An article in Saturday's Strib caught my eye. The tone sounded odd, I thought. Amy Wells of East Bethel was profiled, putting a face on the growing number of women getting DWIs in Minnesota--about a third of the 40,000 annual DWIs go to women drivers these days. 'Wells had a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 when she killed a man in a head-on collision after going out for St. Patrick's Day in 2000,' the article states. The photograph on the Strib's cover depicts the new mother's ongoing anguish over the accident and notes she is 'speaking out' to help prevent others from repeating her mistake.
It's healthy that in Minnesota civic-minded people want to make sure this message gets stated clearly and with periodic repetition to all drivers. But at times the Strib is attempting to turn a handbill into a newspaper article without maintaining its normal adherence to accuracy, I sense. An example:
'A high school girl from Edina once wrote Wells to tell her that Wells' talk had inspired her to take away the keys of her best friend, who was too drunk to drive. The friend called her all sorts of names, she said, but the next day was grateful. Wells said the girl wrote that 'I didn't want her to turn into you.'
I mean, the anecdote has a very generic/composite tone, no? I could be wrong, but I think it likely the quotation is not even literally true. I'm guessing that the writer and Wells were thinking that their message was so important that the actual facts included in the anecdote didn't need to be true--a larger truth was being driven home. And that's the point at which I feel, as a reader, that I'm being led around by the nose. The responsibility for the imprecision (if my hunch is correct) lies with the Strib's writer and not with Amy Wells, of course--I'm entirely aware that people talk in that manner all the time. But front-page articles in the paper of record ought to be more precise.
Speaking of DWIs--this being New Years Eve: Don't drive drunk. It can cause all kinds of hardship. I earned a DWI long ago and it was a pain, but my experience was a walk in the park in comparison with that of Amy Wells, to say nothing of the poor fellow she killed.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Father Knows Best
During the earlier part of Jim Ramstad's congressional career, he supported amending the Constitution to impose Congressional term limits. He later reversed himself--without apology--not because he doesn't believe Congress would function better with term limits but because of their tasteless and unnecessary need to require Jim Ramstad himself to leave Congress, come 1996 or whenever.
Since his September 17, 2007 retirement announcement some have suggested that Ramstad may be considering reversing himself, and running again for the seat. Were he to do so, 'The Ramstad Doctrine,' might then be defined as meaning that all Ramstad statements shouldn't be considered truthful until they remain unretracted for four uninterrupted months. Were he to announce such a reversal, he ought to clarify when he actually made his decision. On what day did he know that the retirement statement published on his website was untrue? (I continue to wager against his unretiring.)
Ramstad's past DFL opponents have tended to repeat the talking points and positions of the party leadership, taking no individualistic or idiosyncratic public positions. Were Ramstad to unretire, however, I think a full-bore attack on his 'integrity' would be quite in order. Wendy Wilde seemed to have something like this in mind when the campaign jingle was released during her 2006 run--accusing Ramstad of 'hypocrisy' and 'lies.' But these accusations weren't explained clearly on her website or in her speeches or debate performances.
The local media slobber at Ramstad's every word, sadly. When they entertain the idea that some statement of Ramstad's might be untrue, they bend over backwards reaching for the high-minded reason that explains the apparent contradiction. Hence the uncritical acceptance of the theory that Ramstad's sole motivation for reversing himself on the retirement announcement would be to advance his pet project, concerning which no non-villain could conceivably question. Despite his saccharine new desire to dedicate his existence, at age 61, 'to see more of my beloved Golden Gophers, Vikings, T-Wolves and Twins.' It's time for us to flush this mawkish blowhard. And time for some to ask what on earth they once admired him for.
All three DFL candidates have promised to continue their bids whether or not Ramstad jumps back in.
On the Republican side, Erik Paulsen--Ramstad's obedient valet--is making clear that if Ramstad unretires, he's out. Delightfully stupid, strategically, no? Could Erik Paulsen's political skills be overrated? He's never had a difficult race before, and he has all of the charisma of a gray Eden Prairie minivan.
Anyway, what's up in the intra-DFL contest for the nomination? Bonoff by a mile, I was about to write, but I don't want to get into the horserace thing. Here's a quotation being featured on Terri's website:
Hamline University professor David Schultz said Bonoff is likely the only Democrat who potentially could raise the kind of money needed for such a competitive race, which could run upwards of $1 million. She also has effectively campaigned among district Democrats, he said.
“The party I think has galvanized around Terri very quickly.”
I emailed David Schultz to find out what he meant by the cryptic quotation above. Was he arguing against considering Ashwin Madia or Jim Hovland? Some might read the quote and think 'Schultz is saying that Ashwin Madia would be unable to raise serious money for this race.'
Prof. Schultz replied, 'I suggested in my interviews that the DFL seems to have locked on to Bonoff as their candidate in part because leadership believes she can raise the money needed. I am not persuaded she can raise it and am not sure if others can either. My comments are not an endorsement of her.'
So the Hamline public policy wonk was simply observing that Terri appears on the march to get the nomination, but he's skeptical of whether she can raise sufficient funds for a November victory. But I don't see any compelling reason to accept Prof. Schultz' reasoning on this hunch; he's not putting forth any data or comparisons to similar recent matchups. And the Republicans genuinely appear to be in disarray. When Tammy Duckworth ran for Congress she raised $2.7 million, for example, without having previously held any political office. What would prevent Terri Bonoff or Ashwin Madia from raising similar sums?
Since his September 17, 2007 retirement announcement some have suggested that Ramstad may be considering reversing himself, and running again for the seat. Were he to do so, 'The Ramstad Doctrine,' might then be defined as meaning that all Ramstad statements shouldn't be considered truthful until they remain unretracted for four uninterrupted months. Were he to announce such a reversal, he ought to clarify when he actually made his decision. On what day did he know that the retirement statement published on his website was untrue? (I continue to wager against his unretiring.)
Ramstad's past DFL opponents have tended to repeat the talking points and positions of the party leadership, taking no individualistic or idiosyncratic public positions. Were Ramstad to unretire, however, I think a full-bore attack on his 'integrity' would be quite in order. Wendy Wilde seemed to have something like this in mind when the campaign jingle was released during her 2006 run--accusing Ramstad of 'hypocrisy' and 'lies.' But these accusations weren't explained clearly on her website or in her speeches or debate performances.
The local media slobber at Ramstad's every word, sadly. When they entertain the idea that some statement of Ramstad's might be untrue, they bend over backwards reaching for the high-minded reason that explains the apparent contradiction. Hence the uncritical acceptance of the theory that Ramstad's sole motivation for reversing himself on the retirement announcement would be to advance his pet project, concerning which no non-villain could conceivably question. Despite his saccharine new desire to dedicate his existence, at age 61, 'to see more of my beloved Golden Gophers, Vikings, T-Wolves and Twins.' It's time for us to flush this mawkish blowhard. And time for some to ask what on earth they once admired him for.
All three DFL candidates have promised to continue their bids whether or not Ramstad jumps back in.
On the Republican side, Erik Paulsen--Ramstad's obedient valet--is making clear that if Ramstad unretires, he's out. Delightfully stupid, strategically, no? Could Erik Paulsen's political skills be overrated? He's never had a difficult race before, and he has all of the charisma of a gray Eden Prairie minivan.
Anyway, what's up in the intra-DFL contest for the nomination? Bonoff by a mile, I was about to write, but I don't want to get into the horserace thing. Here's a quotation being featured on Terri's website:
Hamline University professor David Schultz said Bonoff is likely the only Democrat who potentially could raise the kind of money needed for such a competitive race, which could run upwards of $1 million. She also has effectively campaigned among district Democrats, he said.
“The party I think has galvanized around Terri very quickly.”
I emailed David Schultz to find out what he meant by the cryptic quotation above. Was he arguing against considering Ashwin Madia or Jim Hovland? Some might read the quote and think 'Schultz is saying that Ashwin Madia would be unable to raise serious money for this race.'
Prof. Schultz replied, 'I suggested in my interviews that the DFL seems to have locked on to Bonoff as their candidate in part because leadership believes she can raise the money needed. I am not persuaded she can raise it and am not sure if others can either. My comments are not an endorsement of her.'
