Molene on the MNIP CD3 Primary

John Molene has a piece in the current Eden Prairie News profiling the two candidates squaring off in the primary on September 9, 2008. David Dillon is the endorsed MNIP candidate; Steev Ramsdell is the challenger. The seriousness-chasm separating the two candidates could scarcely be wider. Ramsdell is advertising in The Onion and is basing his penniless campaign on a far-out fringe position on health care. Molene writes:

Ramsdell favors a stop to financial support of a broad range of organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, until cures are found.“It’s tough love,” he agrees. “But this is the time of the miracle marvel.”

David Dillon is running a much more serious, centrist campaign and ought to win the primary easily.

Dillon has endorsed the Pickens Plan, which doesn't seem attractive as a solution to this country's energy problem. But I haven't really heard Dillon's full presentation on it, and the candidate doesn't explain his support for the Pickens Plan on his website's Energy position page.

I noted earlier how little MNIP endorsements mean, when the party itself refuses to clearly state that it prefers its supporters vote for endorsed candidates in the primary. Dillon himself has no preference in the MNIP senatorial primary and states no general preference for endorsed candidates over challengers. (There are fruit flies born before Dillon signed up with the MNIP.)

Stephen Williams: More than just an exotic-sounding name

Stephen Williams is the endorsed MNIP candidate for US Senate. That means the MNIP had a statewide convention and the delegates assembled voted to endorse him. Williams challenged endorsed MNIP US Senate candidate Robert Fitzgerald in 2006, garnering 24% of the vote in the statewide primary, coming in third. Now Williams is himself being challenged in the MNIP senatorial primary by six other candidates, among them Six-Week Senator Dean Barkley.

In the DFL, receiving the endorsement means the party apparatus is behind you. (A DFL endorsement is a party-logo-emblazoned wood-dividing tool which the endorsee is encouraged to use to saw the legs off of any challengers.) In most parties, the endorsement is a powerful weapon, conferring legitimacy. Go to the DFL's website and look for information on Democrats seeking to replace Norm Coleman. There's one candidate: Al Franken. The six other [self-proclaimed] Democrats challenging Franken are not even mentioned on the DFL website: They don't exist. What does an endorsement mean if it doesn't signify 'the party encourages loyal members to support [ENDORSEE] in the primary'? I emailed MNIP State Secretary Laura Knudsen today, asking her what a MNIP endorsement means, if MNIP officials will not even issue perfunctory exhortations for party loyalty. She's still thinking about it.

IOW, the MNIP doesn't really take a position as to whether its endorsements mean anything.

The MNIP website devotes most of a page to their candidates for US Senate.

I don't oppose challenging endorsed candidates; having done so myself, without notable loss of sleep, then or later. But Barkley et al could have declared earlier; they've provided little rationale for their late entry. No one suggests any 'important new information' has emerged concerning Williams.

Stephen Williams is a 1973 Blake grad. (David Dillon ['74] and Al Franken ['71] {I might be off a bit on Franken's graduation date--can anyone help? } also attended the elite prep school.) Williams is a pro-life father of four, a church-attending Catholic who's been married 25 years. He farms maize in the Austin area yet opposes ethanol subsidies. His father succumbed to heart disease when Williams was 10; Williams intentionally sought out a career which would allow him to spend time with his family. He likes the Catholic Church's positions on social justice and generally opposes modern-day America's commercialist encroachments upon the individual. Williams is unfailingly friendly and polite.

He refuses to wield the endorsement as a weapon and does not condemn his challengers. On our telephone call, I hint that his strategery seems amiss. He ought to be out there bludgeoning Barkley et al--an immoralist blogger advises. He'll hear none of it.

