate. Keep up the great work!
May 30th, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Wow! Interesting. Was the “slate” decidied prior to the convention or were other people allowed to run for the positions? Nice professional banner….
May 30th, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Congratulations to MDE and all the delegates!
May 30th, 2008 at 11:07 PM
With one click of my mouse I could change the screen of the Republican National Convention (RNC) from English language to the SPANISH LANGUAGE.
Please remind your (RNC) delegates that when they look across the river onto the West Side [west bank], that they are looking at the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. President Thomas Jefferson bought that land from Napoleon Bonaparte.
Napoleon claimed it via the French explorers, via the Indigenous Nations.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:12 AM
West Metro…
Just back from Rochester. The “slate” was not elected and others where interviewed by the nominations committee, included in their report and on the ballot.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Oh goody goody goody!!! Work you’re way up the ranks and you can be the next Scott McClellen. That is if you have a conscience. Otherwise, maybe you can be Cheney!
May 31st, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Mark Peterson,
Cheney is the one who gave $8-million to charity as Vice President. And McClellan is the one who stabbed his friends in the back for something less than that. I hope MDE emulates Cheney on his rise up the ladder. Nobody should emulate McClellan–nobody with a conscience.
—————
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AND MRS. CHENEY
RELEASE 2007 INCOME TAX RETURN
Vice President and Mrs. Cheney filed their federal income tax return for 2007 today.
The income tax return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2007 of $602,651 on taxable income of $2,528,068. During the course of 2007 the Cheneys paid $466,165 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments, and will pay the remaining $136,486 upon filing their tax return.
The wage and salary income reported on the tax return includes the Vice President’s $212,208 government salary. In addition, the tax return reports a pension benefit of $32,500, which the Vice President received as a former director of Union Pacific Corporation. The Vice President became eligible for this benefit in 2006 when he turned 65. The tax return also reports Mrs. Cheney’s book royalty income, a salary from her continuing work at the American Enterprise Institute, and a pension benefit of $32,000, which she received as a former director of Reader’s Digest. The amounts of the pension benefits received by the Vice President and by Mrs. Cheney are fixed and will not increase or decrease regardless of changes in the earnings or revenues of either company.
The Cheneys donated $166,547 to charity in 2007. This brings the Cheneys’ total charitable contributions during his Vice Presidency to $ 7,966,566.
(from: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/04/11/bush-cheney-tax-returns/ )
May 31st, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Scott McClellen… by all accounts, he’s a spineless liar. … he’ll be a great Democrat.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:23 AM
Now if only McClellen were a potty mouthed angry man with a dirty mind he could move here and run for the DFL nomination for Senate.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:33 AM
Just wondering how an open ballot resulted in an immediate hanging of a beautiful professionally created banner…….that’s all. Sure looks like a “slate” vote to me.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Great job Michael! As a grand gesture, I will pay for your hotel costs during the convention, outside of your bar bill.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Are you accusing the republicans of taking democracy out of the process?
What next, you will claim that Dick Cheney hand selected Norm for the job, and told T-Paw that he couldn’t challenge him?
They should stop using the word convention when they hold this event, and call it what it really is, a coronation. A cabal of power brokers sit in a back room and decide which republicans will be anointed to skip the primary process and head to the general. If you think it isn’t true, ask Ron Paul and Rod Grams.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Hey Le*uckWad,
Which party is meeting today to determine whether or not, and to what degree they should disenfranchise primary voters in Michigan and Florida?
Which party, after all the primary voting is completed, reserves 30 percent of its delegates as a back up plan to overturn the primary election results?
If anyone removes democracy from the process, it’s the Dumb-o-Rats.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Are you accusing the republicans of taking democracy out of the process?
You mean like Democrats who claimed to want “all the votes counted” in 2000 but refuse to count all the votes in 2008?
May 31st, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I thought you all understood how rules worked. The democrats said that if states like Michigan and Florida moved their primaries before a set date, their delegates would not be seated. The states ignored the threat, moved their dates, and now are finding out that the party was serious.
If they wanted their votes to count, they should have listened to the group that sponsored the vote.
And that being said, even if all the delegates were counted, Hillary still wouldn’t have enough to earn the endorsement.
So, what you have is Obama coming here on Tuesday to fill the X and claim his victory in the very place where Republicans will be sealing their fate later this year.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:57 AM
So as a “democrat”, one who is from the party who claims to be for the “little guy” and the party who has shouted from the tree tops for eight years that Florida didn’t “count all the votes”, you are rationalizing away two states full of people’s votes. “Disenfranchisement” is okay when it helps your candidate, I guess.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:35 PM
No, I am saying when a state breaks the rules, they are penalized.
Why should rules only apply in certain cases?