So the Hamline public policy wonk was simply observing that Terri appears on the march to get the nomination, but he's skeptical of whether she can raise sufficient funds for a November victory. But I don't see any compelling reason to accept Prof. Schultz' reasoning on this hunch; he's not putting forth any data or comparisons to similar recent matchups. And the Republicans genuinely appear to be in disarray. When Tammy Duckworth ran for Congress she raised $2.7 million, for example, without having previously held any political office. What would prevent Terri Bonoff or Ashwin Madia from raising similar sums?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Am I wrong?
In October 2003, I went to my ex-wife's residence in Edina to pick up my son. A conflict ensued and at length I was asked to leave--and pushed--out the door. My ex-wife then reported 'an assault' and a few hours later, the Eden Prairie Police arrived at my residence. (The accusation was false and I was later acquitted by a Hennepin County jury.) But the event still somewhat rankles.
What if I were gay, I thought, and my boyfriend and I had the same dispute? We had an argument, words were exchanged and he demanded that I leave his residence. Not complying with sufficient speed, he pushed me out the door. We argue across the entryway; while holding his wrist with one hand, I cause him to bump his head into the millwork and fall to the floor. I help him up, observe that he is uninjured--and then I leave. Were he then to call the police, what is the likelihood that the police would then issue an arrest warrant for me?
A number of oddities struck me, by the way the police handled the incident. When the police entered my residence, they were there solely to arrest me. So they had just assumed, having heard one side of the story, that they knew the truth and that I was guilty and ought not be heard out. It irritates me that 'my' police department would so casually assume my non-gentlemanhood. And it changed the way I view the police, to some extent.
************
What if while driving you struck and killed a child? Let's say the police came and decided that no arrest would be made--that in their view it was 'an accident.' You were free to go home.
Should your name then be published in the newspaper? Do you owe anything to the community? Yes and yes, I say, and for a number of reasons. The news of traffic accidents ought to be reported because the public is interested in it. Reading about the avoidable tragedies of others helps people avoid such accidents themselves. And if my driving resulted in the accidental death of a child, I believe the community would be reasonable to demand an account from me of how the accident occurred.
Such a fatality occurred in August 2007, just over a football field away from where I now type. And yet the driver of the vehicle was never publicly identified, and, to the best of my knowledge, never provided any account, to the public, of how the event occurred.
I have contacted the Eden Prairie Police Department and they refuse to provide me with the unredacted police report on their 'Case Number 07030369.'
And again, I don't like the attitude of the police. They are in possession of public information and yet--without accountability or democratic deliberation--they're refusing to provide it to the public. Again, I feel that the police are treating me like a sheep. So I wrote to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson yesterday:
Dear Attorney General Lori Swanson,
On Thursday, August 9, 2007, a neighbor of mine—Yasir Mohamed, age 7—was struck and killed by an SUV while attempting to cross Anderson Lakes Parkway near the Chestnut Drive intersection in Eden Prairie.
After this tragic event, I went to the Eden Prairie Police Department [EPPD] and submitted a form requesting a copy of the report on the fatality. Initially I was told that the EPPD would not provide me with the report, but I persisted. Some weeks later, I received notification that my copy of the police report was ready. I went over to the EPPD and noticed that the copy they'd prepared for me was redacted. I told the EPPD that I want an unredacted copy of this public document. The EPPD refused.
I then asked the EPPD to provide me with a letter stating that they refuse to provide me with an unredacted copy of this public document; I have attached a copy of this letter to this email. Lieutenant James S. Morrow suggests that the MN Stat §13.82 allows the EPPD to not release the name of the SUV's driver. After the event, the driver was questioned and assessed extensively, though not arrested. This extensive questioning and assessing of the SUV's driver clearly constitutes 'substantially depriv[ing her] of liberty'--and therefore triggers [see MN Stat §13.82] the requirement for her name to be released in the public report.
Given the EPPD's refusal to provide me with a copy of the unredacted report, I am now writing to you. Can you please order the Eden Prairie Police Department to provide me with a copy of this public document?
Very best wishes,
Gavin Sullivan
13800 Chestnut Dr # 102
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
What if I were gay, I thought, and my boyfriend and I had the same dispute? We had an argument, words were exchanged and he demanded that I leave his residence. Not complying with sufficient speed, he pushed me out the door. We argue across the entryway; while holding his wrist with one hand, I cause him to bump his head into the millwork and fall to the floor. I help him up, observe that he is uninjured--and then I leave. Were he then to call the police, what is the likelihood that the police would then issue an arrest warrant for me?
A number of oddities struck me, by the way the police handled the incident. When the police entered my residence, they were there solely to arrest me. So they had just assumed, having heard one side of the story, that they knew the truth and that I was guilty and ought not be heard out. It irritates me that 'my' police department would so casually assume my non-gentlemanhood. And it changed the way I view the police, to some extent.
************
What if while driving you struck and killed a child? Let's say the police came and decided that no arrest would be made--that in their view it was 'an accident.' You were free to go home.
Should your name then be published in the newspaper? Do you owe anything to the community? Yes and yes, I say, and for a number of reasons. The news of traffic accidents ought to be reported because the public is interested in it. Reading about the avoidable tragedies of others helps people avoid such accidents themselves. And if my driving resulted in the accidental death of a child, I believe the community would be reasonable to demand an account from me of how the accident occurred.
Such a fatality occurred in August 2007, just over a football field away from where I now type. And yet the driver of the vehicle was never publicly identified, and, to the best of my knowledge, never provided any account, to the public, of how the event occurred.
I have contacted the Eden Prairie Police Department and they refuse to provide me with the unredacted police report on their 'Case Number 07030369.'
And again, I don't like the attitude of the police. They are in possession of public information and yet--without accountability or democratic deliberation--they're refusing to provide it to the public. Again, I feel that the police are treating me like a sheep. So I wrote to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson yesterday:
Dear Attorney General Lori Swanson,
On Thursday, August 9, 2007, a neighbor of mine—Yasir Mohamed, age 7—was struck and killed by an SUV while attempting to cross Anderson Lakes Parkway near the Chestnut Drive intersection in Eden Prairie.
After this tragic event, I went to the Eden Prairie Police Department [EPPD] and submitted a form requesting a copy of the report on the fatality. Initially I was told that the EPPD would not provide me with the report, but I persisted. Some weeks later, I received notification that my copy of the police report was ready. I went over to the EPPD and noticed that the copy they'd prepared for me was redacted. I told the EPPD that I want an unredacted copy of this public document. The EPPD refused.
I then asked the EPPD to provide me with a letter stating that they refuse to provide me with an unredacted copy of this public document; I have attached a copy of this letter to this email. Lieutenant James S. Morrow suggests that the MN Stat §13.82 allows the EPPD to not release the name of the SUV's driver. After the event, the driver was questioned and assessed extensively, though not arrested. This extensive questioning and assessing of the SUV's driver clearly constitutes 'substantially depriv[ing her] of liberty'--and therefore triggers [see MN Stat §13.82] the requirement for her name to be released in the public report.
Given the EPPD's refusal to provide me with a copy of the unredacted report, I am now writing to you. Can you please order the Eden Prairie Police Department to provide me with a copy of this public document?
Very best wishes,
Gavin Sullivan
13800 Chestnut Dr # 102
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Holiday Party at the Nelsons'
I attended a fun party this evening at Rick and Kathy Nelson's prairie palace. All of the major DFL candidates were there so it was a great opportunity to meet some of these people. The major DFL candidates for US Senate spoke, as did our aspiring US Congressional Reps. Terri Bonoff led the charge making clear that she's in this race no matter who is running on the Republican side. Ashwin Madia delivered his condensed stump speech with passion. It was my first encounter with Mayor Hovland. I'll let the pictures speak tonight...please send me an email if you can further identify the folks pictured, okay?
Is Jim Ramstad telling the truth this time?
