In Jesus’ Name, Amen
By Jeff Fecke | October 16, 2010
Remember Dr. Mike S. Adams? Sure you do! He’s the racist, misogynistic douchebag who hates the gummit while teaching at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.
This blogger has enjoyed taking apart Adams’ views on women, but he’s also a religious zealot, and a homophobe. It’s those last two that inform Mike Adams’ latest…well, I guess “column” is the word for it, though it’s so badly put together that one could power most of the world if one could harness the collective energy of O.O. McIntyre, Walter Winchell, and Abigail Van Buren spinning in their graves.
Adams’ column is a response to the recent spate of suicides among gay teens, and in form appears to be a direct response to Ft. Worth Councilmemer Joel Burns’ marvelous entry into Dan Savage’s It Gets Better project.
Burns’ speech is not safe for work, if you have a workplace that frowns upon you bursting into tears. Because Burns lays out, child by dead child, the cost of allowing anti-gay bullying to go on unchecked. He gives these grieving kids a face, then tells of his own childhood, of being bullied, of — well, he can’t quite bring himself to tell exactly how he intended to commit suicide, but he clearly implies he faced that twisted call — and of how glad he is that he chose to go on living, how much there is to live for. And implicitly, he shames everyone who chooses to bully their classmate for being different, for attacking those who would dare to love someone they aren’t “supposed” to.
The suicides of gay teens have left the right in a quandary, because it’s tough to really get your hate on when that hatred is killing kids, no matter how gay those kids are. And so Mike Adams has decided to turn the tables, and show all the horror that gays visit on straight people. Only it’s Mike Adams we’re talking about, so it’s a lot dumber than that:
Crystal was an administrator at a university in Ohio. She wrote an article for the local paper, which let homosexuals know that there are ways to escape the lifestyle that ends their lives prematurely. She told them they could find hope in God. But they were enraged. They demanded that she be fired from her job – even though her opinions were written and disseminated on her own time. They managed to get her fired. Later, she took her own life.
Now, let’s leave aside the fact that Crystal’s last name isn’t included here. Also, ignore that she’s an adult, not a 13-year-old kid being bullied. And pay no attention to the fact that her complaining about homosexuals and telling them to pray the gay away might well interfere with her ability to work with gay and lesbian students on her campus. Suicide is always a tragedy, and I am saddened by Crystal’s death.
Or I would be, if she were dead. But she’s not. Saith Dr. Adams:
These eight cases are all true except for one thing: The Christians who were bullied by gays and gay activists are all still alive. Not a single one has committed suicide.
Mindfreak!
Yes, Mike Adams goes through eight cases that have become causes célèbres among the Christianist set, says all these adults were set upon by packs of crazy gays, and yet none of them committed suicide. Why not? Oh, that’s where Dr. Mike really brings the house down:
That is because they have centered their lives around Jesus Christ, rather than their sexual identity. And no amount of bullying can change my mind about that.
That’s right, these people didn’t commit suicide because they’re Christians. And if you believe in Christ, you can’t commit suicide. And if you do commit suicide, well, screw you. You were going to hell anyhow.
The irony of this is that nobody has shown himself to be less centered on Jesus Christ, and more centered on his own sexual orientation and a panicked defense of his own masculinity, than Dr. Mike S. Adams. Jesus’ teachings on what to do with a sinner were pretty simple: love them, as you love yourself. Let’s go look at them, shall we? How about John 8:2-11?
2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
You see, Mike, Christians — real Christans, people who are really and truly committed to Christ, know that love is the most important thing that Jesus offered. Unconditional love. Jesus didn’t hate sinners. He ministered to them. He loved them.
Even if homosexuals are the grave sinners that Mike Adams claims they are, Jesus would see no good in their deaths, nothing to gloat about in their suffering. His words of admonition would be not for the children, but for those who attack them.
Moreover, Christians commit suicide. People of all faiths and none commit suicide. Suicide isn’t about your faith. It’s about believing that the pain of this world is too great to endure, that it won’t get better. Telling teens that they should turn to Jesus to make them not be gay is not going to make them not be gay; it’s just going to make it more difficult for them to face a world in which it’s not just classmates who hate them, but God, too.
In the end, Dr. Mike is trying to argue that these kids are weak for committing suicide, that if they were just strong and Christ-centered that they would have kept on living. It’s a hell of an argument, considering his savior once commanded his followers to let the children come to him. It’s as if Adams stopped reading after “Suffer the children.” And that’s exactly what he wants — for children who are gay, or who are perceived to be gay, to continue to suffer bullying. Because in Dr. Mike’s twisted view, hatred will be their salvation. It’s exactly what a Christ-centered person would believe. Only the opposite.
Topics: Christianity, GLBTQQ Rights | 1 Comment »
Like a Kid Out There
By Jeff Fecke | October 11, 2010
Brett Favre sexually harassed a co-worker when he played for the New York Jets.
Oh, you can sugarcoat it all you want; the woman he harassed — Jenn Sterger — wasn’t the one to bring these allegations forward. Because we haven’t heard directly from her, one can choose to believe that the messages Favre sent Sterger — messages that included a photo of Favre’s penis — might have been accepted, even welcomed. Because the messages came from a third party, one can question their provenance, entertain the idea that the messages were faked, or somehow taken out of context.
If one wants to, one can reason these allegations away until they disappear. And as a long-time, die-hard fan of the Minnesota Vikings, I would dearly like to. But I have eyes, and I have ears, and I have a brain capable of reason. And I know damn well that Favre’s messages to Sterger were exactly what they appear to be — a lewd, despicable proposition sent from a powerful, married man to a junior member of the company he belonged to. It was sexual harassment, pure and simple.
So what is to be done with Favre? Clearly, this isn’t behavior that can be tolerated by the NFL. No, it isn’t as serious as the multiple allegations of rape against Ben Roethlisberger, or the felony conviction of Michael Vick. But in its own way, it’s more damaging. Roethlisberger and Vick’s crimes1 occurred on their own time, away from the game. Favre, contrawise, harassed a fellow employee of the team he played for.
Should Favre be fined? Certainly. Should he be suspended? Probably. Will that hurt my team’s playoff chances? Yes. Is that more important than sending a message to players that they need to conduct themselves as professionals when dealing with their co-workers? Hell, no.
The sad thing is, I doubt Favre thought he was doing anything particularly wrong, other (maybe) than trying to cheat on his wife. Sports are one of the last bastions of the worst of machismo. The idea that women are mere objects who are owed to successful athletes begins in high school and is underlined all the way to the pros. Infidelity, spousal abuse, and even sexual assault are papered over and minimized, so long as a player can run fast, hit hard, throw accurately.
This attitude has to change, and that change has to start at the professional level. Women must be able to work in sports without having to fend off lewd advances from players. For that reason, I hope the NFL treats this matter with the utmost seriousness. I hope their actions demonstrate, clearly and without favor, that players need to treat their coworkers with respect. And if in doing so, the league causes the Vikings to miss a chance at a Super Bowl, so be it. Believe it or not, some things are more important than sports.
–
1Roethlisberger committed crimes. He got away with them, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit them.