Am I free to say that Al Franken should not have to pay his taxes properly because I once got a rebate check from the state for paying too much in taxes?
May 31st, 2008 at 2:57 PM
The “people” didn’t break any rules, a few on some partisan committee did. So because a few broke some internal preference all the people should be punished.
Great rationalizing there.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:14 PM
“The states ignored the threat, moved their dates, and now are finding out that the party was serious.”
Bullshit. The states moved their dates, and now are finding out that the Party is anything but serious. Thus a meeting today to determine to what degree those states’ voters should be disenfranchised.
The original rule said the entirety of both states should be disenfranchised. Now they think may they’ll just violate the rights of half of each state.
The question you should ask Le*uckWad, is why should anyone’s votes be cast aside for any reason.
Though disenfranchisement is what Democrats do. The DNC: What a fucking joke.
May 31st, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Michael:
Congratulations on your election … there should be no problems wtth your obtaining “credentials” to blog from the convention. Perhaps you can share the insights of a couple of “great” Americans who will be sure to be invited … Michael Moore and president Jimmy “Hamas” Carter!!
May 31st, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Average Joe-
So, using your logic, since the select few, (Congress) made the tax laws, Al Franken (the people) should not have to abide by them?
Chestnut-
What if Minnesota decided to vote for president again next year? Should those votes also be counted, and given they would undoubtedly be the plurality of the national vote, should the outcome be binding?
May 31st, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Hey Le*uckWad,
Do you have any other watermelons you’d like to compare to 747s? Seriously, that’s the best you have to offer to explain why the DNC is disenfranchising the voting rights of millions of citizens in Michigan and Florida?
You’re even dumber than I thought…. and to be clear, I think you’re colossally stupid.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:48 PM
With the DNC’s rules, I don’t know why Democrats bother holding primary elections and caucuses. There’s a pretty good chance the DNC will throw out your ballot on a whim. And if not that, they’ve got a slate equaling about 30 percent of the delegates who can overturn the results anyway.
DNC: Disenfranchising this Nation’s Citizens.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Le*uckWad’s argumentation tactic is to change the subject to a scenario where Minnesota violates the U.S. Constitution in slating it’s electoral votes in a presidential election.
The subject actually was, however, the DNC’s disenfranchisement of millions of Michigan and Florida voters.
Le*uckWad seems to believe that justice was served when the DNC threatened Florida and Michigan with not seating their delegates if they held their primaries before an arbitrary date. He seems to believe that the voices of the citizens in those states should be silenced.
And that indeed was the rule that the DNC set before the primary season. However, rules don’t mean shit to Democrats, because today Democrats decided that their threats and their rules were as arbitrary as the date they set when they punished Michigan and Florida.
They decided that they would just violate the voting rights of half of Michigan and Florida.
The fact remains, the millions of citizens in Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised by the DNCs arbitrary rules and the DNCs arbitrary enforcement of those rules.
And to be clear, there needs to be no strawman about Minnesota to see clearly the utter stupidity of the Disenfrachisment party… and the utter stupidity of Le*uckWad Jerkins.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:51 PM
At 6:26 p.m. the StarTribune wrote that Democratic Party officials ruled that Michigan and Florida would have half-votes.
Chestnut’s uninterrupted comments were at: 6:44, 6:48, & 7:14 p.m.
A half-vote seems to be a type of compromise between one whole vote, and not having the vote count at all.
The moderates are probably going to tolerate it, and the more purists probably aren’t going to be very happy with it.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:49 PM
What is going on with the Democrats in Michigan and Florida has nothing on what my party (Republican) just did in Rochester. They disenfranchised almost half of the delegates at their convention. You can say what you want to about being able to work with the rules and such, the fact of the matter is, the rules were not followed by the party and the election was rigged. They could have achieved the same result with far less heavy-handedness and saved everybody a lot of grief. Then they would have actually had a more unified party, instead they have a party that’s pretending to be unified. The convention was a travesty and the result is a tragedy. When you send 40% of your delegates homw with a bad taste in their mouth, what does that do to your chances of success in November? It sure doesn’t help them.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:42 PM
So el presidente, you find justice in diluting the votes of the citizens of Michigan and Florida. I find it hard to believe that a party that pretends to have a foundation in equality can, with a straight face, tell these citizens that their vote counts less than the votes of others.
But I suppose you’re right. If its the difference between having your vote tossed in the trash can and being given a symbolic presence at the convention, some level of representation is better.
I will conclude with this: Democrats are absolute masters at disenfranchising the voting rights of American citizens.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Chestnut-
We get it. Rush used the word disenfranchised to label the voters in Florida and Michigan, and now you have managed to fit the word, or a derivative of the word, into this one thread NINE TIMES.