Eric Black has been intimating that Rep. Ramstad may not retire after all. I've called the Ramstad Volunteer Committee, but no one answers. The machine says they'll get back to you, but they don't. So I just called Rep. Ramstad's Washington office, and an intern who couldn't remember his own name answered. I asked if Ramstad was going to retire, and he said that he thought that was the case, but that he wasn't sure. I told him that the Ramstad.org website has--for months--had a first person statement, from Jim Ramstad, saying he's going to retire. (The statement is signed 'sincerely, Jim Ramstad' so I know it's a sincere statement.) The statement remains up on the site today. 'Does Rep. Ramstad generally tell the truth, in your experience?' I inquired. Yes, the intern said, he thought so. 'So is the statement which is up on the website today and has been for a few months...is that a truthful statement?' The intern said that he thought so, but that he wasn't entirely sure. He forwarded me to the voicemail of Mischa Fisher...and I left the same message. I'll let you know if I hear back from Rep. Ramstad's office as to whether Rep. Ramstad is telling the truth this time. In my experience it can require Rep. Ramstad considerable time to decide whether or not he's telling the truth on any specific matter. Being a congressman is a very difficult job; not just anyone is capable of excelling in such an elevated profession.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Ashwin's Holiday Party
I attended Ashwin Madia's holiday party at his parents' spacious house in Plymouth this afternoon. It looked to me like 75-100 people; the Madias were delightful, gracious hosts. People mingled; the family had prepared various Indian dishes which were a hit. Madia's family is behind him in a big way, mingling and introducing themselves to the various guests.
I spoke briefly with Ashwin and learned that he's not behind any specific US Senate or presidential candidate. 'Is there any issues-based distinction between Sen. Bonoff and you?' Ashwin said that there were two distinctions that occurred to him--that Bonoff had backed a more hawkish line on Iran and that she hadn't come out openly in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. These struck me as very minor distinctions, if distinctions at all, as Bonoff made clear yesterday that she was by no means interested in taking military action against Iran, and her comments on taxation yesterday left me with the opposite concern as regards her willingness to raise taxes.
After an hour and a half or so, Ashwin spoke to the assembled. The crowd was very friendly and cheered enthusiastically at the end of Madia's brief speech. Few specifics in the talk; he speaks about standing up proud as a Democrat and strongly supporting civil liberties; his words resonated. His strategy now [imho] is to electrify the liberal base, and on that basis the event today was a big success. I remain somewhat mystified by why the dyed-in-the-wool crowd would be choosing him over Terri, since the distinction doesn't really seem to have any explanation in the realm of specific positions. But Ashwin's family and background couldn't be more photogenic and he speaks with an emotional fire that I haven't yet seen in his opponent. I continue to think that her perch in the state senate gives Terri more credibility with the electorate. But the dyed-in-the-wool folks are the ones who will decide this thing.
Bonoff has explained that she got involved in politics 'as a mom'--by becoming concerned about local, educational issues. Madia's political concern centers on federal issues. In Bonoff, one would like to see a deep concern over several federal issues and some evidence that she has something approaching subject expertise in at least a few areas.
Anyway, it was a fun event. I got to meet the Madias and Ashwin's team. Looks to me like we've got a real contest on our hands, between Madia and Bonoff. Bonoff has all of the big name endorsements; Madia is electrifying the base.
I spoke briefly with Ashwin and learned that he's not behind any specific US Senate or presidential candidate. 'Is there any issues-based distinction between Sen. Bonoff and you?' Ashwin said that there were two distinctions that occurred to him--that Bonoff had backed a more hawkish line on Iran and that she hadn't come out openly in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. These struck me as very minor distinctions, if distinctions at all, as Bonoff made clear yesterday that she was by no means interested in taking military action against Iran, and her comments on taxation yesterday left me with the opposite concern as regards her willingness to raise taxes.
After an hour and a half or so, Ashwin spoke to the assembled. The crowd was very friendly and cheered enthusiastically at the end of Madia's brief speech. Few specifics in the talk; he speaks about standing up proud as a Democrat and strongly supporting civil liberties; his words resonated. His strategy now [imho] is to electrify the liberal base, and on that basis the event today was a big success. I remain somewhat mystified by why the dyed-in-the-wool crowd would be choosing him over Terri, since the distinction doesn't really seem to have any explanation in the realm of specific positions. But Ashwin's family and background couldn't be more photogenic and he speaks with an emotional fire that I haven't yet seen in his opponent. I continue to think that her perch in the state senate gives Terri more credibility with the electorate. But the dyed-in-the-wool folks are the ones who will decide this thing.
Bonoff has explained that she got involved in politics 'as a mom'--by becoming concerned about local, educational issues. Madia's political concern centers on federal issues. In Bonoff, one would like to see a deep concern over several federal issues and some evidence that she has something approaching subject expertise in at least a few areas.
Anyway, it was a fun event. I got to meet the Madias and Ashwin's team. Looks to me like we've got a real contest on our hands, between Madia and Bonoff. Bonoff has all of the big name endorsements; Madia is electrifying the base.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bonoff Appearance in Minnetonka
I attended Terri Bonoff's event today at the Minnetonka Community Center. Perhaps 25 people were in attendance, including a Republican videographer. People gave their various speeches (several of excessive length) and Terri responded with aplomb. She's running as a generic centrist Democrat; I don't think she took any bold or independent position. It was news to me that she has endorsed Barack Obama. (She explained that her 23-year-old son is working for Obama in Iowa and she endorsed him before the Ramstad bombshell--i.e. before she had any idea she'd be running for Congress this cycle.)
Terri Bonoff's family and staff were there too. The Bonoffs seemed friendly, supportive and pleasantly non-hovering. The event was neighborly, low-key and well-arranged.
Terri Bonoff comes across as being down-to-earth, friendly and middle-of-the-road. She took charge of the event from the get-go, shaking hands and saying hello to every attendee.
As someone with a real shot at a Congressional seat, I'd advise her to speak to the middle, to the greatest extent possible...don't get caught up catering to the left-wing activists unless you really think you need to. Were I managing her campaign, there are a few tweaks I would be working on, concerning her positions.
During her talk she seemed at one point to be listing a variety of tax increases that might make sense, or cancellations of Bush tax breaks. And perhaps on a practical basis these policy alternatives do make sense. But on a practical level, she has to think clearly about how her positions come across to the average Maple Grove homeowner--and so I'd advise a somewhat different response to the tax issue. I think it would make more sense to talk about things she's done to resist spending increases and tax hikes while serving as a legislator.
It is not important to pay off the national debt, by the way. The interest rate that we pay on the national debt is quite low and the growth of the national debt has been excessive. But if we want to reduce the debt we should do so in a gradual and responsible way. If over the coming decades we adopt a more fiscally responsible approach to government spending and simply leave the debt at its current level, then as the economy expands the debt will get smaller and smaller relative to GDP. And that alone would satisfy the financial markets.
On Iraq I think she ought to be aiming for the middle. During her talk today, Terri said she felt frustrated that Congressional Democrats hadn't worked harder to stymie the funding of the Iraq war. Whether she believes this or not, it's not the winning position on this topic, in this district. On Iraq she should talk about the negative effects of the war in a general sense, but any talk of defunding the Iraq effort positions her farther to the left than is strategically necessary or beneficial. In today's forum--and among Democrats generally, now--there seems to be an assumption that all will be improved by our exiting Iraq. But what if we start exiting and things get much worse in that country? The USA is certainly not going to allow an Al-Qaeda government to take over in Iraq. And the situation in Iraq seems to be improving. So I'd suggest using Iraq as a talking point to club Republican irresponsibility in a general sense, but avoid an unnecessarily specific policy approach while the situation on the ground remains fluid and Erik Paulsen hasn't yet articulated any policy himself. Don't under any circumstances get to the left of Nancy Pelosi on this issue. Study Jane Harman's SecureUS website. The Iraq issue is a potential minefield in the campaign and the CD3 DFL candidate ought not fuse her image with the nutters. Stick to a moderate approach. The voters in the district went 51% for Bush in 2006 and so, while they may regret their vote, the CD3 candidate ought to be advocating 'a return to moderation' after the go-it-alone radicalism of W--not an about-face turn to Pete Seegerism. Learn from Coleen Rowley, I say: Getting far off to the left of the electorate on Iraq is going to cost votes. Hew to the center, Terri.
Global warming is another issue where I'd prefer a wee tweaking of the candidate's responses, were my primary concern getting her elected. Stress that this is a problem requiring collective international action, in the main, though by massively ramping up US funding of alternative fuels research we might be able to make progress that way. The issue gives the candidate a chance to discuss our diplomatic isolation and the importance of working in concert with our allies and bringing others on board.
