Negative campaigning is to politics as satire is to literature; it is effective when it reveals a truth greater than the sum of the facts, and when it is done with wit. Lacking respect for the truth and wit, negative campaigning is little more than a tattling tantrum and satire degenerates into an uncomfortable embarrassment. The latter gives us Al Franken and “Porn-o-Rama,” the former a Marty Seifert hit piece.

In the two-man race between Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert, I am an Emmer guy. My support for Tom is positive support. Unlike past gubernatorial races, I do not have to hold my nose in this one, although Tom was not my first choice (Pat Anderson was).

I agree with many of Tom’s votes, but I disagree with others. I find Tom an inspiring speaker, but sometimes he says things that make me wince uncomfortably. Tom impresses me with his insight applying conservative principle to legislation, but he disappoints me when he spouts the uncritical knee-jerk conservative line. But while relevant to my support, those characteristics of Tom’s political persona are not the primary reasons I’ll be voting for his endorsement.

I will be voting for Tom Emmer because first and foremost Tom is man of integrity.

When we conversationally speak of integrity, we talk about things like a person’s ethical principles, his or her moral character and honesty. Those characteristics certainly apply to Tom, as they do virtually across the board among the candidates who over the past several months have been seeking the GOP endorsement for governor. But “integrity” describes more than just the characteristics a person displays; it also describes the state of his character, the consistency of his words and actions. Integrity implies a character that is more than the sum of a man’s characteristics.

Tom Emmer has that integrity of character.

Frankly, I have been frustrated with Tom for not doing more to draw a character distinction between himself and Marty. I have been frustrated with myself for waiting for him to do it instead of writing about it myself. The greatest lie is unspoken truth, and to remain silent and let the media and political pundits paint Tom and Marty as two like peas in a conservative pod is a disservice to the Republican Party and the people of Minnesota. It is time to enter the arena.

The current spate of negative campaigning initiated by the Seifert campaign provides the opportunity to explore a greater truth than is evident from the facts. I shall try to do it with some wit.

The Seifert campaign’s parsing of Tom’s votes back to 2005 may provide red meat reassurance to Marty’s supporters, but despite isolated votes, anyone who believes that Tom Emmer supports public funding for stadiums or stands against free speech hasn’t been paying attention. To be fair, some Emmer supporters have raised Marty’s vote for the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 to paint Marty as being “pro Cap & Trade.” That, too, is a silly supposition and misses the point and the real differentiation between the two votes and the two men, yet it is these two votes that best define the difference in their respective characters.

Integrity is less about how one votes on any given issue and more about why one votes as he does. The difference between Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert is not the conservatism they preach but the conservatism they practice. That difference is significant.

When Tom Emmer acts, he acts on conservative principle; when Marty Seifert acts, he acts on conservative politics.

The difference between principle and politics is seen in House votes like 120-9 (the Next Generation Energy Act vote) or 127-7 (the vote on the Berglin-Huntley health care bill). Marty consistently votes safely with the 120+ majority (or when in a minority, safely surrounded by a comfortable cadre of Republicans); Tom consistently stands firmly on conservative principle regardless of the political strength of his position or the political position of the Republican Caucus.

Consequently, while Tom may be wrong on a vote, and I think he is wrong on a few, he never has to rationalize or apologize for his votes. His thought process begins with conservative principles; he applies those principles to the issue at hand; and he votes his conscience, votes for what he believes is the right thing to do at the time. Doing so is something easy to talk about, but it takes real courage to keep your principles when all about you are abandoning theirs.  

Looking at two specific votes – Tom’s vote against a Hennepin Country referendum on the sales tax to fund the new Twins Stadium and Marty’s vote for the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 further clarifies the character distinction between the two men.

Marty is beating Tom up over Tom’s vote that would have enabled residents of Hennepin County to vote "yea" or "nay" on a local sales tax to fund the new Twins Stadium. The Seifert campaign put out a four-color brochure picturing Tom with three Democrats, saying that Tom voted with those Democrats against the sales tax referendum. The Seifert brochure takes the fact of Tom's vote against the referendum amendment and waterboards it to confess the impression that Tom Emmer favors public funding of stadiums.

Something I learned watching and writing about former Sen. Dean Johnson “sanding off the truth” of his inappropriate conversations with members of the Minnesota Supreme Court is that career politicians don't lie. They are too smart for that. Career politicians, in plain language and academic parlance, "bullshit." The Seifert brochure fits the definition of what retired Princeton professor Harry Frankfurt defined as bullshit in his classic little essay appropriately titled “On Bullshit.”

Bullshit and lying serve different purposes, says Frankfurt. Lying hides the fact that the speaker is not telling the truth. Bullshit hides the fact that the truth is of no importance. It might contain fact, but the facts are manipulated to support an impression that is not necessarily connected with reality. The fault lies not in getting something wrong, says Frankfurt, but in not even trying to get it right. The Seifert campaign didn’t even try to get Tom’s vote right. No matter: The truth behind Tom’s vote was irrelevant to the Seifert campaign.

Here’s the truth: The stadium bill that came out of committee created specifically for the Twins an exemption to state law requiring that a local municipality approve any new local sales tax via referendum. During debate on the stadium bill an amendment was offered to reinstate the referendum provision. Tom voted against the amendment because he believed then and believes now that public funds should not be used for private stadiums regardless of who imposes the tax. Irrespective of whether the amendment passed, Tom intended to vote (as he did) against the final stadium legislation.