Primary Challengers

Here in Minnesota, political parties endorse candidates in the spring. Ashwin Madia, for example, was endorsed on April 12, 2008. Either before or after that date (but before the mid-July deadline) another person could have come forward to challenge Madia in the September 9, 2008 primary. Hardcore party activists strongly frown upon primary challengers, frequently ascribing opportunism, stupidity, impudence or mental illness to such people. Even so, a lot of very well-known DFLers have broken ranks and challenged an endorsed candidate, at some point--Becky Lourey, Mike Erlandson, Mark Dayton, Mike Ciresi and Chris Coleman--to name a few. But--especially if you're a nobody--you're likely to get pummelled if you primary-challenge an endorsed DFL candidate. The party will mobilize to 'defend' its endorsement and send you whimpering back into nobodyville. The party website will promote the endorsed candidate and not even mention a challenger, for example.

Parties seek to maximize their influence. Parties seek to structure their rules so that rank-and-file participants' self-interest aligns with the maximization of party interest. The effort to moralistically condemn a primary challenger is usually just a veiled plea for democratic centralism. If a party took no action in defending its endorsement, activists fear the weakening or dissolution of the institution, or the devolution of power within the party from the hardcore activists to those whose commitment is mild. And in the short term, activists usually think the endorsed candidate is their best bet for victory in November.

So it's surprising how neutral the Independence Party of Minnesota treats its endorsed candidate for US Senate, Stephen Williams. I mean, you'd think they'd have the decency to pretend to be offended, no?

I also noted today (very late, I acknowledge) that Darryl Stanton (Eden Prairie's Ole Savior) has left the DFL and is--along with Dean Barkley--challenging Stephen Williams for the MNIP US Senate nomination. I wish Williams well in defending his endorsement. Indeed, I am scandalized and disheartened that anyone would so shamefully besmirch the hard-fought MNIP US Senate endorsement. It's an insult to the hard work and dedication of all two dozen MNIP activists throughout our fine state.

This just in

Erik Paulsen will speak at the RNC (thanks Ollie Ox).

Two Post-Debate Snippets

MN GOP Chair Ron Carey after Thursday morning's debate

After the General Mills debate, I chatted with several audience members:

One DFL activist said that while she was happy with Ashwin Madia's performance, she regretted he didn't voice opposition to free trade agreements. She said that NAFTA has been a disaster for workers in both the USA and Mexico. 'How could that be?' I asked. 'I mean, if you tweak the trade rules between two countries, how can it end up hurting workers in both countries?' She started a speech which indicated that it was economic growth which she opposed.

'Look at China,' I suggested. [In 1985 average income in China was $293; in 2006 the average income is $2,025.] 'The economic growth in China in recent decades represents a massive improvement in the average Chinese person's standard of living, doesn't it?'

I mentioned that in the 1970s, the Chinese had only two colors in their wardrobes--blue and gray. [Urban legend, perhaps, but the essential point is accurate.] The activist responded that those two colors were likely organic. She was sure that life for the average Chinese person was better before the economic boom.

Nonsense. Very nice person; horrendously misinformed on economics.

After speaking with the friendly left-wing lady, I thought, 'Say what you will about Republicans, at least they understand basic economics.' But just then I started chatting with an actual Republican--who inadvertantly reminded me that economic illiteracy can be found there too:

I said hello to Ron Carey and his aide-de-camp, asking for their assessment of Erik Paulsen's contribution to the debate, etc. Carey repeated his charge that Madia for Congress had accepted a contribution from a corporate PAC--and only returned the contribution in response to bad publicity. (Opposing unilateral disarmament, I thought it a silly pledge to begin with, though perhaps it helped Madia in his endorsement battle. The Madia pledge remains regrettable.) But the Carey aide went on to say that Madia's refusal to accept corporate PAC money constituted an infringement on the political participation of employees at companies such as General Mills. "General Mills' PAC contributions represent the political participation of the company's employees," she said.

My, oh my!

Card Check

Concerning yesterday morning's debate:

The venue--and $35 ticket price--favored Paulsen. Madia had signs all over the entrance and a small rally just near the parking lot. In the audience the non-business people were mainly Madia people. I saw a bunch of Madia shirts in the crowd; I didn't see any Paulsen shirts. There were plenty of real, fancy-dress business people in the audience.

The General Mills debate had an announced purpose--for business leaders to size up the candidates on business issues.