Topics: Feminism, Sports | 6 Comments »
Super Power Rankings: The Waiting is the Hardest Part Edition
By Jeff Fecke | October 9, 2010
Since May 28 of this year, there’ve been 12 polls taken on the Minnesota gubernatorial race. Twelve different times, different pollsters have taken the temperature of the state, seeing who Minnesotans want to succeed Gov. Timmy.
The results have been remarkably consistent. Ten times, polls have shown former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minn., leading the race. Once, the race was tied. Only once has State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, led the race, and then, only by one percentage point — and that was only after the use of a polling methodology that has since been rejected by the very company that produced the poll in the first place.
That same poll is the only one since May 2 of this year to show Emmer with more than 40% support. Over and over, Minnesotans have been asked who they support for governor, and over and over again, they’ve responded, “Not Tom Emmer, thanks.”
It didn’t have to be this way for the GOP. If they’d nominated State Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, they would have chosen a candidate who is only slightly more moderate than Emmer, and significantly less bombastic and intemperate. Seifert well could be in contention right now. But as in Nevada, in New York, in Delaware, in Alaska, the GOP in this state chose the ideologically pure candidate over the candidate who could win. And that has as much to do with the state of these power rankings as anything.
1. Former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minn. (LR: 1)
Dayton has maintained his lead in the polls by, first and foremost, avoiding the big gaffe. He has run a buttoned-down, solid, sensible campaign, one that’s long on policy and short on drama. While the GOP has tried repeatedly to portray Dayton as out of control or mentally ill, Dayton has defied the description by simply plodding along, speaking passionately but reasonably on the issues of the day, avoiding interpersonal spats, and simply keeping his powder dry.
Ultimately, this is the strategy that won for Arne Carlson and Tim Pawlenty — appear more reasonable than your opponent, and show that you’re going to be a steady hand at the wheel. One can argue whether Pawlenty was really as stable as he intimated, but he certainly didn’t refer to reporters as whores.
This is Dayton’s path to victory: don’t screw up. Given the stability of the polls and the intemperance of his opponent, it’s a strategy that should work.
2. State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano (LR: 4)
Emmer is only moving up the charts because Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Matt Entenza aren’t on it; if anything, his chances of victory are worse today then they were on primary day.
Emmer needed, and still needs, to change the dynamics of the race somehow. A big part of that — bigger than I think he realizes — is that he needs to change how people view him. He’s seen by Minnesotans as too unstable and too ideologically rigid to serve as governor. Unfortunately, that’s not something that can be fixed by running attack ads saying Dayton will raise taxes. Indeed, given that Emmer actually is too unstable and ideologically rigid to serve as governor, I don’t know how Emmer changes that perception. Few politicians have Tim Pawlenty’s gift of appearing moderate while behaving radically.
Emmer’s strategy has basically been to attack, attack, attack, and the problem he’s got is that Minnesotans know Mark Dayton. He’s been in state politics for decades. He’s been our senator. He’s been our auditor. He’s won statewide elections. He’s not an unknown. He’s a known.
Is Dayton a liberal? That’s not news. Is he a bit flighty? He has been, though most Minnesotans view his admission of his alcoholism as a positive (we’re the state of Hazelden; 12-step programs are as much a part of our state culture as lutefisk). And most Minnesotans are willing to give the guy a second chance.
So Emmer can only get so much traction out of hammering Dayton. He has to actually make the case for himself. And Emmer’s case — vote for me and I’ll cut the wages of Minnesotans — has limited appeal. Enough to get him the GOP endorsement? Yes. Enough to get him elected governor? Barring disaster, no.
3. Tom Horner, Independence Party (LR: 5)
Fifteen years ago, Tom Horner would have been at home in one of the state’s major parties. Horner is a Republican of the 1990s — one who’s willing to actually look at reality once in a while. Oh, his policy proposals are still lousy. (I mean, raising sales taxes on clothing while cutting business taxes? Really?) But at least Horner is willing to talk about taxes as if they’re what they are — the price of g0vernment — instead of what they aren’t — horrible job-killing socialism of doom.
Horner is polling well, and should poll well, because he’s pulling a lot of Republicans who simply aren’t comfortable with the combustible candidate their party nominated. How many Republicans are supporting Horner? Enough that GOP chair Tony Sutton describes them bitterly as “quislings.”
Will it be enough for Horner to win? No. Horner is right about his path to victory — if he could somehow get ahead of Emmer, and get the race to a Horner-Dayton race, he’d have a very good chance. But there are too many tea party Republicans who aren’t going to abandon Emmer no matter what, and Horner won’t get any more support out of DFLers. That leaves him mired in third, set to repeat the IP’s usual performance — solid, but nowhere near good enough to win.
4. Ken Pentel, Ecology Democracy Party (LR: 7)
I’m still thinking Pentel is fourth on your list of candidates, though that’s with a serious caveat; I don’t know whether environmentalist fringers will break for Pentel or for the Green Party. If, as I suspect, they break for Pentel, he gets into fourth. If they break for Fareen Hakeem, Pentel could finish dead last.
I still am not quite sure why Pentel bolted from the Greens to form his own, even more lefty party. It’s not like the Greens were getting too mainstream. But whatever.
5. Fareen Hakeem, Green Party (LR: 15)
Hakeem moves up a bit, because of the very hedge I noted above. She’s done well in Hennepin County, and she’s got enough of a base that, if things break right, she could pass Pentel for fourth. Is Minnesota ready for a very liberal Muslim governor? No. Is one percent of Minnesota ready for a very liberal Muslim governor? You betcha.
6. Chris Wright, Grassroots Party Founder (LR: NR)
Chris Wright is like, running for governor, and he like, uh…oh yeah, he wants to, like, legalize pot, man. I mean, like, you’d be able to smoke pot, and it would be, legal and stuff.
Pot. That’s kind of a weird name for it, isn’t it? I mean, it doesn’t come in a pot. It doesn’t look like a pot. It doesn’t taste like a pot. Weird.
7. Linda Eno, The Resource Party (LR: 17)
Linda Eno is running for governor, I guess. I still don’t have any clue what The Resource Party stands for. I’ve tried to read their site three or four times, and I still don’t get it. And I’m really good at reading comprehension, so I don’t think the problem’s me. At any rate, if you want to educate me, please, feel free.
Falling Out: Margaret Anderson Kelliher (2), Matt Entenza (3), Ole Savior (6), Rob Hahn (8), Peter Idusogie (10), Bob Carney, Jr. (11), Leslie Davis (12), Phil Ratté (13), Rahn Workcuff (14)
Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton, Marty Seifert, Matt Entenza, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner | 15 Comments »
Voting is a Right, if You’re Not One of Them
By Jeff Fecke | October 8, 2010
Minnesota’s Republicans are in a quandary. While other midwestern states appear poised to elect Republican governors, Minnesota appears likely to shun state Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, in favor of former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minn. This comes on the heels of two consecutive disastrous elections, in which Republicans lost both senate seats and control of the Minnesota House of Representatives.
What really sticks in the craw of Republicans, though, is the seat they lost to Sen. Al Franken, DFL-Minn. They know if they could have kept just a few hundred Democrats from voting that they would have re-elected Norm Coleman. They know that if Norm had been re-elected, Democrats wouldn’t have been able to squeeze health care reform through the Senate.