I asked her about illegal immigration and she showed some awareness of the public's intense concern about the problem. In her answer she still gave me a little more let's be nice to the illegals than I'd hoped for. As a candidate it would of course be very beneficial to her to have the voters convinced that her primary concern on illegal immigration is securing our borders and ending the influx and that that is first and foremost in her mind when the issue comes up. So I'd advise a change in emphasis, at least, when she talks about this issue.
Bonoff mentioned the ever-presence of the fund-raising issue, but I think she should be excellent at this. She's got the lists, she's pro-choice and she has a background in business which made her a good closer, I'm guessing. She seemed appropriately aware of the centrality of fund-raising, at this moment.
Do Madia and Hovland constitute serious challenges? I asked Terri if there was any known issues-based distinction among the candidates but she wouldn't go there. I'm assuming Hovland will get almost no support on April 12. But does Madia have a real strategy for challenging Bonoff? I'm trying to figure this out. I can't see how he could seriously challenge Bonoff without taking her to task on specific issues, or at least clearly staking out issues-based distinctions. If the question is just 'Who is the strongest generic Democrat?' then Bonoff has that one in her pocket. Could I be overlooking something? I'll try to attend a Madia event soon to get his perspective. (I should note that I am not committed to any candidate.) When I spoke to Madia on the phone, after my withdrawal, one of the things I liked about him was his apparent centrism. The CD3 DFL has nominated a lot of flaky lefties for US Congress, over the last decade, and so I'm delighted by what I've seen of both Madia and Bonoff.
Eric Black has been writing that Ramstad may unretire. Were he to do so, the move would be exceptionally unclassy, even for Ramstad. The fact that Ramstad is refusing to issue a Shermanesque reiteration of his intention to retire itself constitutes an eloquent confirmation of the assessment of his character and career that I made in my 'Good Riddance, Jim Ramstad' speech six weeks ago.
Terri Bonoff's family and staff were there too. The Bonoffs seemed friendly, supportive and pleasantly non-hovering. The event was neighborly, low-key and well-arranged.
Terri Bonoff comes across as being down-to-earth, friendly and middle-of-the-road. She took charge of the event from the get-go, shaking hands and saying hello to every attendee.
As someone with a real shot at a Congressional seat, I'd advise her to speak to the middle, to the greatest extent possible...don't get caught up catering to the left-wing activists unless you really think you need to. Were I managing her campaign, there are a few tweaks I would be working on, concerning her positions.
During her talk she seemed at one point to be listing a variety of tax increases that might make sense, or cancellations of Bush tax breaks. And perhaps on a practical basis these policy alternatives do make sense. But on a practical level, she has to think clearly about how her positions come across to the average Maple Grove homeowner--and so I'd advise a somewhat different response to the tax issue. I think it would make more sense to talk about things she's done to resist spending increases and tax hikes while serving as a legislator.
It is not important to pay off the national debt, by the way. The interest rate that we pay on the national debt is quite low and the growth of the national debt has been excessive. But if we want to reduce the debt we should do so in a gradual and responsible way. If over the coming decades we adopt a more fiscally responsible approach to government spending and simply leave the debt at its current level, then as the economy expands the debt will get smaller and smaller relative to GDP. And that alone would satisfy the financial markets.
On Iraq I think she ought to be aiming for the middle. During her talk today, Terri said she felt frustrated that Congressional Democrats hadn't worked harder to stymie the funding of the Iraq war. Whether she believes this or not, it's not the winning position on this topic, in this district. On Iraq she should talk about the negative effects of the war in a general sense, but any talk of defunding the Iraq effort positions her farther to the left than is strategically necessary or beneficial. In today's forum--and among Democrats generally, now--there seems to be an assumption that all will be improved by our exiting Iraq. But what if we start exiting and things get much worse in that country? The USA is certainly not going to allow an Al-Qaeda government to take over in Iraq. And the situation in Iraq seems to be improving. So I'd suggest using Iraq as a talking point to club Republican irresponsibility in a general sense, but avoid an unnecessarily specific policy approach while the situation on the ground remains fluid and Erik Paulsen hasn't yet articulated any policy himself. Don't under any circumstances get to the left of Nancy Pelosi on this issue. Study Jane Harman's SecureUS website. The Iraq issue is a potential minefield in the campaign and the CD3 DFL candidate ought not fuse her image with the nutters. Stick to a moderate approach. The voters in the district went 51% for Bush in 2006 and so, while they may regret their vote, the CD3 candidate ought to be advocating 'a return to moderation' after the go-it-alone radicalism of W--not an about-face turn to Pete Seegerism. Learn from Coleen Rowley, I say: Getting far off to the left of the electorate on Iraq is going to cost votes. Hew to the center, Terri.
Global warming is another issue where I'd prefer a wee tweaking of the candidate's responses, were my primary concern getting her elected. Stress that this is a problem requiring collective international action, in the main, though by massively ramping up US funding of alternative fuels research we might be able to make progress that way. The issue gives the candidate a chance to discuss our diplomatic isolation and the importance of working in concert with our allies and bringing others on board.
I asked her about illegal immigration and she showed some awareness of the public's intense concern about the problem. In her answer she still gave me a little more let's be nice to the illegals than I'd hoped for. As a candidate it would of course be very beneficial to her to have the voters convinced that her primary concern on illegal immigration is securing our borders and ending the influx and that that is first and foremost in her mind when the issue comes up. So I'd advise a change in emphasis, at least, when she talks about this issue.
Bonoff mentioned the ever-presence of the fund-raising issue, but I think she should be excellent at this. She's got the lists, she's pro-choice and she has a background in business which made her a good closer, I'm guessing. She seemed appropriately aware of the centrality of fund-raising, at this moment.
Do Madia and Hovland constitute serious challenges? I asked Terri if there was any known issues-based distinction among the candidates but she wouldn't go there. I'm assuming Hovland will get almost no support on April 12. But does Madia have a real strategy for challenging Bonoff? I'm trying to figure this out. I can't see how he could seriously challenge Bonoff without taking her to task on specific issues, or at least clearly staking out issues-based distinctions. If the question is just 'Who is the strongest generic Democrat?' then Bonoff has that one in her pocket. Could I be overlooking something? I'll try to attend a Madia event soon to get his perspective. (I should note that I am not committed to any candidate.) When I spoke to Madia on the phone, after my withdrawal, one of the things I liked about him was his apparent centrism. The CD3 DFL has nominated a lot of flaky lefties for US Congress, over the last decade, and so I'm delighted by what I've seen of both Madia and Bonoff.
Eric Black has been writing that Ramstad may unretire. Were he to do so, the move would be exceptionally unclassy, even for Ramstad. The fact that Ramstad is refusing to issue a Shermanesque reiteration of his intention to retire itself constitutes an eloquent confirmation of the assessment of his character and career that I made in my 'Good Riddance, Jim Ramstad' speech six weeks ago.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Reefer Weirdness
The Strib ran an article the other day about weed in the Twin Cities. The author apparently got much of his information from Sheriff Rich Stanek. It seems to me that when a government official presents 'facts' to a journalist, the journalist should ask questions about the sourcing before having the official's views published in the newspaper of record.
I'm skeptical about a number of Sheriff Stanek's claims, which Jim Adams appears to have accepted quite uncritically:
1. The amount of marijuana exported from Canada into the USA has decreased since 9/11.
What statistics do we have to back this up?
2. Indoor cultivation is producing higher-grade marijuana that is up to six times more potent than that sold years ago.
Evidence? How many years ago? And that 'up to' thing sounds weaselish, no? Do you have some real data on this?
What if alcohol were illegal but was widely available in the form of bottles of liquid containing almost 7% alcohol. Then one day, due to a change in technology, the illegal booze available came in the form of bottles containing 40% alcohol.
Would we then expect alcohol abuse to expand sixfold? Of course not. So why would we not stick to the same principle vis–à–vis marijuana?
3. Higher potency raises dealer profits and also may increase addictiveness.
In the hypothetical above, I imagined a situation in which the illegal alcoholic beverages available became six times stronger than they'd been previously.
In such a situation, would we expect profits to increase, for the rum runners? Ceteris paribus, no. As a seller one's profits go up when one has a more desirable product than the next guy. But if the product pushed by all sellers suddenly becomes six times stronger, no individual seller gains a comparative advantage--and profits remain unchanged.