A political campaign is a multidimensional affair; sometimes you go with your gut instinct and disregard the formal, orthodox rules of a venue--that's a judgment call. If a candidate wanted to accept the formal structure of this debate, he'd have to persuade the business leaders that: Economic growth is among my highest priorities. As your congressman, I will oppose wasteful spending. When I say I'm a deficit hawk, I am serious. You can trust me with the public purse. I have the courage to say no to some of my party's powerful interest groups.

Given the traditional perceptions of business leaders, this burden/opportunity fell primarily on Ashwin Madia. Madia failed to capitalize on the opportunity--and chose instead to treat the venue as a generic debate, playing primarily to a perceived General Public listener. Perhaps some Madia strategists might accept my analysis, believing that was the smartest way to take advantage of this particular opportunity. In retrospect, that was a mistake--Madia could have advanced had he powerfully addressed the underlying perceptions of the business folk. As it happened, the execs left thinking Madia was a fairly mainstream Democrat, fitting in with their traditional perceptions of DFLers--clever enough to label all of his spending proposals as investments, but unwilling to face down his party's powerful [and often antieconomic] interest groups.

The candidates discussed a number of issues, but the Employee Free Choice Act (hereafter EFCA or Card Check) discussion was key. Paulsen came out full-bore against it, saying it was bad for the economy and horrible for CD3 business. Dillon made a moral issue of it--amplifying Paulsen's angle--saying it was wrong to depart from the secret ballot and would result in worker intimidation.

I have no polling data on the CD3 race, but I would guess Paulsen-Madia-Dillon would come out 54-37-9, were the election held today. (I could be wildly wrong, that's just this blogger's horse sense). But I think Teams Madia and Paulsen might have underestimated the esteem in which the business executives held Dillon. Observing Dillon, they noted his pleasant, mainstream businessman's demeanor and thought, 'Here's a guy whose actually created real jobs in CD3.' So Dillon was listened to--everything he said was music to their ears, though while Dillon criticized Madia repeatedly, he failed to draw significant distinction with Paulsen. Dillon thinks the DFL is in the grip of sclerotic unions whose policy goals would--bafflingly--harm job creation. Given recent changes in the local and global economy, the Democrats' EFCA enthusiasm really drives Dillon to distraction: He thinks it's stupid and wrong. He's essentially correct--that Madia couldn't oppose EFCA even if he wanted to. (And Madia has always appeared to sincerely support EFCA.)

During Madia's battle for the CD3 DFL endorsement, had he taken any position on EFCA other than strong support, he wouldn't be the nominee today. (See here.)

So at yesterday morning's debate, Paulsen voiced the position management wanted to hear. Dillon--as a real-world CEO--voiced the same position as Paulsen, even more strongly and with serious-businessman credibility.

Madia lamely defended EFCA from Dillon's attack. He tried to argue that it wouldn't result in the intimidation Dillon predicted. We can leave aside the Dillon-Madia quarrel on whether EFCA will result in intimidation, while stipulating that it will make unionization considerably simpler. Also leaving aside moralistic arguments, the pro-union candidate--by advocating EFCA--seemed to be implying that our economy would benefit from higher rates of unionization. If he believes that to be the case, he advanced no persuasive argumentation in that direction.

Trying to listen as an exec, the only argument I wanted to hear on EFCA, from Madia, is how it would accelerate economic growth. I heard none--and considered that important.

CD3 Candidates Meet at Betty Crocker's

I attended the CD3 candidates' debate this morning at General Mills. It didn't quite meet excitement expections, nor did it sell out--at least 150 seats were empty. More on this event in tomorrow's post.

Mr. Gillespie, retract this endorsement!

Bill Gillespie, Executive Director of the MPPOA

Erik Paulsen is Police Endorsed. As a matter of principle, it is bad public policy to allow the police to issue endorsements. We should put a stop to this practice, for the same reasons we don't allow the US Army to issue endorsements.