If I wanted to debate Rush on the issue, I would call his show. There is no shame in being incapable of forming your own opinion. Quite honestly, it is what I have come to expect from most Republicans.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. But if he used the word, he used it correctly. The DNC disenfranchised the voters of Michigan and Florida. I’ve formed my own opinion on the matter. Suggest you do the same on this and every other issue through which you spout nothing but tired, false DNC talking points, Le*uckWad.
By the way, the votes in Florida and in Michigan are worth less than votes by a free black man in 1804. Are you suggesting that those individuals were not disenfranchised either?
June 1st, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The DNC did nothing to, to use “your” word, disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida.
Their state parties chose to break the rules, and as such, they were penalized. If Michigonians and Floridians want to be pissed at anyone, they should be pissed at their state party chairs for playing a game of chicken with the DNC.
And, with Obama and Edwards not even on the ballots in Michigan, it is hard to see how the half-vote given to those delegates are even fair.
So many of you like to make the comparison between 2008 and 2000. The big difference is, this was a primary vote. People making the final decision for who will be president are not having their votes rejected by George Bush’s lawyers and the court his daddy and his daddy’s boss made. Voters who don’t get a vote in the final poll are much more disenfranchised than those who don’t get to vote in the prelims.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Oh… so the DNC is justified in disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida because it set arbitrary rules by which they could be disenfranchised. In other words, the voters were disenfranchised because the Democrat parties disenfranchised them.
Tell me what part I still have wrong?
Not that it matters, because the DNC set the rules to disenfranchise those voters completely, but then changed the rules mid-stream so that they could only be disenfranchised by half.
In a lot of games, that would be called cheating. But for the Democrats, that is the rule of the game… along side lying and stealing.
And in 2000, dipshit, Al Gore was also trying to disenfranchise voters by having their votes thrown out…. the good news is, GEORGE BUSH WON THE RECOUNT. HE WON LEGITIMATELY, AND HE WON FAIRLY.
So, what you’ve got now is back in 2000, the Florida Democrats were trying to disenfranchise conservatives. Now the Florida Democrat party bosses are just trying to Disenfranchise other Florida Democrats.
There’s a good line of consistency of Democrats disenfranchising, breaking and bending rules, lying and cheating.
One would think we’d be better off if all the fucking Democrats in this country would fulfill their threats to leave when they lose. They can go fuck up some other country with their hate, lies and cheating.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:49 PM
In fact, I believe there is only one type of recount in Florida after 2000, one that applied the broadest, most illegal definition, that might have resulted in Al Gore winning by a few votes.
Thank God, the law was followed in Florida.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:35 PM
So, apparently the rules put in place by the DNC last year, which were followed by the other 48 states, were arbitrary?
I renew the question, what is keeping Minnesota from holding its next presidential caucus in 2009? If the rules of the DNC are not meant to be followed, why couldn’t we grasp the title of first caucus in the nation by ignoring the rules?
Nowhere in the 12th Amendment does it dictate when presidential primaries must be held.
Would you support the state of Minnesota having its presidential caucuses in 2009?
June 1st, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Congrats, Delegate! Or do we have to call you “Mr.” Delegate now?
June 1st, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Why, are you “Working” that night?
June 1st, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Le*uckWad,
Give it up. If all you can do is change the subject, then recognize that you’ve been defeated.
Disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement. And the Democrats have disenfranchised millions of voters in Michigan and Florida by robbing them of their opportunity to participate in the primary to an equal extent as others.
You are one stupid s.o.b.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Sometimes it seems that the political parties hold the people hostage, at other times it seems that some people hold the political parties hostage, and then at other times it seems like they both hold each other hostage.
And then sometimes things go along just swimmingly. Those seem to be those special moments that you seem to toil for.
After about eight years of Bush-Cheney at the helm, some people might have forgotten that deliberative bodies have discussion(s).
June 4th, 2008 at 1:40 AM
The DNC did not disenfranchise anyone. Those 2 states chose to break the rules. Keep trying to make something out of nothing though, Chestnuts, it’s fun to watch. “Chestnut’s roasting on an open fire” (of his own words).
June 4th, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Don’t be so disingenuous about your selection as a National Delegate, Mikey. If by “fellow republicans” you mean Ron Carey, you are correct. Do you think you’d have made the cut in a selection process that was not controlled and manipulated by Chairman Carey? I thought you’d have more pride and honesty than that.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:24 AM
[...] I was elected a delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention, I will be posting personal updates about the upcoming [...]
June 19th, 2008 at 5:45 PM
[...] voters to ask questions and I look forward to attending and observing the event. I am not an undecided voter, therefore I won’t be participating in the event. I will hopefully be able to live-blog at [...]