I emailed these questions to Jim Adams and Rich Stanek--and received a response from the Sheriff. While his response is entirely civil, it doesn't really address the points that I raised. He doesn't explain why THC content ought to be considered such an important fact, nor does he explain the methodology involved in making the comparison between the unspecified time periods. He acknowledges that his findings are not unequivocal and really can't be verified by an Eden Prairie blogger. He offers no evidence in support of point #1, above. And he appears to have failed to seriously consider my economic observation--that when the product sold by all sellers gets better, that doesn't require profits to increase. Sheriff Stanek vouches for Jim Adams' fact-checking, but he doesn't contest my point that in this one article, Adams seems to have done more transcribing than fact-checking.
Here's the reply from Rich Stanek. Please let me know if you think I've mischaracterized it:
Thanks for asking - great questions.
I didn't say 6x the potency - I said 3-4x stronger based on THC content of this "high grade" as law enforcement refers to it vs commercial grade - which incs stems, buds, etc....what you commonly see in hand to hand street transactions. The THC we have seen in this high grade is 18+%
The story is not unequivocally checked - it comes from facts and stats gathered from 5 narcotics task forces in Hennepin County, federal DEA sources and experienced statewide narcotics investigators.
It is true that the Canadian border is not as porous as it was prior to 9/11/01 and there is much more scrutiny and security of people and property allowed into the US than previously.
The addiction levels come from Hazelden - they are nationally renowned - they are not numbers we made up. The addiction numbers are staggering - I assume this is why it caught your attention as well.
Jim Adams is a first-rate reporter and he checks his facts very well.
It goes without saying, that higher THC levels demand a higher price on the street and results in greater addiction - that is a matter of simple economics.
I hope this answers some of your questions - thanks again for asking.
Rich Stanek
Hennepin County Sheriff
http://www.sheriffstanek.com/
I'm skeptical about a number of Sheriff Stanek's claims, which Jim Adams appears to have accepted quite uncritically:
1. The amount of marijuana exported from Canada into the USA has decreased since 9/11.
What statistics do we have to back this up?
2. Indoor cultivation is producing higher-grade marijuana that is up to six times more potent than that sold years ago.
Evidence? How many years ago? And that 'up to' thing sounds weaselish, no? Do you have some real data on this?
What if alcohol were illegal but was widely available in the form of bottles of liquid containing almost 7% alcohol. Then one day, due to a change in technology, the illegal booze available came in the form of bottles containing 40% alcohol.
Would we then expect alcohol abuse to expand sixfold? Of course not. So why would we not stick to the same principle vis–à–vis marijuana?
3. Higher potency raises dealer profits and also may increase addictiveness.
In the hypothetical above, I imagined a situation in which the illegal alcoholic beverages available became six times stronger than they'd been previously.
In such a situation, would we expect profits to increase, for the rum runners? Ceteris paribus, no. As a seller one's profits go up when one has a more desirable product than the next guy. But if the product pushed by all sellers suddenly becomes six times stronger, no individual seller gains a comparative advantage--and profits remain unchanged.
I emailed these questions to Jim Adams and Rich Stanek--and received a response from the Sheriff. While his response is entirely civil, it doesn't really address the points that I raised. He doesn't explain why THC content ought to be considered such an important fact, nor does he explain the methodology involved in making the comparison between the unspecified time periods. He acknowledges that his findings are not unequivocal and really can't be verified by an Eden Prairie blogger. He offers no evidence in support of point #1, above. And he appears to have failed to seriously consider my economic observation--that when the product sold by all sellers gets better, that doesn't require profits to increase. Sheriff Stanek vouches for Jim Adams' fact-checking, but he doesn't contest my point that in this one article, Adams seems to have done more transcribing than fact-checking.
Here's the reply from Rich Stanek. Please let me know if you think I've mischaracterized it:
Thanks for asking - great questions.
I didn't say 6x the potency - I said 3-4x stronger based on THC content of this "high grade" as law enforcement refers to it vs commercial grade - which incs stems, buds, etc....what you commonly see in hand to hand street transactions. The THC we have seen in this high grade is 18+%
The story is not unequivocally checked - it comes from facts and stats gathered from 5 narcotics task forces in Hennepin County, federal DEA sources and experienced statewide narcotics investigators.
It is true that the Canadian border is not as porous as it was prior to 9/11/01 and there is much more scrutiny and security of people and property allowed into the US than previously.
The addiction levels come from Hazelden - they are nationally renowned - they are not numbers we made up. The addiction numbers are staggering - I assume this is why it caught your attention as well.
Jim Adams is a first-rate reporter and he checks his facts very well.
It goes without saying, that higher THC levels demand a higher price on the street and results in greater addiction - that is a matter of simple economics.
I hope this answers some of your questions - thanks again for asking.
Rich Stanek
Hennepin County Sheriff
http://www.sheriffstanek.com/
CD3 Congressional Race
There are now three DFL candidates seeking the party's nomination for Congress. All three have agreed to abide by the decision of the Congressional District Convention that takes place on April 12, 2007. Terri Bonoff is the clear front-runner, as she has won a state senate seat. The challenger in this race is Ashwin Madia, an Iraq war veteran. I've spoken with both Ashwin and Terri and find both to be likable people. But it is unsurprising that the state senate seat positions one more strongly than the brief non-combat deployment to Iraq.
The third candidate, Jim Hovland, appears to be going into this contest without any strategy for getting the nomination. The Gmail address on Mayor Hovland's website sets a bad tone, though the photograph is nice. I've long been irritated by the perceived need, among candidates, to provide a narrative about how it never occurred to them to seek this office until friends, family and the public at large clamored for their service. And so that statement on the mayor's site is a turn-off.
I would like a centrist Democrat to win the seat. It would be great if that candidate opposed agricultural and ethanol subsidies and favored seriously combating illegal immigration. And so we've got our front runner and those challenging her have to explain the basis for their challenge. MNCR's Joe Bodell said Ashwin won the peace groups' debate several days ago. But I'm skeptical that Ashwin would present a tougher opponent to Erik Paulsen than would Terri Bonoff. On this point I haven't made up my mind, however. But the central Bonoff credential (having won two state senate elections) is stronger than the central Madia credential (his Iraq service). These things tend to snowball and Bonoff's endorsements must also strike fear in any person staking everything on upsetting her on April 12.
I'm hoping to observe this process in more detail over the upcoming weeks. Specifically I want to know whether there's an important issues-based reason for favoring either Bonoff or Madia. My sense is that both would like us to get out of Iraq but want to resist an immediate withdrawal or a descent into chaos in Iraq. And so on the Iraq issue I'd prefer the candidate who tried to leave the widest latitude for options on Iraq over any candidate currying favor with the pacifist/isolationist wing. The pabulum Terri offered here seems preferable, to me, to a full blood and oil aria. Is Ashwin really offering something different on Iraq? I don't see anything either troubling or substantive here, do you? I think it's a good thing that both Madia and Bonoff have left themselves plenty of room, after April 12, to move back to the middle on Iraq. If this attracts an intra-DFL left-wing fringe candidate such as Kevin Ray Smith, so what...he might even benefit Bonoff by making her appear more centrist.
MNBlue says Madia far outclassed Bonoff at the debate. I really regret missing that one, and my hunch is that Madia's presentation and polish were much better than Bonoff's. But on the issues (as described by MNBlue) I'll take Bonoff's positions over Madia's. Many activists would love our congressional representative to be someone to the left of the national Democratic Party congressional leadership...and I don't think that's an important thing for us to look for in our nominee.
Madia is running a well-thought-out campaign. I've received a color mailing from him. He's got an AdWords campaign up tied to the keyword 'Bonoff'. He's out and about, he's speaking confidently, he's got an attractive, pleasant family behind him and he has real roots in the district. His training and brief experience as a lawyer also seem to have provided him with useful experience for presenting himself and his case to the public.
The Congressional District convention is an exceptionally challenger-unfriendly forum. These usually draw 150-200 attendees; it's a day-long event in which candidates for lower and higher offices give their various speeches. (I don't think a Star Tribune reporter has even attended these events in previous years, though this year's excitement level is obviously vastly higher, since the seat is open.) A subset of this group meets prior to the convention with all DFL congressional aspirants and on the day of the convention the delegates are informed of the Endorsements Committee's recommendation for Congress.