Bill Gillespie is the Executive Director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. So I called and emailed the MPPOA repeatedly, yesterday and today, to try to learn why it chose to endorse Erik Paulsen for US Congress--and how the process worked. I asked a bunch of fair questions; Gillespie feels no obligation to explain or defend the MPPOA's endorsement. Gillespie demands copious flattery from his interviewer, I was not in a flattering mood and he eventually told me to buzz off. But I learned some interesting stuff before his tantrum.

Was the endorsement simply a case of the age-old lobbyist-state representative mutual admiration society? Or had the MPPOA observed some interesting distinction among Dillon, Madia and Paulsen on the issues? I repeatedly asked Gillespie to name a single issue on which Paulsen's position was more beneficial to an orderly society; Gillespie could offer only the most constipated PaulsenforCongress.com cut-and-paste job: 'Erik Paulsen is a moderate Republican in the mold of Jim Ramstad. He carried legislation for the MPPOA in the past and been a conduit to get our point of view put forward to an otherwise anti-labor Republican administration.'

Are you seriously attempting to argue that Erik Paulsen is more pro-union than Ashwin Madia, Mr. Gillespie? Really now--that's some chutzpah.

I ask Gillespie 'How many members of the MPPOA took part in the decision to endorse Erik Paulsen?' He responds, 'There were 3 Board members plus myself and our Washington lobbyist, Dennis McGrann.'

I contact Dennis McGrann, who tells me he was not in attendance. I tell Gillespie. He responds 'My mistake. There are 13 members on the Board of Directors and the lobbyist in attendance was Cort Holten, not Dennis McGrann.'

So in choosing to endorse Paulsen, the rank-and-file of the MPPOA was not consulted, while four of the thirteen board members--31% of the Board of Directors--met to make the decision. (Could the MPPOA's bylaws possibly allow such a thing?) Such an atmosphere of lassitude prevailed that the organization's own Executive Director forgot the only participant he attempted to identify by name.

Anything else, Mr. Gillespie?

Your manner is arrogant and offensive and I have invested all the time I am going to share with you. Do not contact me again.

So you tell us how to vote, but we aren't allowed to ask you to explain your reasoning?

Mr. Gillespie, retract this phony-baloney endorsement!

If I wrote copy for DillonForCongress.org

Wednesday is blog day for the Madia campaign, a holiday I will not be observing. One grows tired of following the flock. Adieu, herd!

I just noticed the page shown above, on David Dillon's site. Dillon is a friendly, generally reasonable guy. If he were elected I would not feel nauseous. But he's right when he says I believe his candidacy to be nonviable. We have a de facto two-party system. Occasionally a party nominates an exceptionally weak candidate, potentially providing an opportunity to a non-mainstream challenger. But in CD3, activists blue and red are happy with their candidates. Many people looking for a charismatic new face are supporting Madia. Righties are generally enamored of Paulsen, however illegibly. Dillon simply doesn't have the charisma, money, incisive-but-appealing ideology or sharp oratory to pull off this feat.

On the page shown above, Dillon calls me 'a partisan that supports Madia.' Were someone on Team Dillon to actually have read my blog in recent months, I think a fairer description might have said 'Gavin isn't very partisan and isn't aroused by Ashwin Madia, but he loathes and abominates Erik Paulsen. Since Gavin thinks only one real alternative to Erik Paulsen has a serious shot of winning the CD3 seat, Gavin supports Madia.' (Needless to say, I would never write anything like that--but I enjoy putting myself in other people's shoes from time to time.)

At the January MNIP conclave in Bloomington

when Dillon presented himself as a candidate

Sen. David Hann: American Badass

Sen David Hann in a non-Brando moment

A key underpinning of our democratic system of government is our insistence that the military stay out of politics. For democracy to function properly, civilians must control the military and not the other way around. People of all viewpoints and stations must be able to respect the military and view it as a politically-neutral entity. As an empirical matter, we observe a world in which some countries' militaries control their governments--and such countries are often a mess.

The police force is a paramilitary organization. People who support democracy ought to band together and tell the police to stay out of politics. This position is a logical extension of the ban noted above. Indeed, it's essentially the same concept. If we banned the police from endorsing candidates, we would be closing a loophole.

