The core of the problem

I don't think it will happen, but Norm Ornstein's reasonable, well-researched thesis should be something that EVERY voter reads and thinks about this election season.

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges."

He's a little short for a Storm Trooper

The state's GOP continues to make news, with the Ron Paul Rebel Alliance creating the latest stir. ("The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more delegates will slip through your fingers.")

This amusing tho occasionally too snarky recap of the state Republican convention is a great inside look at how the party is united in hatin' libruls but not so much in other ways...

The bottom line is a Ron Paul-approved candidate won the party's endorsement to take on Amy Klobuchar for Senate (good luck with that) and the Paulites in general kind of took over the show. The author is clearly not a fan but nontheless manages to capture the moment, including a kind of sad encounter with a couple of Log Cabin Republicans. Here are a few of the better lines:

"Their fury is hard to fathom. The delegates and their families seemed like ordinary, reasonably successful middle-class people. There was a broad age range — yes, Democrats, young people were there in force and there were plenty of women, too, no matter the vaunted war against them. Some people wore suits; others came in jeans and flip-flops. Dads and moms rocked strollers in the back of the hall. They could have been an audience at a summer band concert. Oh wait, except there were no blacks. Well, almost none. I spotted two..."

"They all embraced small town life and 'Christian values' which made me feel left out, what with being Jewish and all."

"'President Paul! President Paul! President Paul,' screamed the crowd as he took the podium. That seemed beside the point since he had suspended his campaign only a few days earlier."

"Back in the hall, would-be delegates to the national convention were delivering one-minute pitches about their suitability. They were all asked whether they would support the nominee of the party. The subtextual clause would have been, if uttered, 'even if it's the hateful Romney.' Most said yes, but some laid on caveats, such as 'if he abides by the laws in Exodus' or 'if he follows the Constitution.'"

...The laws in Exodus?

Also, here's something from Daily Kos, which of course is a very liberal site, but it's one of the better big-picture explanations I've seen of what the Paul Rebellion means nationwide, with relatively little partisan sniping...

Dayton vs. the GOP revolution

It's been interesting to watch the political changes in Minnesota and Wisconsin over the past two years.

How's that for an understatement?

In both states, we saw something of a Republican revolution at the polls in 2010. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker was elected Governor, with a Republican-majority legislature. In Minnesota, Mark Dayton barely squeaked by to win the Governor's mansion for the DFL, but Republicans scored a historic win by taking both the House and the Senate.

We all know what's happened in Wisconsin since then. And we're just weeks away from seeing if the huge backlash that Walker inspired will be successful in ousting him from office.

Minnesota has not grabbed national headlines the way Wisconsin did, but politics here has been almost as lively. Dayton and the Republicans have clashed repeatedly, with the mild-in-appearance Dayton showing a surprisingly tough and confrontational side when faced with the Tea Party approach of state's GOP leadership. Dayton has thrown some real punches, and the GOP here, despite having some very strong-willed characters of its own, has not fared well, in part because the party has shot itself in the foot a few times.

In the last year, the GOP has weathered a sex scandal--which resulted in the Republican Senate leader resigning, and financial scandals, which badly undercut its message on being the best party to manage state government. Going bankrupt is not a good way to convince voters you're good with fiscal matters.

Who knows how much those issues affected the GOP's game in St. Paul, but Dayton for the most part seemed to outmaneuver them, despite the fact that he led the minority party. He got the stadium bill passed--with a bigger margin than most expected. He got a pared-down bonding bill--not as much as he wanted, but he always said he was willing to compromise on that one.

He also stood firm on not draining the state's financial reserves by vetoing the GOP's tax bills. He vetoed the first large tax-cut bill, despite the GOP's threats of torpedoing the stadium bill in retaliation. Then at the very end of the session, he vetoed a second, smaller tax-cut bill for the same reason—because it would lead to larger deficits and not spread the tax-cut goodness fairly to all Minnesotans, instead focusing on business tax cuts. If you think you hear a skeptical tone, you do. Since I moved to Minnesota, I’ve seen wave after wave of tax cuts, all promising to improve the economy. Usually, the economy has gotten worse.