The people who put Franken over the top are not the type of voters who Republicans see as legitimate. They’re not white. They’re not rich. Many of them are not men. And while Republicans would be horrified at anyone trying to keep a rich white guy from exercising his right to vote, they feel much different when they have the chance to keep a poor Latina from the polls.
And so that’s what they’re gearing up to do:
A coalition of conservative groups says it’s enlisting volunteers to become “voter surveillance teams” at polling places on Election Day, to watch for possible cases of voter fraud. The groups, led by one called Minnesota Majority, say they want to reduce illegal attempts at voting.
But others say the effort appears to have less to do with election fraud and more to do with suppressing voter turnout.
The conservative group, Minnesota Majority, has been raising the issue of election fraud since 2008. Some of its claims haven’t been validated. Others have prompted county attorneys to investigate possible cases of voter fraud. Now the group’s president Jeff Davis, says the goal is to prevent voter fraud.
“Once a ballot is cast it’s almost impossible to undo that,” said Davis. “So our program is intended to prevent those illegitimate ballots from being cast in the first place.”
Davis’ group has been pushing to require people to present photo identification at the polls. State law allows Minnesotans to vote without a photo ID, if they have a utility bill showing their current address or someone vouches for their residency.
Davis says his group is joining with a tea party group and the Minnesota Voters Alliance to ensure that individuals know who they’re vouching for, and to videotape and track buses and vans that deliver large numbers of voters to the polls.
Now, nobody wants non-registered voters to vote. But this goes rather beyond putting together a poll-watching group to make sure that state laws are followed. This goes straight through to intimidation. After all, how exactly are they going to ensure that I know who I’m vouching for? Okay, that’s a silly hypothetical — I’m white, and I live in the suburbs. How exactly are they going to ensure that Jane Voter in St. Paul knows who she’s vouching for? Are they going to ask questions? Hook her up to a polygraph? Ask for photographic evidence?
And even if she’s successful in showing that yes, she knows Mrs. Nguyen, they live next door to each other — well, the damage is done. Because Jane Voter has been intimidated into not vouching for Mr. Hernandez who lives down the block. And Mr. Hernandez and Mrs. Nguyen are going to go back and tell their friends that trying to vote is an invitation to harassment. And as we learned in 2008, it doesn’t take many discouraged voters to swing an election.
Moreover, we’re going to have these groups videotaping vans bringing in voters — a practice that is pretty much as old as voting. The DFL and the GOP have been running vans from senior centers and apartment buildings for decades. It’s part of GOTV — a way of ensuring your voters turn out at the polls. There’s nothing illegal or wrong about it. But if you’re a private individual, you may not want a conservative group videotaping your every movement, all while demanding to know if you really are Mabel Gunderson or not.
Now, the people putting this thuggery together will tell you that they’re doing it for a good cause. They just want the right people to vote. Nothing more, nothing less. But to anyone familiar with the tactics of the right, it’s pretty clear that this is meant to be quite a bit more. No, as my friend and former colleague Robin Marty noted, these actions bear a striking similarity to the tactics of abortion clinic protesters — the ones who “just want to tell women the truth,” by forcing them to run a gantlet of protesters in order to get an abortion. Or prenatal care. Or birth control. Whatever.
Just as anti-choice groups try to intimidate women out of exercising their rights, so Minnesota Majority is trying to help its friends in the Republican party by intimidating voters out of exercising their rights. It is, as always, the right attempting to bully people when they don’t get their way. And only by standing up to these ghouls on the right can we on the left ensure that the rights of our fellow citizens are upheld.
UPDATE: See also Jeff Rosenberg.
Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV | 1 Comment »
Soon We’ll be Making Another Run
By Jeff Fecke | October 6, 2010
When Randy Moss left the Vikings back in 2005, I wasn’t sorry to see him go. Oh, I might have been had I known the Vikings would use the pick they got from Oakland to draft Troy “Hands of Stone” Williamson, but for the most part, Vikings fans like me had grown tired of Moss’ antics. A fresh start was needed. It was time for him to go.
Well, it’s 2010 now. The Vikings have picked up aging quarterback and egomaniac Brett Favre, but he has no significant downfield threat. Moss, meanwhile, has had productive years with New England, but is grumpy because the Patriots don’t appear ready to extend his contract. And a grumpy Moss, as Vikings fans know, is an annoying Moss. Could a deal be in the works? Yes, yes it could.
Moss is, of course, everything he’s always been. He’s a great receiver, with size and speed and soft hands, a guy who can change a defense just by stepping on the field. He’s also a major league prima donna who tends to sulk if not mollycoddled. He could come to the Vikings and save their season. He could also wreck the team for years to come.
Maybe it’s just the ghosts of 1998, but I hope the Vikings get the deal done. I’m by no means certain they won’t regret it. But like the man who would pass to him, Moss passes the most basic test. He may be good. He may be bad. But he won’t be boring. Sports are just another reality show, and Moss will make the 2010 Vikings an interesting one. What that means, of course, is anybody’s guess
Topics: Potpourri | No Comments »
Straight Flowing on a Boat in the Deep Blue Sea
By Jeff Fecke | September 29, 2010
Remember James O’Keefe III? Sure you do! He’s the guy who (didn’t actually) dress(ed) as a pimp and shot selectively-edited video in order to bring down ACORN, which thanks to a heavy assist from FOX and Andrew Breitbart, and the handwringing and navel-gazing of the “liberal” media, he did. And in the process, he became the poster boy for the new conservative journalist: slipshod, self-promoting, and douchey.
He was later convicted of messing around at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana office, which one would think would end his “career.” But he’s still around, still trying to punk the liberals. And his latest plot is a doozy. I mean, it’s super-hilarious. Let me break it down for you: let’s say you’re being interviewed by a female CNN reporter. You know what would be hilarious? Lure her on to a boat where you’ve got a whole bunch of sex toys and condoms and porn laying around, and film her reaction! Because, you know, she’ll probably react negatively to being alone on a boat with you, surrounded by sex toys and porn and condoms and whatnot. And this will prove…something! O’Keefe, boy, you’ve done it again!
I wish I was kidding about this, but I’m not:
A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating “palace of pleasure” and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.
James O’Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.
The plan apparently was thwarted after Boudreau was warned minutes before it was supposed to happen.
[...]
Boudreau flew to Baltimore, Maryland, on August 17, rented a car, and drove to suburban Lusby, where O’Keefe wanted to meet. O’Keefe sent a text message to Boudreau that morning, saying that [O'Keefe assistant Izzy] Santa would meet her when she got there.
When Boudreau arrived at the address, a house located on a tributary of the Patuxent River, Santa approached her with a tape recorder in her hand and said she wanted to talk in the car, Boudreau said.“I noticed she had a little bit of dirt on her face, her lip was shaking, she seemed really uncomfortable and I asked her if she was OK,” Boudreau said. “The first thing she basically said to me was, ‘I’m not recording you, I’m not recording you. Are you recording me?’ I said, ‘No, I’m not recording you,’ and she showed me her digital recorder and it was not recording.”
