Tuesday, December 20, 2005

 

Sue Ek's mother attempts to step in

MPR's coverage here...
"This election should be about the voters having a choice. ... This is Stearns County, Sherburne County, not the Soviet Union," state GOP Chairman Ron Carey told reporters after he attempted to file papers for Kay Ek's candidacy.
...
Carey acknowledged that Kay Ek -- an anti-abortion activist who retired last year from her job as director of the St. Cloud Diocese's office of natural family planning -- would face tough odds, but could get a boost from unfavorable reaction to the court's ruling.

"It's a long shot -- no question about it," he said. "It may motivate people. They're concerned that the choice may be taken out of their hands."

Carey added that the lack of a Republican House candidate could have hurt the GOP candidate, Dan Ochsner, in a special Senate election also on the ballot in the special election. Kay Ek said she decided to run in her daughter's place because, "I think there was a great injustice done. ... I really feel it was a totally partisan effort on the part of the Democrats to oust Sue."
Do ya now? I believe that article mentions that Paul Anderson, one of the judges who ultimately decided to remove Ms. Ek the Younger from the ballot, was the head of Arne Carlson's campaign, and thus was (and ostensibly still is) a Republican. I'm interested to know to whom Mr. Carey is referring when he mentions negative reaction to the court's ruling. The outcome seems simple enough to me - Sue Ek signed a legal document establishing residence in St. Paul less than six months ago, thus she was ineligible to stand for election in St. Cloud on December 27th. Period. End of story. Whether it was an honest mistake or not is immaterial to the issue at hand. Political candidates and their parties are not above the law.

Partisan politics aside, I would be very surprised to see the Republican Party get a mulligan from Secretary of State Kiffmeyer and AG Hatch. With the election a week away, my best guess is that they get to tell the Republican Party that they screwed up by not thoroughly vetting a candidate, and get to live with the consequences for at least a year or so.

In any case, Mr. Carey's comments smack of covering one's rear in retreat. Soviet Union? Come on, there are unopposed candidates in U.S. elections all the time. Just who is Mr. Carey looking to motivate with this hastily-thought-up rhetoric? If the answer is "Democrats," it just might work.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Google
Web
MNCR