"You don't want the police in effect controlling the politicians who are supposed to be controlling them," said Toronto lawyer Paul Copeland, who argues that police, like those in the army and judicial system, are expected to remain politically neutral.

Sen David Hann in wise-guy mode

Erik Paulsen welcomes this type of police corruption:

After speaking with Jenifer Loon on Saturday, I noticed a group of adults seated in the courtyard and recognized Sen David Hann among them. I said hello, wanting to learn whether my state senator supports a non-political police force. But Hann would not answer any citizen questions and was very boldly adopting a smart-alec tone toward the inquiring blogger. His undignified air genuinely surprised me.

Eden Prairie's sitting Minnesota state senator then accused me of stalking Erik Paulsen. The senator was suggesting that I had committed a crime; I was and remain disgusted he would say such a thing. I ask Hann to put up or shut up: 'What evidence do you base your charge upon?' Senator Hann says that during a break at the 42B GOP Convention, he saw me walk up to Erik Paulsen and ask Paulsen for the name of my state representative. (Imagine! A citizen walking up to an elected official and asking a question! What will The Dear Leader think?)

'And upon that flimsy reed, you are willing to accuse a person of stalking someone?' I ask. Hann then says that I was pursuing Paulsen. (Well of course I was pursuing Paulsen, how else is a blogger supposed to ask a question of a public official!) Hann then tells me that in his usage, stalking and pursuing are the same thing. So Hann is playing chicken-shit word games. One moment he's spreading disgraceful, baseless insinuations about a constituent, the next moment he's playing dumb, pretending not to know the meaning of simple words. I ask him to retract his charge [that I stalked Erik Paulsen]; Hann refuses.

Hann refuses to answer any questions from me, as he announces he has judged me unserious. I explain to him that if our positions were reversed--I a sitting Minnesota state senator and he a constituent--I would find it extremely undignified to be launching moronic, indefensible charges one moment and the next haughtily announcing my refusal to take questions from the hoi polloi. 'How could I maintain any self-respect, were I to behave like that?' I ask.

Hann announces this decree and that about my perfidiousness. When he doesn't want to respond to my statements/questions, he invents motivations and viewpoints out of whole cloth and ascribes them to me. I bring to his attention that gentlemen do not impugn the motivations of others; he doesn't deny he's doing so but accuses me of same. I clarify that I am making no claim whatever about his motivations; he reverts to ripping into mine. He barks that I am no gentleman; I respond, 'You would be a most unusual person to consult for advice on what constitutes a gentleman.' (Yeah, I'm enjoying this.)

I try to ask my question. I explain to him that in America, a fundamental aspect of our democracy is that we don't allow the military to get involved in politics. (Before I get to my point about the police, first I need to ensure he's on board with our country's longstanding tradition--and law--barring the military forces from endorsing candidates.) No such luck. Hann announces he takes no position on said tradition and law--he neither supports nor opposes America's tradition of an apolitical military. 'I'm a state senator,' he says, 'we don't control the military.'

I shake Hann's hand and thank him for our interview. He tells me that it has been an unpleasant experience for him. We part.

Toward a Theory of Jenifer Loon's Lying

Two Putt Tommy and the aptly-surnamed GOP 42B candidate

The Smith Douglas More House on Eden Prairie Rd is America's most picturesque Dunn Bros franchise. It's located near a scenic bike trail, so one frequently sees spandexed middle-aged people sipping alfresco in the fenced-in side yard. Jenifer Loon held a meet-and-greet here on Saturday morning. I stopped by to ask her a few questions.

When I arrive, Loon is exchanging apolitical pleasantries with tea-drinking bicyclists. When she's done I ask her, if she's elected, will a constituent be able to expect a response when he emails her concerning her views? She says yes. (This comes as welcome news to those of us long stiff-armed by the incumbent's unreviewable, unilateral blacklisting of the non-kowtowing.)