Madia is entering this process with much more money and sophistication than has any previous CD3 challenger. He should be spending that money now, as it's the only way he's going to enter the district convention with sufficient flare and pizazz to get treated as an equal. The party hierarchy is going to be heavily behind Bonoff.
I try to follow the Minnesota Campaign Report blog, Eric Black and MNPublius, as well as looking at the various candidate sites.
I'll try to keep an open mind and specifically try to learn whether Ashwin Madia's candidacy ought to be preferred, for any reason, to Terri Bonoff's.
The third candidate, Jim Hovland, appears to be going into this contest without any strategy for getting the nomination. The Gmail address on Mayor Hovland's website sets a bad tone, though the photograph is nice. I've long been irritated by the perceived need, among candidates, to provide a narrative about how it never occurred to them to seek this office until friends, family and the public at large clamored for their service. And so that statement on the mayor's site is a turn-off.
I would like a centrist Democrat to win the seat. It would be great if that candidate opposed agricultural and ethanol subsidies and favored seriously combating illegal immigration. And so we've got our front runner and those challenging her have to explain the basis for their challenge. MNCR's Joe Bodell said Ashwin won the peace groups' debate several days ago. But I'm skeptical that Ashwin would present a tougher opponent to Erik Paulsen than would Terri Bonoff. On this point I haven't made up my mind, however. But the central Bonoff credential (having won two state senate elections) is stronger than the central Madia credential (his Iraq service). These things tend to snowball and Bonoff's endorsements must also strike fear in any person staking everything on upsetting her on April 12.
I'm hoping to observe this process in more detail over the upcoming weeks. Specifically I want to know whether there's an important issues-based reason for favoring either Bonoff or Madia. My sense is that both would like us to get out of Iraq but want to resist an immediate withdrawal or a descent into chaos in Iraq. And so on the Iraq issue I'd prefer the candidate who tried to leave the widest latitude for options on Iraq over any candidate currying favor with the pacifist/isolationist wing. The pabulum Terri offered here seems preferable, to me, to a full blood and oil aria. Is Ashwin really offering something different on Iraq? I don't see anything either troubling or substantive here, do you? I think it's a good thing that both Madia and Bonoff have left themselves plenty of room, after April 12, to move back to the middle on Iraq. If this attracts an intra-DFL left-wing fringe candidate such as Kevin Ray Smith, so what...he might even benefit Bonoff by making her appear more centrist.
MNBlue says Madia far outclassed Bonoff at the debate. I really regret missing that one, and my hunch is that Madia's presentation and polish were much better than Bonoff's. But on the issues (as described by MNBlue) I'll take Bonoff's positions over Madia's. Many activists would love our congressional representative to be someone to the left of the national Democratic Party congressional leadership...and I don't think that's an important thing for us to look for in our nominee.
Madia is running a well-thought-out campaign. I've received a color mailing from him. He's got an AdWords campaign up tied to the keyword 'Bonoff'. He's out and about, he's speaking confidently, he's got an attractive, pleasant family behind him and he has real roots in the district. His training and brief experience as a lawyer also seem to have provided him with useful experience for presenting himself and his case to the public.
The Congressional District convention is an exceptionally challenger-unfriendly forum. These usually draw 150-200 attendees; it's a day-long event in which candidates for lower and higher offices give their various speeches. (I don't think a Star Tribune reporter has even attended these events in previous years, though this year's excitement level is obviously vastly higher, since the seat is open.) A subset of this group meets prior to the convention with all DFL congressional aspirants and on the day of the convention the delegates are informed of the Endorsements Committee's recommendation for Congress.
Madia is entering this process with much more money and sophistication than has any previous CD3 challenger. He should be spending that money now, as it's the only way he's going to enter the district convention with sufficient flare and pizazz to get treated as an equal. The party hierarchy is going to be heavily behind Bonoff.
I try to follow the Minnesota Campaign Report blog, Eric Black and MNPublius, as well as looking at the various candidate sites.
I'll try to keep an open mind and specifically try to learn whether Ashwin Madia's candidacy ought to be preferred, for any reason, to Terri Bonoff's.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Withdrawal Announcement
With a tinge of regret, I announce today the withdrawal of my candidacy for Congress. Best of luck to the remaining participants in the DFL field. Thanks to all who attended my events and supported me.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Bonoff Nice
You may notice below that I've deleted from the blog a claim I'd been making concerning Terri Bonoff. What I had perceived as a perfidious travesty turned out to be a blameless misunderstanding. We're buddies again, and while we disagree on a number of issues, let me make clear that I am making no claim against her ethics. Very classy of Terri to call tonight and clear up the matter. Hats off, Senator!
Saturday, December 1, 2007
My Speech Today at Brookdale Library
Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining me today at Brookdale Library here in Brooklyn Center! Thanks everyone for coming, and making your way here through today's snow storm. My name is Gavin Sullivan, and I’m running for US Congress in the Third District here in Minnesota. I’ve given four public speeches over the past month, all announced well in advance on my website. If you’re trying to familiarize yourself with my basic biography and positions, I would encourage you to read the postings on my site. I’m an independent-minded Democrat and an independent-minded person. Today’s event was originally intended to be a debate; unfortunately the other candidates could not be convinced to attend, so I’m going update you today on the progress of the campaign, a few humble thoughts on the health of our democracy, the role of the media and the questions we ought to discussing now.
When the nine-term incumbent announced his retirement on Sept. 17, 2007, I announced I would give a speech at Wayzata Library on Nov. 3 entitled ‘Good Riddance, Jim Ramstad’. That speech is available in both audio and text form on my website, and I think it would make the most intelligent starting off point for our discussion concerning what kind of person we’re looking for in our next congressional representative. My ‘Good Riddance, Jim Ramstad’ speech never received any mention in the blogosphere or media. In it I explain why it is essential that we make clear, as Democrats and as people of honor, that we are rejecting the legacy of the incumbent, as we select his replacement. Since two of my three opponents have lavishly praised Rep. Ramstad, anyone seeking to have an issues-based campaign need look no further. A campaign becomes issues-based when serious give-and-take occurs on specific issues. That hasn’t happened yet in this race, in my view due to the fact that no one in the media or blogosphere is really interested in making it so.
I’ve been a very available candidate. Anyone who wants to ask me questions or present their views to me can easily do so. My email address is gavin@gavinsullivan.com, I frequently give speeches in public, always with advanced announcement on my website. I’ve spoken out on a larger number of issues than have the other candidates, I’ve addressed the issues in greater detail and I have spoken in a franker manner about the issues than has any other candidate seeking this position. You can easily confirm this claim by reading my website.
So why haven’t you heard of me in the media and blogosphere? Well, I’ve notified the Star Tribune of my candidacy, I’ve notified MPR and TPT, I’ve notified several major local bloggers and I’ve notified the three other declared Democratic candidates of my candidacy. I have fulfilled my obligation to notify the other key participants of my candidacy.
In presenting my candidacy, I want to engage in an unmediated campaign for US Congress, so that requires me to campaign as if the media weren't there, to some extent. I’m not a guest here in the Third District; I’ve lived here for more than 30 years. And so, in presenting myself and my views, I feel more comfortable speaking directly to you, the citizens, as I am doing now, rather than attempting to ingratiate myself with the media. It is the responsibility of the media to provide the public with information about all candidates, of course, whether or not the candidate flatters the media. So getting a community dialog started is very important to me. If you have a question, email me and I’ll answer you. If you want to take my measure, attend a speaking event—I’m appearing in public often these days. I try to incorporate citizen questions—and my answers—into my speeches.
The local media have shunned me for a variety of reasons, some with a bit of rationality and in part for silly reasons. I view this shunning as a symptom of an ossified aspect of mediation; I think that at the very least, my candidacy merits some mention, in a responsible democratic media. But I’m harshly critical of the local media’s treatment of our third district candidate selection process over many elections, not simply this one. The pack mentality of the media with regard to my current campaign is of a piece with their irresponsible coverage of the 9-term incumbent and of the candidate selection and campaign coverage in the district over many cycles. Should it change? Yes. Do I want to contribute to a more intelligent discussion of the media’s role in the current campaign? Very much so. But my immediate challenge is to try to get my message out to the public.