Santa told Boudreau that O’Keefe planned to “punk” her by getting on a boat where hidden cameras were set up. Boudreau said she would not get on the boat and asked Santa why O’Keefe wanted her there.
“Izzy told me that James was going to be dressed up and have strawberries and champagne on the boat, and he was going to hit on me the whole time,” Boudreau said.
A short time later, O’Keefe emerged from a boat docked behind the house. In that brief conversation, Boudreau told O’Keefe that he did not have permission to record her, and reminded him that the meeting was solely to discuss the upcoming music video shoot, and he had never mentioned that he wanted to tape their meeting.Boudreau ended the meeting and left. After the incident, Santa gave CNN a series of e-mails she says shows O’Keefe intended to try to embarrass both the network and Boudreau through an elaborate plan.
“Elaborate” really doesn’t describe the plan.
I would soon learn the details of the plan, in a 13-page document titled, “CNN Caper.”
It explains the type of equipment needed to stage the boat for our meeting. Here is how the document reads:
Equipment needed
a. Video
1. hidden cams on the boat
2. tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine
b. Props
1. condom jar
2. dildos
3. Music
a. Alicia keys
b. 80s romance songs, things that are typically James
c. avoid Marvin Gaye as too cliche
4. lube
5. ceiling mirror
6. posters and paintings of naked women
7. playboys and pornographic magazines
8. candles
9. Viagra and stamina pills
10. fuzzy handcuffs
11. blindfold
James was supposed to tape the following script before the meeting on the boat.
“My name is James, I work in video activism and journalism. I’ve been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort…”
“Instead, I’ve decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I’m going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I’m going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she’ll get seduced on camera and you’ll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.”
“Please sit back and enjoy the show.”
It explains very simply what “the joke” is.
“The joke is that the tables have turned on CNN. Using hot blondes to seduce interviewees to get screwed on television, you are faux seducing her in order to screw her on television.”
Now, Boudreau is, like most television anchors — both male and female — more conventionally attractive than most. She’s also a pretty experienced reporter, with a number of awards to her name. It takes someone with a very skewed view of women to assume that a reporter who’s won seven regional Emmys is, first and foremost, a “hot blonde” who’s going to “seduce” them by, you know, interviewing them. It takes someone who views women first and foremost as sex objects to even think that makes a whit of sense.
Even if O’Keefe had succeeded in his brilliant plan, what then? So he proves that when you surround someone with sexually charged items, while alone on a boat, they become uncomfortable? And this is news to who, Sasquatch? If I’m alone on a boat with anyone other than a significant other, surrounded by condoms and dildos and lube and a camera set to record the bed…well, I’m not on that boat any longer than it takes to make a quick exit. I might dive off, if need be. And I’m a guy. Statistically speaking, I’m a lot less likely to be a victim of sexual assault than a woman.
Which, incidentally, is what O’Keefe was planning here. At best, his plan was to set up the boat with all the trappings of an imminent sexual assault, to make Boudreau feel that her safety was being threatened. At best, he intended to use the specter of possible rape to attack and assault Boudreau psychologically, to use her fears for his safety as grist for his mill. At best, his plan was despicable.
That’s the best spin I can put on it. But even then, it doesn’t make sense. There’s no way that this would have worked out in any way that made O’Keefe look like anything other than a massive douchebag. The plan was destined to fail. There was no way he would have been able to use this video that would make it appear the least bit like a negative for Boudreau. And so I’m forced to apply Ockham’s Razor, and look for a simpler, saner explanation, and I think I have one.
I think James O’Keefe was planning to sexually assault Abbie Boudreau.
I don’t know how he intended to do it. Corner her, probably. I’m guessing flunitrazepam may have come into play. My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that O’Keefe intended to film himself raping Bourdreau, and that he intended to distribute it as a tape of a CNN reporter “sleeping with the enemy.” Certainly, he would have selectively edited the tape. And erased the incriminating parts. Hey, it worked with ACORN, didn’t it?
Now, I’ll admit, I don’t have proof that’s what O’Keefe was trying to do. But it makes more sense than his purported plan to tar Boudreau as one of those 97 percent of Americans who’s uncomfortable alone on a ship with a pervert.
Either way, O’Keefe has with this “stunt” proven once and for all that what we suspected is true: he’s a skeevy punk with no respect for women or humanity. And he should be treated with all the respect afforded the creepy guy in the trenchcoat in the dark corner of the campus library. As for the media, which lapped up his lies about ACORN as if they were ambrosia — well, they should reflect on the fact that James O’Keefe was and is the face of conservative “gotcha” journalism. And that he and conservatism deserve each other.
Topics: Feminism, GOP Inanity, Media, Sexual Assault | 6 Comments »
Please Enjoy This Musical Interlude While I Write My James O’Keefe Post
By Jeff Fecke | September 29, 2010
Topics: Feminism, Media, Potpourri, Sexual Assault | 2 Comments »
The Following Message is Brought to You by John Boehner
By Jeff Fecke | September 23, 2010
Topics: GOP Inanity, Potpourri | 1 Comment »
If I Go Crazy Now Will You Still Wait for Superman?
By Jeff Fecke | September 22, 2010
The public schools are awful. We are told this over and over, again and again, by politicians of both parties. They are terrible. They fail students. They are the reason America is not competitive. They are leaving children behind. Teachers in public schools aren’t accountable. They aren’t good. They don’t care. If you’re lucky, or rich, you can get your kid into a private school. Otherwise, you’d best hope for a charter school. God forbid your kid ends up in a public school. She’s pretty much screwed if she does.
We are told this over and over again. And very soon, we will be told this by a professional, heart-rending film, Waiting for “Superman,” by the same guy who directed An Inconvenient Truth. It’s a film that tells the story of students desperate to get out of public schools, because public schools suck.
But do public schools suck? We take it as an article of faith that they do, of course, because all the serious people agree they do. In reality, public schools do as good a job as any other school at educating students — they just don’t do it with flash and publicity. Instead, they do it day after day, year after year, under withering, unyielding attack from all sides.
We should know this, of course. The percentage of Americans who hold high school degrees has never been higher. The percentage of Americans with bachelor’s degrees, likewise, is higher than it’s ever been. And these trendlines have not suddenly changed since the advent of charter schools; no, educational outcomes have showed slow, steady improvement over the past three decades, improvement that build on top of rapid improvement between the 1940s and the 1980s. And this growth has not been built on improvement for white students only; African-American students have seen significant improvement in outcomes, to the point where 84 percent of African-Americans aged 25 now hold high school degrees, compared to 87 percent of the population at large. And all at a time when private school enrollment was declining.
Still, we hear that the public schools are terrible. Awful. Waiting for “Superman” wrings drama out of five students who are trying to win lotteries to get into charter schools, where they’ll do much better, we’re told. But will they? No. They won’t. Students who attend charter schools have the same outcomes as students who attend public schools.
This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who knows education policy on a deeper level than slogans. Charter schools were never supposed to take the place of public schools. Instead, they were supposed to function as educational laboratories, places where educators could attempt novel experiments with willing parents, to see if educational theory x was a great idea or not. If ideas worked, they were supposed to be used in the public schools; if not, the charters were supposed to be disbanded.
