The American Reform Party has a profound love-hate relationship with this state.  At one and the same time, it is the home of some of the deepest pro-ARP, anti-Perot sentiment in the third-party reform movement, and the home of some of the most stubborn Perotbots in the nation.  This is the only state, for example, where the rigged and tilted playing field of the Reform Party's 1996 presidential 'nomination' process did not produce the intended result:  Lamm won over Perot here.  The struggle at the heart of the reform movement was put on dramatic display recently in the tug-of-war taking place over the purported use of the names Jesse Ventura, the newly elected Reform Party Governor here, is collecting here for what has been described variously as an attempt to build support for a third-party presidential candidate and, alternately, as an attempt to build support for a Reform Party presidential candidate.  On Meet the Press, on the morning of February 21, 1999, Ventura finally made his intentions clear.  The names are to be collected for the purpose of helping the Reform Party, NOT the third-party reform movement in general.  However, at the same time, Ventura made crystal clear that he will not support Perot for that nomination, and believes Perot's time has come and gone.  He went on to express his personal preference for Colin Powell.

    The bottom line for ARP, however, is that this state has profoundly sympathetic feelings toward the third-party reform movement, and should be a centerpiece of the ARP's long-term six-year plan.  Whether their work here will take place with the help of elements from the Perot Reform Party, or despite the efforts of Perot Reform Party's implacable opposition here, remain shrouded in the mists of the future.  Regardless, this state should be one of our primary targets.

    Minnesota's Democratic senior Senator, Paul Wellstone, is an ultraliberal advocate.  Aside from the question of campaign finance reform, he and ARP have little in common.  He should definitely be one of our targets.  He has never won by more than 50% and we should challenge him vigorously.  In fact, we may not have to challenge him at all; he has hinted that he approves of a two-term limit on Senator, which means that this seat may be open in three years.  Our obvious choice as a champion, former Democratic Representative Tim Penny, will hopefully have replaced Rod Grams as our champion in the Senate in 2000, which means we will have to look elsewhere for our race here.  I suggest --

    Jesse Ventura.  Yes, Ventura.  At that point, he will have served one full term as Governor and may be ready to move on.  Assuming that he will have been a success in that post, there will be dramatic calls for him to move to higher office, possibly to President.  I do not believe that will be an entirely appropriate spot for him yet.  And we can't afford to wait until 2004 for Ventura's services; we will need him, or someone like him, to run for this seat in 2002.  I suggest that the time and the man will come together at that time.  This presupposes that by that time Ventura will have finally broken completely with the Perot Reform Party, and that he will be prepared to run as our candidate, or at least that he will be prepared to run as an unaffiliated independent.  Don't forget also that, by that point, Perot will probably have run a third time and done miserably enough at the ballot box as to destroy the Perot Reform Party ballot status in most of their current states.  The Perot Reform Party no longer being a factor at that point, the stage will be set for Ventura to make a graceful exit from that party.

    Minnesota's junior ultra-conservative Republican Senator, Rod Grams, is our A #1 target for the entire country.  He is deliciously vulnerable.  His vote for impeachment has wounded him here, perhaps fatally.  And the icing on the cake is that he is a freshman who won by a razor-thin margin of 49%  If we do not succeed in defeating him in 2000, and defeating him with one of our own, we might as well hang it up.  On this race will depend not only the future of the third-party reform movement, I believe, but also the future of Perot's role in it.  I suggest our champion should be Tim Penny.  Penny is currently working for Ventura and is close to Governor Lamm.  There is a natural continuity from ARP's centrist reform stance to the presidential candidacy of Dick Lamm in 96 to former Congressman Tim Penny, who enjoys a good relationship with the former Colorado Governor.  One of our first priorities should be to cultivate a relationship with the Congressman at least as close as we now enjoy with Governor Lamm.  If we cannot persuade both the Governor and the Congressman to commit to help develop ARP, then our future is murky at best.  We need the political viability that would be conferred by the public support of such credible leaders as Lamm and Penny.  From a public relations standpoint, their involvement with ARP is absolutely critical to success for our congressional strategy.  Somehow, we must persuade Penny not to run for Senate in 2000 as a Democrat, not to run as the Perot Reform Party candidate, but as the ARP candidate or, at the very least, as an unaffiliated independent who will accept the public endorsement of ARP.  Moreover, he has to make it plain that he does not consider himself in any way, manner, shape, or form, a political ally of Perot.