There’s a psychic auto-pilot feature of life in 2007 America—the visceral, cynical, resigned acceptance of the supposed harsh life truth that words could not possibly have any power, with the citizens out there. To date I have not yet succeeded in piercing that anti-thought armor, but at some point during the present campaign one of my rhetorical pebbles will score a ding that will result in a wee unraveling, and serious dialog will actually occur, outside of the pabulum echo-chamber. Remember, I’m the candidate who’s trying to put serious issues on the table, not the standard political mumbo jumbo. I’m calling for an end to agricultural subsidies, an end to ethanol subsidies, an end to the war on drugs…I have a far more coherent and rational position on fighting global warming--just to provide a few quick examples.
So how’s the campaign going? There are now four announced candidates. The conventional wisdom is that now is the time you appear at the various DFL party insider events, as the entire project, at this stage, is perceived to be ‘courting the party insiders’. This is with an eye, of course, on the April 12 congressional district convention. Having observed the congressional district convention in the Third over several cycles, I hold a skeptical viewpoint concerning that assembly’s willingness to really entertain alternative candidates and its track record in selecting effective, upright candidates has of course been lengthy and dismal. In addition, I’ve come to a skeptical view of what courting these party insiders does to the soul of a candidate and a candidacy.
The campaign strategy of the two other non-front-running candidates is symptomatic of a woeful naïveté concerning the nature of the Third District congressional district convention—the April 12 assembly. The old saw among district attorneys--that they could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich--has its local parallel: The congressional district convention can never yield a candidate other than the one favored by the party insiders—the deck is stacked, I’m sorry to say. If you want to contest the party elite’s candidate selection, there is precisely one place for you to do that. My perception—that the two other non-front-running candidates evince a gaping naïveté concerning the nature of this process was confirmed when Eric Black wrote that candidate Jim Hovland had asked Black if he thought he—Hovland—had a chance of getting the nomination at the district convention. The fact that a supposedly major candidate for this lofty office would direct such a question to the dean of Twin Cities political journalists speaks volumes about that candidate’s political bumpkinhood!
And so the task at hand, for my three opponents, is significantly different than my task now. I’m simply trying to get my message out to Democrats in this district of 600,000 people.
I tried this during the last cycle, but I didn’t then really have a strategy for reaching the people. So this time I’m trying to reach out to the citizens by making frequent public speeches. I’ve got another couple of ideas for promoting my campaign--more on that over the upcoming months. This is a proudly individual-based campaign. And I’m getting a fairly early start. So things are going reasonably well and I think they will go better over the upcoming months.
I believe in competitive politics. I can’t stand the valedictory system we’ve been using in this district so unsuccessfully for so long—what I’ve labeled the ‘pooh-bah-anointee’ system. I believe in contestation and in goading the beneficiaries of pooh-bah anointment to answer questions about their public statements as candidates.
As to the campaign among the remaining candidates, that discussion has been quite stultified. They’re doing the traditional candidate dog-and-pony circuit, but that process is mind-numbing and pabulum-based and the result of that process—the April 12 decision—is foreordained, as anyone familiar with the recent history of that process will tell you. That unrepresentative process gets perpetuated by the media in the form of the amazingly silly, loaded question they always ask of candidates: ‘Are you going to honor the party’s endorsement process?’ What a weird, loaded phrasing! Were the media to take seriously its neutrality within this process, the question of course wouldn’t be ‘Are you going to honor the endorsement process?’—the question would be ‘Do you think the candidate ought to be selected by an unrepresentative, miniscule party elite, at the congressional district convention in April, or do you think the candidate ought to be selected by the broad mass of Democrats in the district, in the primary in September, 2008? And yet the media--supposedly committed to process neutrality--still asks the question in this weirdly loaded way.
So I’m really trying, as the sappy saying goes, to be the change I seek in the world. I’m the guy who’s saying flat-out that the emperor has no clothes—this candidate selection process is rotten, and the rot is emanating both from the democratic centralism of the party pooh-bahs and from the servile press and partisan blogosphere. I’m countering this with a very open campaign. Anyone who wants to contact me can easily contact me, and they’ll get a response from me, not from any campaign volunteer or—in the case of the front-runner—from a campaign employee. Anyone who wants to meet and visit with me can easily do so. Anyone who wants to suggest a position or viewpoint is free to do so. I am seeking a serious conversation concerning America’s future. I’m very proud to have been the first candidate to propose an unmediated 4-candidate debate, which I’d planned to have take place here, now, but sadly learned that the other candidates refused.
The bloggers commenting on that process expect nothing other than pabulum and pandering, and so their evaluation of candidates focuses upon whether the candidate is speaking from notes and other such ephemera...in short, whether the candidate fits the assumed role of ‘the candidate’—so the substance of the candidates’ views and biographies are of minor importance.
As mentioned, my conceptualization of ‘the campaign’ is at odds with the pabulum-based conventions of the traditional local candidate selection process. One way in which I differ from this tradition is that I emphatically want the campaign process to be an interactive one. I think the best campaign is one in which the candidates go after each other, and devil take the hindmost. And let’s face reality—when I comment upon another campaign, that comment may at times be unflattering. But I am not concerned if another candidate considers me impolitic. I am concerned if another candidate considers me wrong on any point, or if I am accused of presenting incorrect information. If something like that happens, I will respond. But I don’t consider it in any way unfair or bad to say truthful negative things about another candidate—that’s as American as apple pie.
You may recall three cycles ago, a four-term DFL congressman was struggling for his political life in the Second District. A bum from the Third District left the DFL and paid to be listed on the ballot in the Second on the phony ‘No New Taxes Party.’ The only reason the scoundrel did this was to bamboozle Second District voters and subvert democracy. I will refer to this as the ‘Garst-Luther fraud’.
I will adhere to the highest ethics in seeking this office and in representing the district. But a campaign is a conversation and the issues only really matter when intelligent discussion has been successfully engaged. To this end, I have proposed that the following questions ought to be put to each candidate who seeks to represent our great Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in congressional election in the Third District in November 2008: Do you condemn the Garst-Luther fraud? When did you first speak out on this matter? Did you take any action to support Bill Luther, after you became aware of the Garst-Luther fraud? Can you assure everyone that you will never engage in unethical political conduct of this sort? Will you refuse campaign contributions coming from either of the Garst-Luther fraud’s authors?
Anyway, thanks a bunch for coming here today. I’ve been speaking publicly every Saturday lately, but I won’t be able to do so next weekend, due to a family commitment. But I’ll be giving the old rousing stump speech twice on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007, first at noon at the Maple Grove Library and then at 4 PM at the Champlin Library. Email gavin@gavinsullivan.com should you have any questions about any of this. I hope to see you at one of my upcoming speeches, on Tuesday, Dec. 11. Onward and upward!
When the nine-term incumbent announced his retirement on Sept. 17, 2007, I announced I would give a speech at Wayzata Library on Nov. 3 entitled ‘Good Riddance, Jim Ramstad’. That speech is available in both audio and text form on my website, and I think it would make the most intelligent starting off point for our discussion concerning what kind of person we’re looking for in our next congressional representative. My ‘Good Riddance, Jim Ramstad’ speech never received any mention in the blogosphere or media. In it I explain why it is essential that we make clear, as Democrats and as people of honor, that we are rejecting the legacy of the incumbent, as we select his replacement. Since two of my three opponents have lavishly praised Rep. Ramstad, anyone seeking to have an issues-based campaign need look no further. A campaign becomes issues-based when serious give-and-take occurs on specific issues. That hasn’t happened yet in this race, in my view due to the fact that no one in the media or blogosphere is really interested in making it so.
I’ve been a very available candidate. Anyone who wants to ask me questions or present their views to me can easily do so. My email address is gavin@gavinsullivan.com, I frequently give speeches in public, always with advanced announcement on my website. I’ve spoken out on a larger number of issues than have the other candidates, I’ve addressed the issues in greater detail and I have spoken in a franker manner about the issues than has any other candidate seeking this position. You can easily confirm this claim by reading my website.