Instead, charter schools have functioned mainly as a way for hucksters to gain public funds to grind their personal axes. This is not to say all charter schools are bad, of course. But too many charter schools function as barely-concealed religious schools, or schools that think education has been declining since the fall of Rome. Needless to say, unions, certification, and qualifications are verboten at many of these schools, founded by anti-union true believers, who think that the only thing standing between our children and utter enlightenment is the fact that teachers are teachers, and not temps.
This is not to say that America’s education system is perfect. No system is perfect. And we can have a reasonable discussion about how best to address that. I would start by eliminating high-stakes testing, myself, and I’d continue by getting schools out of the social-justice business. There’s no reason, for example, that schools should be providing breakfast for hungry children — they simply do because we refuse to fund any other safety net, and schools manage to wring money out of the lunch budget. We could also talk about ways to better identify “good” teachers and ways to eliminate “bad” teachers — for everyone, including teachers’ unions, agrees that both exist. But hopefully that discussion would not focus on test outcomes.
Yes, of course we should do things to improve our public schools. But all things considered, our schools do a pretty good job of doing what they’re supposed to do — teach our children. They can’t, unfortunately, fix imbalances in the socioeconomic system, stabilize unstable families, and provide students with an equality of opportunity. But that isn’t the fault of the schools — it’s the fault of the country.
All public schools do is serve as the one institution in our society that takes all comers, no matter your race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For that, they are demonized, and for that, they are marginalized in favor of newer, shinier, non-public options. And for that, we should all be ashamed.
Topics: Education | 8 Comments »
He’s a Bully
By Jeff Fecke | September 8, 2010
The Minnesota GOP today launched an attack on Mark Dayton that is sure to shock everyone. You see, it turns out the guy’s rich.
I know, I know, who would have thought that an heir of the founder of Target would today be rich? It would be nice if the guy hadn’t tried to hide this from us. Maybe if he’d gone by the name Mark Target, we would have connected him to that company. I mean, it’s not like the name “Dayton” has any significance to Minnesotans.
Anyhow, like most rich heirs, Dayton has a lot of money, and evidently some of it has been moved into tax shelters over the years, according a Republican analysis of the tax records Dayton released earlier this year. And Republicans are mad about this, because they’re totally opposed to tax shelters, and completely in favor of the rich paying their fair share in taxes. Kidding! No, the GOP is mad because Dayton has proposed actually taxing rich Minnesotans at the same rate that poor Minnesotans are taxed, and yet Dayton, who has the temerity to be rich, gets money from a family trust that he doesn’t control which maybe once tried to avoid taxes.
Of course, Tom Emmer would never resort to such shenanigans. Or possibly, he hasn’t filed taxes ever. I really couldn’t tell you, because Emmer hasn’t released his tax returns. Unlike Dayton, who gave the Republicans the very documents they used to gin up this nontroversy, Emmer refuses to disclose his own financial records, because the rules Tom Emmer makes up don’t apply to him.
Indeed, this is the second time in the same day that Emmer has been caught attacking his opponents for falling short of standards that he doesn’t hold himself to. Over the weekend, Emmer blasted Dayton and Tom Horner for not running their budget plans through the Department of Revenue, which would presumably look over the numbers in an impartial way. (Granted, it’s a department controlled by Tim Pawlenty, but let’s suspend disbelief.) Dayton agreed to do so. Emmer, unfortunately, hasn’t, despite saying he had. He ran his plan by Revenue Commissioner Ward Einess, who did some doodling on an envelope and said it looked okay, but no formal analysis of Emmer’s plan has been undertaken.
Of course, it shouldn’t be surprising that Emmer holds others to standards he himself refuses to live up to. He’s a bully. He wants to push others around. There’s nothing consistent about his ethics; he just wants to force others to dance to his tune, to punish others for made-up infractions. This is who Emmer is. And it’s why he’d be a disastrous governor.
Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Mark Dayton, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner | 10 Comments »
Break Completed
By Jeff Fecke | September 8, 2010
As you no doubt noticed (or as is more likely, didn’t), I took a couple-week break from writing to spend time with my daughter, enjoy the end of summer, and generally get away from blogging for a while. Hey, I’ve been doing this for almost eight years; you’ve gotta take a break sometime.
Well, lucky all of you, I’m finally starting to feel like writing again, so I’m going to. You’ve been warned.
Topics: Blog Navel-Gazing | No Comments »
Why Dayton Won
By Jeff Fecke | August 12, 2010
I think Spot has gotten to the nub of it:
Having the money to have access to the airwaves obviously helped Mark Dayton. But it wouldn’t have mattered at all if he didn’t have a message that resonated with DFL voters.
That’s very important to understand, because I absolutely believe Dayton wan his party’s endorsement because he spoke to the voters who would decide it — DFL voters. His ads focused on issues — support for seniors, support for schools — and remained resolutely on-point. He expressed a worldview that struck a chord with Democratic voters. My mom voted for Dayton, and told me flatly that Dayton “stood for what she believed,” and that she appreciated that.
I know I keep harping on it, but I truly believe Kelliher lost the nomination when she decided to target Matt Entenza for his opposition to No Child Left Behind. NCLB has been a disaster, under both Bush and Obama. And nobody knows this more than teachers and parents. I’m quite willing to pay more in taxes so that my daughter’s teachers can focus on teaching her to think, rather than teaching her how to take high-stakes tests.
Kelliher’s attack on Entenza ultimately hurt her a lot more than it hurt Entenza. My mom’s a public school principal, and spent decades as a public school teacher. Kelliher was endorsed by Education Minnesota, and my mom was very willing to vote for her, before she came out in favor of NCLB. Once she did, however, my mom was done with her. How many more educators and parents throughout the state did just as my mom did? How many more educators and parents said, “Well, if she’s going to support that, I can’t support her?” 4,000? I think so.
Kelliher lost because she was trying to run a general election campaign. Dayton wasn’t — he was focused on the primary. And he presented himself as a defender of DFL values. Ultimately, as a Democrat, I want to be represented by a Democrat on the ballot. I voted for Kelliher — but I seriously considered Dayton for the same reason that my parents ultimately voted for him. If Kelliher was willing to compromise on NCLB, what other issues was she willing to back down on in the name of a balanced approach?
Dayton, for good or ill, is standing for a mainstream DFL agenda. I can respect that. And I understand why he won. Quite frankly, he deserved to. And if the best the GOP can do is to rehash Dayton’s admittedly uneven senate career — a career that Dayton has admitted coincided with a relapse into alcoholism — well, I think he’ll deserve to win in November, too.
Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton | 5 Comments »
The Failure of the Caucus System
By Jeff Fecke | August 11, 2010
So last night, Democrats got together to choose a candidate to try to win back the governor’s mansion. And once again, the candidate chosen was not the candidate that the party endorsed at its convention.
This is nothing new. DFLers have turned their back on their party’s endorsee routinely over the years, and when they haven’t, the electorate as a whole has. No DFL endorsee has won the governor’s race since Rudy Perpich in 1986, and no non-incumbent DFL endorsee has won the governor’s race since Wendell Anderson did it in 1970 — a futility streak that spans 40 years, and now will reach 44.
