Correction and Clarification

Yesterday I did a post on the Star Tribune story on Rep. Ron Erhardt filing for re-election as an independent. In the comments to that post "Allie" reports that there were falsehoods in the story, but she did not indicate what inaccuracies there were. I wrote to Mark Brunswick of the Star Tribune with her allegations. While I was waiting for that clarification, "Allie" posted this letter to the Strib in my comments section...

Open on which caucus

The July 12 article "Longtime GOP Rep. Erhardt will run as an independent" states that I said that I would likely caucus with the majority DFLers if reelected. That is misleading. What I said to the reporter was that I would likely caucus with whichever party was in the majority after the fall elections.

As a moderate, I have always believed that effectively representing the interests of my constituents should take precedence over purely partisan interests. I have been able to best serve Edina citizens by working successfully with members of both political parties on issues affecting the good of all Minnesotans. That is why I am prepared to caucus with the majority, no matter which political party it happens to be.

REP. RON ERHARDT, I-EDINA

...thinking that it would vindicate "her guy". It certainly does appear that Mr. Brunswick assumed that when Rep. Erhardt said he would caucus with the majority that he meant that he would caucs with the Democrats. However, this letter gives us a window in the character of Rep. Erhardt that I don't think he or his supporters really wanted. It showed that the only thing that is important to him is being in "the majority". It is not about doing the right thing, no matter how unpopular it is (the common excuse given by some of the "Override Six" in defense of their votes). It is, for Rep. Ron Erhardt, a matter of power. If he really cared about what was "good" for the voters of Edina, he would not change who he caucuses with depending on who has the majority....he would stand up for his beliefs and his constituents no matter what. If he truly believed in what he said, he would form his own "Independent" caucus in order to bypass the "purely partisan interests".

No, this is not about anything other than power. Who has it is what matters to the so-called "moderates". Who has it and how they can ride the coat-tails of those with power.

Thanks for the insight Rep. Erhardt. It tells everyone (including those you intend to caucus with) just what your convictions really are.

UPDATE: I got a response from Mark Brunswick, Capital Reporter, from the Star Tribune. Here are his comments.

On page A2 of today's Star Tribune, there is a clarification of Erhardt's remarks. In a conversation with reporters on Friday, he said he would likely caucus with the majority party in the House, which would be the DFL at this point. In a subsequent conversation with Erhardt, he told me if the Republicans regained the majority he would attempt to caucus with them. I hope this clears up your question.

In a follow up email to that he commented.

Also to be clear, I did not rewrite any AP story and never told Erhardt that I did. I was part of the group of reporters Erhardt spoke to on Friday so any writing and reporting I did on the story was original.

Emphasis mine. So "Allie" owes Mr. Brunswick a retraction and apology for her accusations that were left in my comments. I wonder if they will be as quickly to come as Mr. Brunswick's were.