In the September 25 Litchfield Independent Review article, Newman backs Senate colleague for governor, Dave Thompson seems to be striving to differentiate himself from other gubernatorial candidates:
Thompson said he would not campaign on socially divisive issues, such as gay marriage. He blamed the GOP’s losses in the Legislature last year, in part, on the GOP-backed proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
He said any GOP gubernatorial candidate that focuses on banning gay marriage “will be giving a concession speech” on election night.
“It’s more of a moral and social issue than a political one,” Thompson said about gay marriage.
That's a decidedly different slant than that which he expounded in April 2011 as a member of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Back then, he voted to move the amendment bill on to the Rules Committee. The Civil Report noted:
The Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee passed a bill Friday afternoon that would put a ban on same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution if voters approve it during the November 2012 elections. . . .
. . .Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, said the issue isn’t about discrimination and civil rights: “Marriage isn’t a right. Nowhere in the federal Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution is marriage considered a right.”
.. . .The bill passed and was referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
The MnDaily had more:
Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, said because marriage isn’t defined as a right in the state or federal Constitution, the public should be able to define it.
“The question is simple: How are we, through the civil government, going to define marriage?” Thompson said.
In the Sun This Week in 2012, Aaron Vehling reported in Thompson seeks second term that the senator felt the marriage issue was a legitimate concern of the government:
Thompson said that while he thinks government should get out of the business of marriage, he does support the passage of the marriage amendment.
“If government is going to be in the marriage business, then I think we have a right to define it,” he said.
Marriage, is a core issue in which “people have got to have their say,” he said.
Sounds political, or maybe Thompson is simply running against the ghost of himself.
A source familiar with Thompson's radio show recalls him advancing the "marriage is for procreation" argument for restricting the freedom to marry as well.
No Republican gubernatorial contender running on equality repeal
His 2013 framing seems like a heckova rebranding, especially when none of his opponents plans to campaign on repealing marriage equality. In May 2013, Lucas Grindley of the Advocate reported in Republicans in Minnesota Say They Won't Try Overturning Marriage Law:
The two Republican candidates for governor [Scott Honour and Jeff Johnson] in Minnesota say they won't try to overturn the state's new marriage equality law, according to Minnesota Public Radio. . . .
When former speaker Kurt Zellers jumped in the race in June, MinnPost's Cyndy Brucato reported:
Another controversial vote resulted in legislation proposing to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The defeat of the amendment contributed to the loss of the Republican majority in both chambers and led to approval of same-sex marriage this year. Zellers indicated he would not revisit the issue.
“It’s the law of the land now,” he said. “If you ask most Minnesotans and anybody that’s here today, I think they’re fed up with the issue on both sides. I think they want us to get back to what are the bread-and-butter issues.”
That was then; this is now. One wonders who Thompson imagines giving that concession speech, or why Newman endorsed Thompson for his "communication skills," as the Litchfield paper reports. Zellers and Thompson actively brought the amendment debacle to the Republican Party.
Shifting birth narrative
Back in June, ECM Political Editor Howard Lestrud reported in Sen. Thompson announces run for governor’s seat:
Thompson said he was fortunate to have received a “great education” in a thriving economy. He said he is proud to have raised happy and healthy kids and did not have a rags-to-riches story to tell. He said he grew up in Little Falls with his parents, who owned a motel. He then later moved to East Grand Forks with his mother, then divorced. During that time, he said, he learned the values of hard work.
In the September 25 Litchfield Independent Review article, Newman backs Senate colleague for governor, Thompson seems to have shifted the emphasis in his childhood narrative:
At the fundraiser last week, Thompson described himself as an “every man” and discussed how he was raised by his mother alone after his parents divorced when he was 11 years old.
What's up with that? An August 10, 2013 op-ed section column by left-leaning Strib columnist Lori Sturdevant examined the "Every Man" and "Rags to Riches" narratives of several Republican candidates in Minnesota candidates: Class identity a factor, concluding:
. . . Here’s where a wonkish editorial writer might be expected to advise voters to judge candidates on the policy positions they take, not their means or the class company they keep. Identity politics is superficial stuff unworthy of thoughtful voters — or so critical readers, many of them Republicans, have scolded through the years.
But this wonk learned from Star Tribune Minnesota Poll meisters years ago that this state’s discerning voters are particularly drawn to candidates perceived to have two characteristics. One is “strong leader.” The second is “cares about people like me.” . . .
Lawyer and radio talked Thompson will have to elbow his way into the "Every Man" club raised by a single mother, while asserting his creds as a "strong leader" who helped shepherd the marriage restriction amendment on to the ballot but now doesn't think the issue is political. Just politically damaging.
Bluestem wishes him luck with all that.
Photo: Senator Dave Thompson, from Minn. GOP embrace of constitutional amendments could backfire reported by MPR in March 2012. Senator Thompson's "Right to Work" Amendment to restrict workplace rights didn't make it to the 2012 ballot, another test of that "strong leader" stuff.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Comments