Really, it’s even more stark in visual form:
|
Year |
Party Endorsee |
Primary Winner |
Elected Governor |
|
2010 |
Margaret Anderson Kelliher |
Mark Dayton |
TBD |
|
2006 |
Mike Hatch |
Mike Hatch |
Tim Pawlenty |
|
2002 |
Roger Moe |
Roger Moe |
Tim Pawlenty |
|
1998 |
Mike Freeman |
Skip Humphrey |
Jesse Ventura |
|
1994 |
John Marty |
John Marty |
Arne Carlson (I) |
|
1990 |
Rudy Perpich |
Rudy Perpich |
Arne Carlson |
|
1986 |
Rudy Perpich |
Rudy Perpich |
Rudy Perpich |
|
1982 |
Warren Spannaus |
Rudy Perpich |
Rudy Perpich |
|
1978 |
Rudy Perpich |
Rudy Perpich |
Al Quie |
|
1974 |
Wendell Anderson (I) |
Wendell Anderson (I) |
Wendell Anderson (I) |
|
1970 |
Wendell Anderson |
Wendell Anderson |
Wendell Anderson |
|
1966 |
A.M. “Sandy” |
Karl Rolvaag |
Harold LeVander |
|
1962 |
Karl Rolvaag |
Karl Rolvaag |
Karl Rolvaag |
|
1960 |
Orville Freeman (I) |
Orville Freeman (I) |
Elmer Andersen |
|
1958 |
Orville Freeman (I) |
Orville Freeman (I) |
Orville Freeman (I) |
|
1956 |
Orville Freeman (I) |
Orville Freeman (I) |
Orville Freeman (I) |
|
1954 |
Orville Freeman |
Orville Freeman |
Orville Freeman |
|
1952 |
Orville Freeman |
Orville Freeman |
C. Elmer Anderson |
|
1950 |
Harry Peterson |
Harry Peterson |
Luther Youngdahl (I) |
|
1948 |
Charles Halstad |
Charles Halstad |
Luther Youngdahl (I) |
|
1946 |
Harold Barker |
Harold Barker |
Luther Youngdahl |
|
1944 |
Byron Allen |
Byron Allen |
Edward John Thye |
It’s quite remarkable, the inability of the DFL convention to produce a governor who wasn’t already a sitting governor. The Republicans have done so as recently as 2002. The Independence Party did it in 1998, for goodness’ sake. And yet the only DFLer in the past 40 years to win the office of governor away from another party did so by going around the party, winning the party primary in 1982. If Mark Dayton wins this year, as I expect he will, he will have taken the same path as Rudy Perpich did.
This is, to be blunt, a huge indictment of the way the DFL caucus system works. For whatever reason, the party itself seems incapable of picking candidates for governor who can survive both primaries and general elections. More than ever, it’s clear that the process by which the DFL picks its endorsed candidates has to change — and that candidates who bypass the party conventions are not disdaining the party, but rather simply trying to win.
Topics: DFL, Election 2006, Election 2010, MN-GOV, Minnesota Politics | 6 Comments »
Some Guy With a Website’s Endorsements
By Jeff Fecke | August 10, 2010
So it’s primary day, the time of year when a young wonk’s fancy turns to…well, primary day. Anyhow, it occurs to me that I have a website, and that it would be negligent of me not to tell you who I’m endorsing today. Not because you care. Just because I can.
So without further ado…
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Governor
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis
All of the major DFL candidates have some strengths, and all have some weaknesses. But one of the three has stood out as a candidate whose focus is not on merely getting elected, but on governing once in office. That person is Margaret Anderson Kelliher.
Kelliher has advocated a balanced approach to fixing Minnesota’s financial crisis, which is the only logical way to attack the wreck of a budget left by Gov. Timmy. She’s picked a lieutenant governor candidate in John Gunyou who will be able to hit the ground running in January. And she has shown an understanding of policy befitting the leader of the state house.
This does not mean Kelliher is perfect of course. I stand by what I said previously regarding Kelliher’s stance on No Child Left Behind. She’s flat wrong about it. That said, I believe she’s wrong about it based on understandable concern about the fiscal damage wrought by the Pawlenty administration.
Of the other major candidates, Mark Dayton remains who he’s been through decades of public service: a decent, honorable guy who really cares about policy and people, but who doesn’t really enjoy the rough-and-tumble of politics. He would be a good governor, especially now that he has worked to conquer his personal demons. But I feel it is time for new blood in the DFL, and Dayton represents rather the opposite of that.
Matt Entenza, meanwhile, has done nothing to change my well-documented opinion of him. I’m just glad to see that opinion appears to be shared by the overwhelming majority of DFLers.
Attorney General
Leo F. Meyer
Leo F. Meyer is not Lori Swanson. That’s good enough for me. While I will probably have no choice but to vote for the incumbent in the general election, for now I intend to voice my displeasure at my party’s continued support of an anti-union candidate under its banner.
Secretary of State
Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
Of every incumbent on the ballot, none has earned reelection more than Ritchie, who presided over a recount that should serve as a model for the nation. The GOPers continue to snipe at Ritchie, sure he must have done something to influence the election in favor of Al Franken, but two years’ worth of spitballs have failed to connect. I, for one, remain proud of a Secretary of State who did his best to remain a neutral arbiter, just as he’s supposed to. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
Republican Party
Governor
State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano
Surprised? You should not be. Granted, I would probably prefer Ole Savior to win the GOP nomination. But this is the GOP primary. And there is no question that Tom Emmer suits the modern GOP to a tee.
Emmer is a bully. A loudmouth. A man who never met policy that he cared to study. He doesn’t care about you if you make under $100,000 a year, if you have a vagina, or if you love someone whose genitals match yours. Education, transportation, medical care — all are far less important to him than continued tax cuts for the wealthiest. He is a man who believes that Democrats qua Democrats are simply incapable of patriotism because they have different views than he does. He is, in short, the embodiment of today’s version of the Know-Nothing Party, and he is the perfect standard-bearer for them.
All the better if he loses; perhaps the Minnesota Republican Party will begin to rethink their hard right turn. Perhaps they’ll begin to remember that their party used to have room for Arne Carlson and Tom Horner and Jim Ramstad and John Gunyou. Perhaps they’ll realize that economic policy that always boils down to tax cuts and accounting gimmicks is not a policy, but a cult. Perhaps they’ll start recognizing that basic human rights are not a threat to their state.
Or they’ll double down and get even more bizarre in their beliefs. Bachmann 2014? It’s possible.
Secretary of State
Doc Severinsen
State Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, never was known by “Doc” before this election. But in a transparent bid to try to confuse the easily confused, Severson has decided to add the nickname to his line on the ballot, in hopes that people will 1. think he’s the former “Tonight Show” band leader, and 2. think the former “Tonight Show” band leader is a reasonable choice to run our state’s elections and business registration.
Well, I think Doc Severinsen would be a great choice for Secretary of State. His rapport with Johnny was always top-notch, and the guy can play the trumpet like no tomorrow. That’s why I’m supporting him for Secretary of State. Dan Severson? Not so much.