But I digress. We were talking about Dayton vs. the GOP. And so what is the result of this clash-of-the-titans spectacle? Well, a recent Survey USA Poll suggests that Dayton is in pretty good shape at the moment; the GOP, not so much.

The poll shows Minnesota voters approve of the job Dayton is doing, 56 percent to 33 percent. The state Legislature, however, has a 21 percent approval rating to a 67 percent disapproval rating. Ouch. Now, that may reflect in part some dissatisfaction with the Vikings stadium deal, which is a bipartisan affair--plenty of DFL voters don't like the stadium deal.

But though the poll shows some of that ambivalence to the stadium deal, it also shows that when given a choice, the voters surveyed were relatively supportive: 43 percent saying they support building a new stadium, 36 percent saying renovate it, and 16 percent saying forget it. That's better than I would've expected.

(A note here to my progressive friends who have been bending my ear about how terrible it is to publicly-finance a stadium. I understand the argument, but there are certain realities to any business. And in the business of pro sports, the bottom line is that if Minnesota kept punting this issue down the road (football reference!) the owners would've eventually gotten a much better offer, with the NFL's blessing. And then it probably would've been too late. Maybe some would've been OK with losing the Vikings to make a point. But Minnesota has lost sports teams before, and what did that accomplish? Did it change anything?)

Two other small items from the poll: Obama leads Romney 52 percent to 38 percent in this survey, and 52 percent of Minnesota voters agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. 42 percent disagreed. It's too early too throw any parties about those numbers, but they are encouraging. The constitutional referendum on the same-sex marriage issue gives Minnesota the chance to make history by being the first state to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

It's early. The Survey USA reading is just one poll. And who knows what will happen over the summer and into the fall. But right now it looks as though the Tea Party brand of Republican politics has not done well in either Minnesota or Wisconsin, two heartland states that gave that approach a chance in governance.

And I think it's fair to say Dayton has given a masterful example of how to counter a Legislature that is diametrically opposed to your political philosophy—while still accomplishing some of your main goals. It’s an impressive performance, though not unprecedented. After all, Tim Pawlenty wrote the book on being a successful Republican governor in a state capitol dominated by Democrats. But I don’t think anyone expected Dayton to have this kind of success. It remains to be seen if the GOP can keep their revolution alive after a session in which they were not terribly effective.

Thanks Mr. President, now, will you campaign against the marriage amendment in Minnesota?

In November, Minnesotans get a chance to make history by being the first state to reject a discriminatory, anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. Such an amendment has never failed in a vote; it would be a sign of real progress if Minnesota changed that trend.

The GOP-controlled Legislature did an end run around the state's systems of checks and balances by pushing through two amendments that will be on this fall's ballot: one banning gay marriage, the other restricting voting access (Voter ID). I find them both to be pretty horrible laws. Minnesota has one of the most open and accessible voting systems in the country, and as a result has led the US in voter participation. The GOP is trying to change that, due to alleged voter fraud that they never seem to be able to prove beyond a handful of isolated cases.

But that's another topic. I do think Obama deserves credit for finally coming down on the side of fairness and equality for all Americans. It took too long, but there are political risks with that stance and Obama is not a big risk-taker. As others have noted, he probably just decided it was something he couldn't credibly put off any longer. (Thanks for opening your big yap and making history, Joe Biden!) I don't think gay marriage should be one of the top issues of the campaign, but I hope Obama is willing to talk about the Minnesota amendment and will urge its defeat.

For further reading check out the Minnesotans United for All Families site.

Now with more Chilton...

Finally figured out a way to embed the song that inspired this blog's name. My HTML skills are now caught up with the turn of the century. Yeah, I know the page is sort of a mess, but it's readable, and that's all I ask. Enjoy!