I remind Loon that when she spoke at the 42B GOP convention, she said she would work to ban abortion except in cases of rape and incest. Prolife Across America has a sign on I35--I tell Loon--which says Embryos Are Babies. 'So you and I agree that that sign is crazy, right?' No, she doesn't believe it's crazy--she respects people who take that viewpoint. 'But what do you think of it,' I inquire. Loon says she really can't say, because she hasn't seen the sign.

'Assume for a moment that I'm telling you the truth--that the sign says Embryos are Babies. Do you agree with that statement, do you disagree with it or are you somewhere in the middle?' The politician tells me she doesn't agree and she doesn't disagree--nor is she somewhere in the middle. While unloading her dumptruckload of bullshit, Loon has an entirely blank, affectless expression. She's not walking away from me, she's not ashamed of herself, she doesn't seem at all riled. She's slightly hunched over, nursing her beverage. She gives every indication she's willing to continue; it's incredibly weird. We go back and forth a few more times; she will reveal nothing about her position on abortion or anything else. She then chides me for 'playing word games'. I remind her that I'm simply requesting a straight answer to a substantive question. To suggest that the question constitutes a word game is nonsensical.

Some Republican readers have occasionally bragged that they are able to get responses from Republican candidates on the issues of the day. I challenge you: Get a straightforward response from Jenifer Loon reacting to 'Embryos Are Babies.' She herself has publicly identified abortion policy as being a key area of emphasis to her candidacy; this question couldn't be more fair, could it?

What does Loon actually believe, on Embryos are Babies? If you believe in allowing rape victims to decide for themselves whether or not to continue their pregnancies, you're denying their fetuses some of the privileges and immunities of babies, right? So why not just tell the truth? Is this Loon's way of saying, 'Naive blogger, the homeowners of 42B are proud of me for having the courage to lie to people like you'? Or is Loon lying simply to avoid reminding the more rabid half of her base that she disagrees with them? Can anyone crack this case?

Erik Paulsen: Cipher to his own district

John Molene just published Paulsen, Madia race a battle for the middle in the Eden Prairie News.

The Eden Prairie News tends to support Erik Paulsen without much skepticism. When Paulsen originally sought the GOP endorsement for state representative in 1994, he faced intra-party opposition from--and trounced--pro-choice Republican Patricia Pidcock. The Eden Prairie News endorsed Pidcock in the 1994 intra-GOP battle. The newspaper went on to endorse Paulsen's DFL opponent Peter Iversen in the 1994 general election. Paulsen received the paper's endorsement in every election after that. [1996 not confirmed. /Ed.]

Molene's article starts by framing Paulsen as beloved native son and Madia as district-shopping outsider. [Ridiculous--since Madia grew up in CD3 and has a strong family connection to the district.] It begins Eden Prairie residents know Paulsen well, he’s represented them in the Minnesota House of Representatives since 1994. That sentence is crucial, telling readers the context in which to consider Paulsen. A more objective piece would paint a quite negative picture of the GOP candidate--and so Molene's establishing shot strikes me as tendentious. And when I read that opening sentence, I wondered whether it is factually true or false. Read it again--what do you think?

So after work yesterday, I ventured out into my community to do a bit of public opinion research. I decided to go to three coffee shops and nearby businesses in Eden Prairie and survey the first twenty Eden Prairie residents I could find. (When in doubt, I confirmed that the person surveyed was at least 18 years old.) When asking the people my questions, I didn't want them to know my actual focus was to determine whether Eden Prairie residents--as the Eden Prairie News asserts--know Paulsen well. So I presented the following five items to each of my twenty subjects:

1. David Hann is Eden Prairie's MN state senator. Do you feel like you know David Hann?
2. Phil Young is Mayor of Eden Prairie. Do you feel like you know Phil Young?
3. Kathy Nelson is one member of Eden Prairie's City Council. Do you feel like you know Kathy Nelson?
4. Erik Paulsen is a state representative for part of Eden Prairie. Do you feel like you know Erik Paulsen?
5. Rob Reynolds is Eden Prairie's new police chief. Do you feel like you know Rob Reynolds?