So why haven’t you heard of me in the media and blogosphere? Well, I’ve notified the Star Tribune of my candidacy, I’ve notified MPR and TPT, I’ve notified several major local bloggers and I’ve notified the three other declared Democratic candidates of my candidacy. I have fulfilled my obligation to notify the other key participants of my candidacy.
In presenting my candidacy, I want to engage in an unmediated campaign for US Congress, so that requires me to campaign as if the media weren't there, to some extent. I’m not a guest here in the Third District; I’ve lived here for more than 30 years. And so, in presenting myself and my views, I feel more comfortable speaking directly to you, the citizens, as I am doing now, rather than attempting to ingratiate myself with the media. It is the responsibility of the media to provide the public with information about all candidates, of course, whether or not the candidate flatters the media. So getting a community dialog started is very important to me. If you have a question, email me and I’ll answer you. If you want to take my measure, attend a speaking event—I’m appearing in public often these days. I try to incorporate citizen questions—and my answers—into my speeches.
The local media have shunned me for a variety of reasons, some with a bit of rationality and in part for silly reasons. I view this shunning as a symptom of an ossified aspect of mediation; I think that at the very least, my candidacy merits some mention, in a responsible democratic media. But I’m harshly critical of the local media’s treatment of our third district candidate selection process over many elections, not simply this one. The pack mentality of the media with regard to my current campaign is of a piece with their irresponsible coverage of the 9-term incumbent and of the candidate selection and campaign coverage in the district over many cycles. Should it change? Yes. Do I want to contribute to a more intelligent discussion of the media’s role in the current campaign? Very much so. But my immediate challenge is to try to get my message out to the public.
There’s a psychic auto-pilot feature of life in 2007 America—the visceral, cynical, resigned acceptance of the supposed harsh life truth that words could not possibly have any power, with the citizens out there. To date I have not yet succeeded in piercing that anti-thought armor, but at some point during the present campaign one of my rhetorical pebbles will score a ding that will result in a wee unraveling, and serious dialog will actually occur, outside of the pabulum echo-chamber. Remember, I’m the candidate who’s trying to put serious issues on the table, not the standard political mumbo jumbo. I’m calling for an end to agricultural subsidies, an end to ethanol subsidies, an end to the war on drugs…I have a far more coherent and rational position on fighting global warming--just to provide a few quick examples.
So how’s the campaign going? There are now four announced candidates. The conventional wisdom is that now is the time you appear at the various DFL party insider events, as the entire project, at this stage, is perceived to be ‘courting the party insiders’. This is with an eye, of course, on the April 12 congressional district convention. Having observed the congressional district convention in the Third over several cycles, I hold a skeptical viewpoint concerning that assembly’s willingness to really entertain alternative candidates and its track record in selecting effective, upright candidates has of course been lengthy and dismal. In addition, I’ve come to a skeptical view of what courting these party insiders does to the soul of a candidate and a candidacy.
The campaign strategy of the two other non-front-running candidates is symptomatic of a woeful naïveté concerning the nature of the Third District congressional district convention—the April 12 assembly. The old saw among district attorneys--that they could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich--has its local parallel: The congressional district convention can never yield a candidate other than the one favored by the party insiders—the deck is stacked, I’m sorry to say. If you want to contest the party elite’s candidate selection, there is precisely one place for you to do that. My perception—that the two other non-front-running candidates evince a gaping naïveté concerning the nature of this process was confirmed when Eric Black wrote that candidate Jim Hovland had asked Black if he thought he—Hovland—had a chance of getting the nomination at the district convention. The fact that a supposedly major candidate for this lofty office would direct such a question to the dean of Twin Cities political journalists speaks volumes about that candidate’s political bumpkinhood!
And so the task at hand, for my three opponents, is significantly different than my task now. I’m simply trying to get my message out to Democrats in this district of 600,000 people.
I tried this during the last cycle, but I didn’t then really have a strategy for reaching the people. So this time I’m trying to reach out to the citizens by making frequent public speeches. I’ve got another couple of ideas for promoting my campaign--more on that over the upcoming months. This is a proudly individual-based campaign. And I’m getting a fairly early start. So things are going reasonably well and I think they will go better over the upcoming months.
I believe in competitive politics. I can’t stand the valedictory system we’ve been using in this district so unsuccessfully for so long—what I’ve labeled the ‘pooh-bah-anointee’ system. I believe in contestation and in goading the beneficiaries of pooh-bah anointment to answer questions about their public statements as candidates.
As to the campaign among the remaining candidates, that discussion has been quite stultified. They’re doing the traditional candidate dog-and-pony circuit, but that process is mind-numbing and pabulum-based and the result of that process—the April 12 decision—is foreordained, as anyone familiar with the recent history of that process will tell you. That unrepresentative process gets perpetuated by the media in the form of the amazingly silly, loaded question they always ask of candidates: ‘Are you going to honor the party’s endorsement process?’ What a weird, loaded phrasing! Were the media to take seriously its neutrality within this process, the question of course wouldn’t be ‘Are you going to honor the endorsement process?’—the question would be ‘Do you think the candidate ought to be selected by an unrepresentative, miniscule party elite, at the congressional district convention in April, or do you think the candidate ought to be selected by the broad mass of Democrats in the district, in the primary in September, 2008? And yet the media--supposedly committed to process neutrality--still asks the question in this weirdly loaded way.
So I’m really trying, as the sappy saying goes, to be the change I seek in the world. I’m the guy who’s saying flat-out that the emperor has no clothes—this candidate selection process is rotten, and the rot is emanating both from the democratic centralism of the party pooh-bahs and from the servile press and partisan blogosphere. I’m countering this with a very open campaign. Anyone who wants to contact me can easily contact me, and they’ll get a response from me, not from any campaign volunteer or—in the case of the front-runner—from a campaign employee. Anyone who wants to meet and visit with me can easily do so. Anyone who wants to suggest a position or viewpoint is free to do so. I am seeking a serious conversation concerning America’s future. I’m very proud to have been the first candidate to propose an unmediated 4-candidate debate, which I’d planned to have take place here, now, but sadly learned that the other candidates refused.
The bloggers commenting on that process expect nothing other than pabulum and pandering, and so their evaluation of candidates focuses upon whether the candidate is speaking from notes and other such ephemera...in short, whether the candidate fits the assumed role of ‘the candidate’—so the substance of the candidates’ views and biographies are of minor importance.
As mentioned, my conceptualization of ‘the campaign’ is at odds with the pabulum-based conventions of the traditional local candidate selection process. One way in which I differ from this tradition is that I emphatically want the campaign process to be an interactive one. I think the best campaign is one in which the candidates go after each other, and devil take the hindmost. And let’s face reality—when I comment upon another campaign, that comment may at times be unflattering. But I am not concerned if another candidate considers me impolitic. I am concerned if another candidate considers me wrong on any point, or if I am accused of presenting incorrect information. If something like that happens, I will respond. But I don’t consider it in any way unfair or bad to say truthful negative things about another candidate—that’s as American as apple pie.
You may recall three cycles ago, a four-term DFL congressman was struggling for his political life in the Second District. A bum from the Third District left the DFL and paid to be listed on the ballot in the Second on the phony ‘No New Taxes Party.’ The only reason the scoundrel did this was to bamboozle Second District voters and subvert democracy. I will refer to this as the ‘Garst-Luther fraud’.
I will adhere to the highest ethics in seeking this office and in representing the district. But a campaign is a conversation and the issues only really matter when intelligent discussion has been successfully engaged. To this end, I have proposed that the following questions ought to be put to each candidate who seeks to represent our great Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in congressional election in the Third District in November 2008: Do you condemn the Garst-Luther fraud? When did you first speak out on this matter? Did you take any action to support Bill Luther, after you became aware of the Garst-Luther fraud? Can you assure everyone that you will never engage in unethical political conduct of this sort? Will you refuse campaign contributions coming from either of the Garst-Luther fraud’s authors?
Anyway, thanks a bunch for coming here today. I’ve been speaking publicly every Saturday lately, but I won’t be able to do so next weekend, due to a family commitment. But I’ll be giving the old rousing stump speech twice on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007, first at noon at the Maple Grove Library and then at 4 PM at the Champlin Library. Email gavin@gavinsullivan.com should you have any questions about any of this. I hope to see you at one of my upcoming speeches, on Tuesday, Dec. 11. Onward and upward!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