Is it time for Dick Lugar to go?

I've always liked Dick Lugar, senior (and then some) Senator from Indiana. He's been a great Senator and a great American. And in principal, I am very supportive of moderate Republicans who turn off Tea Party types. Goodness knows we need more of those people. But Lugar is very likely to lose his seat after today's GOP primary.

I happen to have met Dick Lugar. And therein lies the problem. I met Sen. Richard Lugar when I was a high school student, when he came and ran a couple miles with our cross-country team. Pretty cool, huh? We were impressed. But that was more than 30 years ago. And he was already in the Senate. Lugar is the longest-serving Senator in Indiana's history. And you can make a pretty good case that even though his experience is second-to-none, there has to be a time when new blood is needed.

What compounds the problem in Lugar's case is that he hasn't kept a residence in Indiana for many years. He has a farm there--which apparently he doesn't, or didn't, visit often. When he came back to the state he stayed in a hotel. To me, this is a bit more than just a problem with appearances.

His primary opponent, Richard Mourdock, seems halfway smart and capable, though typically for this scenario, extremely right wing. (Tea Party support, NRA favorite; your basic nightmare.) My gut feeling is that Lugar’s much-discussed friendship with Obama is less a problem than his nonresidency. That seeming disregard for his roots is a career-killer in a state like Indiana, where people are sensitive to even the smallest slight.

The fact that Lugar even has a primary challenge is another depressing example of the GOP’s continued move to extremism. But Lugar can’t just blame political trends. He made a very bad blunder in taking his home state for granted.

I confess--I liked Santorum

Oh, stop it.






So it took a while for the whole thing to wind down, but with Gingrich's weird (what about his campaign was *not* weird?) concession speech, we've just about closed the book on the GOP 2012 primaries.

I included the video clip above because I love Shep Smith's brutal honesty--all too rare on any cable channel--and it raises a point that I think really did not get enough attention.

Why were some of these guys ever, EVER, taken seriously as presidential candidates?

I mean, come on, Herman Cain? If you're talking about reality-show contestant, maybe. An entertaining speaker, OK. But a serious candidate for president of the United States?

Rick Perry was a dumber George W. Bush and yet still thought this country would go for him. Think about that--Or don't, he obviously didn't.

And Gingrich? How could anyone, especially those in his own party, think his candidacy was a good idea?

This isn't hindsight being 20/20. I was appalled at some of these candidacies from the beginning. Gingrich in particular is a disgraced former politician who damaged his party, has been consistently wrong about everything from foreign policy to education, and has exposed himself not only as a hypocrite but as a shameless shill who will say and do anything to get on television.

A few years ago, when it seemed his political career was effectively over, he was happily appearing at wonkish policy conventions, endorsing things like cap and trade and early iterations of Obamacare. Gingrich Badger didn't give a sh*t: he could pick up the check, get treated like a big shot, sell a few books—he was happy as a clam. But then Fox News started treating him as a go-to pundit when they wanted scathing put-downs of Obama, and his delusions of grandeur kicked in, again.

I'll be honest, I thought Rick Santorum was also kind of a joke at the beginning of this process. But something happened. Santorum went out and campaigned, and low and behold people responded. You can be appalled at his message, and scared that we have people who embraced it, but there was nothing fake about this guy. He had a vision, he articulated it, and people responded. He connected with people, in a way that a Gingrich or a Cain would never really try. I have to respect that.

You can also respect, to some degree, Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a classic third-party candidate. He's radical, idiosyncratic, and has a fervent if small following. It just shows how savvy he is to realize that he has to keep calling himself a Republican in order to get on Fox News. If not for that, he'd be totally ignored.

I know, the process had to play out; this is our system. But what an indictment of our political and media cultures that these frauds and con men could get this far as presidential candidates, simply because they had money and almost unlimited access to television cameras.