    Lately there comes word that both the Reform Party and the Democratic Party are flirting with a Judi Dutcher, currently a Republican and the state's Auditor, as their possible candidate for this seat.  The AP has described her as a fiscal conservative who is also pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-public education.  She has also enjoyed union support in her electoral outings.  In other words, this woman is not a joke; she is a formidable electoral force to be reckoned with, and might very well be good for the reform movement if elected.  But why is the Perot Reform Party interested in her?  This could mean one of three things.  There could be sentiment in the Minnesota Reform Party against Penny because of his alliance with Lamm and the Gang of Eight.  Or it could mean that Penny has made clear that if he runs it will be as a Democrat.  Or, best case scenario from our point of view, it could mean that Penny has indicated he is prepared to run as an independent or third-party candidate but is not willing to run as a Reform Party candidate.  Any way you slice it, we must contact him to find out what's going on.

    Late in April, Blue Dog Democrat David Minge announced that he would be a candidate for this Senate seat.  If we cannot find a champion of our own to run against Grams, we need to consider the option of endorsing a Republicrat very carefully.  Minge deserves our serious consideration if no one emerges to carry our banner directly.  He is one of the most effective and widely respected members of the Blue Dog coalition, and is also a strong supporter of campaign finance reform, functioning in the last Congress as one of the organizers of the Blue Dog discharge petition that led to Shays-Meehan's ultimate success on the House floor last summer.

    Speculation that Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson might also jump into the Senate race was recently scotched by the potential candidate himself.  Just as well because, for reasons discussed below, we should not consider endorsing Peterson for ANY race.
 

    David Minge(DFL) is a Blue Dog Democrat and a co-sponsor of Shays/Meehan. He is a probable Trojan horse.  He also has never won by overwhelming margins.  My initial recommendation was that we give Minge our unqualified endorsement, and even persuade ex-Congressman Tim Penny to include him in his campaign plans, should he choose to join us as our Senate candidate.

    However, late word has come in that Minge will run for the Senate seat currently occupied by Republican Rod Grams.  So our job in this district now becomes to run one of our own.  At this point, that appears to mean no choice but to run a flag-planter.  ?
 

    Jim Ramstad (R) is centrist Republican in his record.  He is one of that small but hardy band of House Republicans led by Chris Shays who strongly supports campaign finance reform.  He also came out as a supporter of the Blue Dog Democrat budget this year.  There is a catch however:  his personal Republican loyalties run deep, according to the CSSC's primary Minnesota witness, John Silvis:

    "[He is] with us on a few platforms but will he act as we wish?  I kind of doubt it unless something changes him further."

    By the way, it is rumored that Ramstad is considering challenging conservative Grams for the GOP Senate nomination in 2000.  We should hope that is not the case.  Such a decision on his part will split the centrist reform vote in the Senate race.  As for this district, long-time reform activist Dean Barkley would seem to be the best bet for ARP here.  He was strongly sympathetic toward ARP in its previous incarnation as the National Reform Party Committee, the so-called Schaumburg group.  He also has a lot of political experience in this state, having run for Senate previously and having won a total comparable to that Ross Perot won for President in this state.  We should give him our endorsement, if he would have it.
 

    I recommend that we support Bruce Vento(DFL), the author of a campaign finance reform bill of his own.  Vento is anti-NAFTA and enjoys high ratings from the Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Concord Coalition for his fiscal record.  About the only blot on his otherwise fairly strong record is his decision to reverse his past position and oppose the Blue Dog budget this year.  However, despite that one disappointment, I believe he is a probable ARP Trojan horse.  This district gets more tightly balanced every year, and Vento lost three points off his winning margin between 96 and 98, despite the Democratic trends from the impeachment backlash last year.  He is probably feeling somewhat pressured around now, and could use our help.
 

    We should support Bill Luther(DFL), who like Congressman Minge is a Blue Dog Democrat and a co-sponsor of Shays/Meehan.  He is another probable ARP Trojan horse.  Unfortunately, like Ramstad, he is rumored to be interested in challenging Grams in 2000.  His very close finish in 98, where he won by a paltry 50%, probably is helping to convince him that it is time to move on.  If he could be convinced that he would have extra help from unexpected quarters, such as Penny and the ARP, that might help persuade him to stick it out in the House for a few more years.
 

    This district is very friendly to third-party/independent presidential candidates.  The current incumbent, Democrat Collin Peterson, was, for a while, an absolutely ideal ARP Trojan Horse.  As a former leader of the Blue Dog Democrats, he formulated a budget that had neither tax cuts nor spending increases.  He also was unusual among centrists for his opposition to NAFTA.  But then in the summer of 98 something happened to this reliable centrist reformer.  He came out for parental consent abortion laws, came out against gun control, opposed some environmental regulations, and -- most damaging of all for our cause -- became an opponent of campaign finance reform, most notably in his opposition to the Shays-Meehan bill.

    In a district such as this, there is no excuse for us not to make our presence felt.  We need to run a candidate of our own.  The Almanac of American Politics describes this district as being "the lake-strewn country along the upper stretches of the Mississippi River."  We should definitely run a flag-planting campaign.  Our goal should be to receive 22%, sufficient to hold Peterson to 50% if his support holds constant between now and 2000.