I read the items aloud to each of the people. I offer the links above for blog readers; the links were not available to the people being surveyed, of course. I acknowledge my survey is unscientific, but I honestly made no effort to seek out any certain 'types.' I surveyed the first twenty majority-aged people I ran into who said they were Eden Prairie residents. Here's one actual response:

And here are the results:

So 55% of my respondents claim not to know Erik Paulsen at all, 30% claim to know him a little and a mere 15% say well. While asking the people the questions, occasionally I'd hear them mutter this or that, while circling their responses. When one man was circling a little to Item #4, he offered by explanation that he had received a mailing from Erik Paulsen--so it seems important to underscore that even those claiming to know Paulsen were not necessarily perceiving this designation to indicate anything like approval. Indeed--the responses to my survey likely overstate the average Eden Prairie resident's familiarity with Paulsen. If we polled those claiming to know Paulsen a little or well, and asked them, for example, how Paulsen would like women who have abortions to be punished, I suspect very few people would be aware of the truthful answer--that Paulsen would likely prefer lengthy prison sentences for such women. You could ask about other distinctively Paulsenian positions, and I'm guessing you'd find that most people claiming to know Paulsen were really only claiming to know of him.

Update on Thursday Morning's Debate

I just got off the phone with Victoria Marley at Twinwest Chamber of Commerce. I learned that tickets for Thursday's Dillon-Madia-Paulsen debate are moving briskly; about half of the 400 seats remain available. The debate will take place in the auditorium at General Mills' corporate headquarters in Golden Valley. Marley told me the event was Twinwest's idea, and that Twinwest has endorsed candidates in the past and may endorse a CD3 congressional candidate. Twinwest doesn't exclusively endorse Republicans--as Sen Terri Bonoff occasionally reminded us. Attendees are welcome to submit questions, though Marley noted Twinwest hopes to maintain some emphasis on business-related concerns. Thursday morning's debate will be moderated by Dannette Coleman--of the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee.

Asked for a guesstimate, Marley didn't predict a sellout for the debate. (I do.) If Madia or Paulsen is making an effort to pack the audience, please let me know.

Bloggers' Night Out

Sen Patricia Torres Ray this evening at

Drinking Liberally (at the 331 Club)

I attended Drinking Liberally this evening in Northeast Minneapolis and had a chance to overhear some Q&A with friendly, nice Sen Patricia Torres Ray, the first-term state senator who introduced Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer at the state DFL convention in Rochester. It was also fun meeting some bloggers and political types; a pleasant evening for chatting out on the sidewalk with some champion yarn-spinners.

**

US News' Katherine Skiba has an excellent article on Ash Madia and the CD3 race. Makes me think that as MSM narratives take hold, Madia's public identity as a Marine becomes more and more central--to the candidate's advantage. That hadn't occurred to me. For the first time, I've been going through the lists of the candidates' contributors. Quite interesting and undeniably [if depressingly] key to the enterprise.

Erik Paulsen: A Profile in Cowardice

A congressional campaign needs a heroic narrative--a story in which the candidate faced a dicey ethical dilemma requiring her to stick her neck out on behalf of a principle. For Ashwin Madia, that happened when he was a lawyer in the Marines, and he learned of a case in which a gay serviceman was being drummed out unfairly. Madia defended the gay Marine in question--ensuring the guy wasn't ejected. So Madia was presented with a difficult situation, took an unpopular position and prevailed.

Erik Paulsen, learning he had for years been involved in a church which espouses extreme prejudice against the Catholic faith, could have taken the honorable route: He could have written a letter to the Missouri Synod asking the church to rescind its hateful position--possibly risking his leadership position in that church. But that would have entailed risk. Far easier--Paulsen concluded--to go along and get along. 'No one will ever notice my cowardice,' Paulsen perhaps thought.

Some Relevant Curiosities, Too

I mentioned an irrelevant curiosity yesterday--that I didn't notice any Madia bumper stickers in the parking lot at the Hindu Mandir in Maple Grove.

A commenter suggested the lack of stickers might be explained: '[P]eople who attend the Mandir are just that serious about the separation of religion and politics?' Hint, hint, hint, Gav.