Attorney General
Sharon Anderson
Remember Sharon Anderson, of “Steve and Sharon” fame? She was so great on the television. And — why, look, there on the GOP ballot! There’s a Sharon Anderson running for Attorney General! Could it be the same person? For all you know, it is!
And it’s not like Anderson isn’t experienced. She’s very versed in confusing legalese. And she was the Republican Party’s nominee in 1994 for this very office! Sure, she lost to Skip Humphrey, but, I mean, that was Skip. It’s 2010 now!
Sure, you could be boring and vote for psychologist/attorney R. Christopher Barden. But that’s just silly. No, vote for Sharon Anderson, the person who very well could be former TV star Sharon Anderson.
Independence Party
Governor
Tom Horner
Horner gets my endorsement not so much because of anything he’s done — he’s a boring, mediocre candidate who would be a boring, mediocre governor — but because his main opponent, Rob Hahn, is an admitted domestic abuser who is running for governor because the system is so hard on men. Yes, he’s a certified MRA, ladies and gentlemen, and exactly what most MRAs are — whiny guys with rage issues who can’t view women as their equals.
Horner is dull, but he’s not particularly evil. Hahn is. Let’s hope today he ends up being sent home to stew about how hard life is for white men.
Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, Rob Hahn, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner | 5 Comments »
Super Power Rankings: The Spiraling Shape Edition
By Jeff Fecke | August 7, 2010
So as we enter the eleventh hour of the primary for Governor, I can only imagine that Republicans are looking on with envy at the fratricidal bloodbath that is the contested DFL primary. Mark Dayton, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, and Matt Entenza have kept their guns trained on the same target — Tom Emmer — while only occasionally sniping at each other. Yes, Entenza went negative on Kelliher this week — going after her on No Child Left Behind — but it’s a minor skirmish. Whoever emerges as the DFL nominee next Tuesday night is going to do so relatively unscathed.
As for Tom Emmer — well, let’s face it, he’s had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad summer. Since earning the GOP endorsement, he’s run a flat-out awful campaign, making his signature campaign issue an emphasis on cutting the minimum wage for waiters. Things have gotten so bad that rumors are swirling that the GOP would like to Go Grunseth and defenestrate Emmer in favor of someone — anyone –else.
Of course, Grunseth had to quit the 1990 gubernatorial race because it turned out he had been skinny dipping with his then-teenage daughter and two friends, which was icky on so many levels that the man ended up moving to Tasmania to get a new start on life. Emmer’s sins are less incestuous and ephebophilious, and more related to his being a paeloconservative with only a tenuous grasp on the issues. Since he’s a Republican candidate, that’s a feature, not a bug. And so the Emmer campaign is reduced to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and trying to woo Cullen Sheehan to run the campaign. You might remember Sheehan from this marvelous press conference in which he was unable to answer a simple question about where Norm Coleman got his suits. And let me say — he’d be a huge upgrade for the Emmer camp.
So anyhow, since we’re so close to the primary, we’re going to combine the entire race into one big Super Power Ranking, based on likelihood of winning overall. Let’s get it on!
1. Former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minnesota (LR: DFL-2)
Let me be the first to say that I didn’t see this coming, not at all. When Mark Dayton left the Senate in 2007, it was to a large chorus of sighs of relief by members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, who were grateful that he’d been willing to step aside and allow Amy Klobuchar to decimate Mark Kennedy in the general election.
Well, time heals all wounds, and Dayton has run a pretty typically low-key, positive campaign centered around his being a familiar face who cares about kids and seniors. His admission that he suffered with alcoholism and mental illness haven’t hurt him significantly, and likely won’t hurt him between now and the general; Emmer can’t attack Dayton for alcoholism without opening up his own DWI history, and there are too many folks like me taking Prozac every day for depression to be seen as disqualifying.
That’s not to say Dayton is unbeatable in a general election. He remains vulnerable to attacks on his admittedly weak Senate record. But his counterargument — that he’s just better in an executive office than the Senate — is a decent saving throw, as he had a decent record as State Auditor, at least as far as anyone does in a relatively low-profile position.
As for the primary, Dayton has led between 10 and 16 points is every significant poll. Granted, primaries are hard to poll, and Kelliher will have the advantage of the DFL machinery behind her. But it would be an upset for Dayton to lose, and I don’t expect him to.
2. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis (LR: DFL-1)
Kelliher simply has failed to consolidate the support of her DFL partisans, especially unions. Moreover, she hasn’t been strong enough in establishing herself as the force in the primary. Part of that, to be fair, is to Dayton’s credit; he has run a very good campaign thus far. But part of that is self-inflicted. Quite simply, Kelliher attacking Entenza for supporting No Child Left Behind was a huge unforced error, and one that indicated strongly that Kelliher was trying to pivot to the general before she’d won the primary.
That’s not to say she can’t win the primary, but she certainly hasn’t done anything to indicate she will. Her best hope is that the DFL ground game will bail her out, and who knows, maybe it will. If she gets the DFL nomination, she will win the general election. But I doubt she’ll get the nomination at this point.
3. Former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul (LR: DFL-3)
Remember last year, when Entenza followers were saying he had pretty much already won the nomination, so it was really horrible of me to express my dislike of the guy? Yeah, good times, good times. Flash-forward to today, and Entenza is an afterthought in the campaign, trailing Dayton by between 17 and 32 percent in the polls, and Kelliher by four to 22 points.
I still put him ahead of Emmer, because if lightning strikes and Entenza somehow gets the nomination, I think he beats Emmer; I think Emmer is unlikely to win against any credible DFLer. But I don’t think Entenza is going to win the nomination, and thank the Ceiling Cat. I mean, I don’t think I could vote for Entenza. But I don’t think I could pull the lever for Tom Horner or Ken Pentel if it meant Emmer could win. I think I’d have to move to Wisconsin or something. Happily, it isn’t likely to come to that.
4. State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano (LR: GOP-2)
Emmer surprised everyone when he edged out Marty Seifert for the GOP endorsement; who’s to say that he can’t do the same in November? Me, that’s who.
Emmer won the GOP endorsement by getting angrier and kookier, by getting endorsements from Sarah Palin and picking a running mate who once advocated eliminating her own position. This is a good strategy if you’re trying to win the endorsement of an angry, kooky political party. But the Minnesota electorate disdains hotheads usually, save for 1998, and it always blanches at perceived radicalism. Gov. Timmy won in 2002 by not being angry like the folks at the Rallemorial, and he won in 2006 by not calling reporters whores. He was preceded by Jesse Ventura, who won because both Coleman and Humphrey were perceived as too radical; Ventura was preceded by the purely moderate Republican Arne Carlson, whose political positions would make him a slightly conservative Democrat today. And Carlson was preceded by Rudy Perpich, who was an anti-choice moderate DFLer.
Given the choice between ideologues and moderates, Minnesotans pick the moderate. And Dayton, Kelliher, and Entenza all read more moderate than the pugnacious, radical Emmer.
