Charlie Quimby Responds to “Governing and Campaigning”

I’ve written two posts [1 and 2] recently on the interplay between political campaigning and governing once in office.  Author Charlie Quimby was kind enough to write a reply, which I reprint below.  My posts touch on the 2010 contest for Minnesota governor between Mark Dayton and Tom Emmer and the revelation last week that a senior Dayton Administration official was charged with DUI.

Charlie writes,

Someone may be making the point that elections and governing are different, but that's not my point.

He adds,

I'm just going to make a couple points here summarizing why my view differs from yours.

1) I don't disagree hugely with the point that candidates should not campaign one way and then govern another.  But your example is poorly chosen.  The DUI thing is not a major policy position.  It doesn't reflect a shift from Dayton's position on how the Emmer accusation was handled.

2) You insist on hanging Dayton with a position taken by a third-party organization funded in large part by Dayton's ex-wife.  Coordinating messages with a campaign is illegal, and you don't offer anything but innuendo to show that it happened.

3) Dayton was not the party's candidate until mid-August [2010].  He was in a primary contest running against Anderson-Kelliher [and others], not Emmer.  As soon as he became the nominee, he spoke out against the ads.

4) Employers typically do not fire staff for DUIs.  It's not called hypocrisy or politics; it's modern, enlightened management.

[In response to my first post, Charlie offered an alternative to my proposed remedy, writing in part:]

If you don't like what was done to Emmer, let's ban all spending not tied to and funded by a campaign. I'd be for it.