Some of Tom’s colleagues, however, were considering supporting the stadium bill if the referendum amendment passed. They saw the amendment as a way around accountability. Pushing the sales tax decision to Hennepin County residents, these career politicians could later take credit for the Twins stadium without having to take accountability for the sales tax increase. Tom is not a man to tolerate that cop-out. If the Legislature were going to pass a stadium bill (which it did) and impose a sales tax on Hennepin County (which it did), then legislators should be accountable and do it without the bullshit. That’s why Tom voted “no” on the amendment.

Now, one can disagree with Tom’s strategy and even his interpretation of conservative principle, (as I do in this case -- there was a Rule of Law issue at stake), but one cannot as the Marty does question the integrity of Tom’s vote or imply as Marty does that Tom supports publicly funded stadiums. Marty’s charge linking Tom to the Democrats on the stadium issue is pure Frankfurtian “bullshit” right down to the “B” and the “S.” For Marty’s purpose, the truth simply did not matter. He didn’t even try to get it right.

Contrast Tom’s unapologetic explanation of his vote against the sales tax referendum with Marty’s pragmatic vote on the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 and his non-apologetic apologetic rationalization for it.

During a gubernatorial forum in Wright County (I was there), Marty was asked if there were any votes he regretted. Because it had been brought up in a previous forum, Marty quickly responded that he regretted his vote for the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007. The Next Generation Energy Act came out of Gov. Pawlenty’s “green period” when he was trying to build a reputation as an energy innovator and pushing the idea that producing less energy at higher cost somehow creates jobs (the topic for another day).

The Next Generation Energy Act established technically unrealistic mandates for energy from “alternative energy sources” and provided impetus for Minnesota to be involved in a regional carbon credit exchange initiative – a mini cap & trade-like plan – among other equally onerous government intervention in the energy market. Today, energy companies are seeking rate increases as much as 20 percent for the stated justification of meeting the requirements of the Next Generation Energy Act.

At the Wright County forum Marty said he knew the Next Generation Energy Act was bad legislation when he voted for it. He said he disagreed with the governor, who wanted the bill passed. Marty explained he was under a lot of pressure from the governor’s office to lead support for the bill. That’s true; the entire Republican caucus was being pressured to support the governor’s green initiatives. Framing his vote as being loyal to the governor, Marty implied, intentionally or not, that standing against this anti-conservative legislation was disrespecting the governor’s wishes. Marty noted that after tough negotiation with the Democrats the legislation that was voted on and passed was not as bad as the legislation the Democrats introduced. The governor didn’t want to be “kicked in the shins” by the caucus, said Marty, after negotiating concessions and compromise.

Marty’s vote and active support for the Next Generation Energy Act demonstrates the “loyalty” of a career politician. Marty’s first loyalty is to his political party and his political friends. Taking Marty at his word that he voted for a bill he knew was bad out of loyalty to the governor, Marty had a choice between good and evil and he chose evil. He with knowledge and forethought chose what was bad for Minnesota out of misguided loyalty to a misguided governor. He knowingly compromised conservative principle and the future of Minnesotans.

True loyalty, the loyalty that grows from a character infused with integrity demands that when friends are making a mistake you confront them. The greater your respect for an individual like Gov. Pawlenty, the harder you strive to redeem him from error. And if an individual, however powerful he or she might be, insists on acting contrary to what is good (in this case good for Minnesota), the true loyal friend refuses to be an enabler.

It is neither loyal nor friendship to buy booze for one’s alcoholic buddy and there is no loyalty nor friendship in spending political capital in support of a governor intoxicated with a “green agenda.”

On the stump, Marty says as governor he would veto any cap and trade bill that comes across his desk. I believe him, but that horse has left the barn. At issue for Minnesotans is not some hypothetical future bill; at issue is the Next Generation Energy Act, signed into law, which is costing us real money every day. That Marty is now penning resolutions to the federal government about cap and trade might be motivated by remorse for his Next Generation Energy Act vote, but it ought not to be accepted as an act of redemption.

Political maneuvering and compromising by career politicians on fundamental principles is what turned people off to Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections and can turn them off again in 2010. If more Republicans had stood up for what we said we believed, if more of us were willing to stand on principle on the short end of 120-9 votes instead looking for a cop-out to get us on the winning side of a vote without accountability, people might actually trust Republicans to push for the reforms essential to the preservation of our (small “r”) republican form of government.

It does not take courage to stand before Republicans and alliterate – to criticize, marginalize and demonize Democrats. It is not leadership to compromise, apologize and then rationalize a vote for bad legislation. It is not loyalty to politicize, patronize and eulogize a respected leader when he is wrong. Whimsically using words not to communicate but to beguile is the antithesis of integrity.

Integrity, a constancy of character that is greater than a sum of a man’s characteristics precludes the thought of using language as a tool of deception. As a writer, the greatest complement I can pay another writer’s work is that I wish I had written it. The greatest complement I can pay another man is that I wish I had his integrity. I wish I had Tom Emmer’s integrity. Tom will have my vote and support as a delegate from SD 57 at the State Convention.

Comments welcom at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . This piece is my opinion and mine alone and is not the opinion of any other campaign or individual(s) I may also support.