In short, Emmer is the wrong sort of candidate to win the race. Marty Seifert may not have been as in-your-face, but he would have been a strong candidate in the general election, because he presents himself as a fairly reasonable guy and because he can talk about policy at a deeper level than “we should cut stuff 20 percent. But what stuff, I’m not going to tell you.” Emmer could still win — the DFL hasn’t won since 1986, I’m not counting my chickens before they hatch. But it will take a massive screw-up by the Democrats and a wave of Brobdingnagian proportions for the GOP. I’m sorry, but no matter how big the wave in favor of the Republicans this year, I don’t think it’s enough to carry Emmer over the top.
5. Tom Horner, Independence Party (LR: IP-1)
Horner is polling reasonably well, in the high-single-low-double range. And while I expect he’ll fade just a bit, I also expect he’ll hold his moderate GOP support and finish in the upper-single-digit range.
That’s a decent finish, and it will keep the IP as a major party for a few more years, and that’s something, I guess. But Horner seems unlikely to repeat Ventura’s ’98 feat, and the IP will reach at least 10 years without a statewide elected official. At some point, the question of what exactly the IP is trying to do will have to be broached. I think their best bet is to attract socially tolerant fiscal conservatives who are actually serious about policy — the sort of Republicans who find Tom Emmer to be embarrassing. But sadly, I think the GOP rank-and-file is still in denial about what their party has become, and it will be a few more years before the IP starts pulling GOP votes in earnest — if, indeed, it ever happens.
6. Ole Savior, Republican Party (LR: DFL-5)
Of all the things I wasn’t expecting this year, Ole Savior running in the Republican primary with an Elvis impersonator as his running mate was definitely one of them. I mean, this would be like Sharon Anderson running for Attorney General as a DFLer — it just doesn’t seem right.
That said, Ole Savior is the only Republican challenger I can imagine somehow accidentally winning instead of Tom Emmer, so he’s sixth on the list, because I can imagine a scenario where Savior somehow gets through. I think.
7. Ken Pentel, Ecology Democracy Party (LR: NR)
Pentel is running for governor again, this time as a member of his own party, the Ecology Democracy Party, which, near as I can tell, appears to be a more radical version of the Green Party, because we all know the Greens are a bunch of moderates. That said, Pentel’s been running for governor since 1998; people have heard of him. He’s more likely to get elected governor by accident that some of the other randoms out there.
8. Rob Hahn, Independence Party (LR: IP-2)
I’m totally shocked that an MRA who once assaulted his ex-wife would decide he was the guy who should serve as standard-bearer for men’s rights in custody cases. Oh, did I say shocked? I mean not at all shocked. Funny how abusive assholes always seem to be the ones angry about how the system is rigged against men, innit?
Hahn has made almost no impression in the race, and if Hahn somehow accidentally won the IP nomination, I doubt he’d poll much above pond scum. That’s because contrary to MRA beliefs, most people see choking your ex as a bad thing. I can imagine people deciding to elect Ole Savior in a fit of randomness. I can see people mistaking Emmer’s anger for passion. I can see Ken Pentel winning because Minnesotans feel bad for him. I can’t see an abusive asshole winning, though.
9. Peter Idusogie, DFL (LR: NR)
I must confess, I keep forgeting that Idusogie is running, but I have a feeling that won’t be true in 2012 when he’s running for Senate or Congress or President. Idusogie has all the hallmarks of a nascent perennial candidate — the vaguely overinflated sense of self, the incomprehensible policy goals, the seeking of positions that may or may not even exist — these are the things that define a Dick Franson, a Leslie Davis, and dare I say, a Peter Idusogie. I will be watching his career with interest, and mirth. Mostly mirth.
10. Bob Carney, Jr., Republican Party (LR: NR)
Carney is the moderate alternative to Emmer, which would be the kiss of death even if he was a credible candidate, which he isn’t. Granted, if he managed to win it would be a victory for D-list bloggers making huge jumps into politics, so I probably should be rooting for him, but then again, I have about as much chance of winning the GOP nomination, and I am not on the ballot.
11. Leslie Davis, Republican Party (LR: GOP-5)
I still don’t have any idea why Leslie Davis decided to run as a Republican, and with Ole Savior in the race, he’s not even the most whimsically mislabeled Republican anymore, so I completely don’t get it. At all. Period.
12. John T. Uldrich, Independence Party (LR: NR)
Uldrich is not to be confused with Jack Uldrich, the former IP chair; he’s Jack’s father. He ran for Senate in 2006 as a Republican, and he’s running for governor now because…something. Actually, he seems like a perfectly cromulent IP candidate, other than the fact that he doesn’t really have much of a chance. So, you know, he seems like a perfectly cromulent IP candidate.
13. Phil Ratté, Independence Party (LR: NR)
Ratté is evidently running on a platform that argues that the government is secretly preventing Detroit from building engines that would, I don’t know, allow us to drive to Mars on a tank of Gatorade. Who knows, he may even be right, but running for Governor as an IP candidate is probably not the most effective way to advance one’s argument.
14. Rahn Workcuff, Independence Party (LR: NR)
Workcuff is another perennial candidate, but he’s generally set his sights a lot lower than Governor. The question is whether this heralds Workcuff’s triumphant entry into the big leagues, along with the Fransons, Saviors, and Andersons of the world, or whether he’s just a flash in the pan. I will say that given that he made note of his position on same-sex marriage during a campaign for Hennepin County Soil Commissioner, I’d say he’s at least an intriguing character. And hey, the Independence Party really needs its own perennial candidate haunting the party. If you’re gonna play in the big leagues, folks, you’ve got to act like you belong.
15. Fareen Hakeem, Green Party (LR: NR)
Hakeem has actually had some reasonably strong showings in Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Hey, pulling 14 percent of the vote for Mayor isn’t bad for a Green. I don’t think she can win, unlike Ken Pentel (who, I should be clear, is about a one in a million shot), because Pentel is actually a name people might have heard once, in passing. That said, I would be unsurprised if Hakeem actually outpolled Pentel on election day. I will be surprised if she can get to five percent and get the Greens major party status, but one percent would be a decent showing.
16. Chris Wright, Grassroots Party Founder (LR: NR)
Wright has been working for marijuana legalization since he co-founded Minnesota’s NORML branch and the Grassroots Party back in 1986. That’s an awfully long time to be pushing to legalize it, but hey, everybody’s gotta have a dream. I will say he’s unlikely to finish dead last, because stoned college folks love the idea of the Grassroots Party. I will also say he’s unlikely to win, because stoned college folks aren’t the most motivated voters out there.
17. Linda Eno, The Resource Party (LR: NR)
I’ve been trying like heck to figure out what The Resource Party stands for, and it’s not as easy as you might think. Near as I can tell, they’re a radical libertarian group with a fixation on Native American issues. Which is, you know, okay I guess. But it doesn’t scream “big electoral winner.” Also, the fact that they oppose “political correctness” in schools while supporting reparations to Native Americans — I’m still not quite sure how those two things work together, except to break my brain. Anyhoo, I’m all for small splinter parties that deal with a couple issues. That doesn’t mean I think they’ll win. And this one most certainly won’t.
Falling out: Marty Seifert (GOP-1), Bill Haas (GOP-3),Susan Gaertner (DFL-4)
Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, Rob Hahn, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner | 6 Comments »