If you think I'm trying to mix religion and politics, you're misinterpreting me. I'm the defender of secularism--the guy who'd prefer to keep religion out of politics and treat a candidate's publicly-proclaimed religious views just as I would her other stances. If a candidate professes affiliation with an organization that claims the earth is flat, I'm the blogger that wants to ask the candidate, 'Do you believe the earth is flat?' I don't care whether the organization is religious or secular. I don't care why someone believes the earth is flat, or believes in creationism (as Erik Paulsen likely does). The important thing is to make sure that my congressional representative isn't so stupid.

Gentle Erik -- at the 42B Convention

My commitment to secularism is consistent--as can quite easily be shown. When a candidate abjures public discussion of religious matters, I support her. When one candidate in the CD3 congressional race made clear he was uninterested in sounding off publicly on religion, I praised him for his courageous adherence to Thomas Jefferson's ideal--of keeping America's politics secular. There is no active scribbler in CD3 microblogging more emphatic on this point. Indeed, I'm surprised by how little support I get from religious people, since exploiting one's religious affiliation for partisan political gain is so obviously blasphemous on their terms.

Had Erik Paulsen taken the high road in his political career, and never sought--so repulsively--to exploit his creed for worldly gain, his crazy religious views would never have earned mention on this blog. If you want to believe crazy things in your private life, that's your business. But when you arrive on the political playing field at this exalted level unashamedly calling attention to your involvement in an organization that believes a slew of daft ideas, don't expect me to pull punches.

**

Somewhat less importantly: A commenter yesterday asked why I don't inquire about David Dillon's religious views. Am I not being unfair in picking on Gentle Erik, Meek and Mild? (Give me a break!) Two reasons: First, David Dillon--unlike Erik Paulsen--doesn't advertise his religious affiliation. Second, Dillon isn't a serious candidate. (Though--having pleasantly chatted with Dillon several times--I doubt he's out in 700 Club territory.) In America, we have a de facto two-party system. Dillon hasn't provided any compelling reason why a third party candidate is needed in this contest [for an open seat that has been held by a single party for five decades, nonetheless]. Wouldn't be prudent.

Visiting the Hindu Mandir

At the Hindu Mandir in Maple Grove

Seeking edifying sightseeing, I took the lad to the Hindu Temple of Minnesota yesterday. The structure--ten times larger than anticipated--is on a dead end in an agricultural part of Maple Grove. (Driving the length of one row in the packed parking lot, I didn't spot a single Madia bumper sticker--irrelevently, though somewhat to my surprise.) We entered the building, removed our shoes and went upstairs barefoot, as one does. On the second level, we learned we were welcome to go in and walk around; a lot was going on--ceremonies, worship, prayer, music, incense--at the many shrines within the space. People socialized outside the worship area.

No candidate in the current race for US Congress has come out as Hindu, though the Hindu temple in Maple Grove clearly functions as a cultural center for Indian Minnesotans, in addition to its religious role. Some Republicans relish the opportunity to engage in a campaign of redneckism against Ashwin Madia, attempting to foist the Hindu label upon him with or without his assent. When a candidate has no history of exploiting his religious affiliation for political gain, why should his religious observance be of any interest?

A Minnesota media tradition may be coming to an overdue end in the CD3 race for Congress--the 'innocuous' questioning of the candidate's religious affiliation. And not a moment too soon. Erik Paulsen's codespeak reassurance to the Religious Right was never the happy-go-lucky afterthought the media and candidate cooperated in presenting. When a candidate publicly bathes in any organizational affiliation--religious or secular--the media ought to ask certain obvious follow-up questions. The traditional MSM stance has unfairly benefited the hypocritical.

Erik Paulsen and the LCMS

Conscientious Minnesotans have long studied their pre-election Star Tribune Voter Guides as they decide how to cast their vote. Prior to elections--when Erik Paulsen has the attention of voters--he always publicizes his membership at Victory Lutheran Church. Announcing his religious affiliation sends a highly specific message to in-the-know Republicans: This guy is with the Religious Right. Since party insiders get Paulsen's coded message, he doesn't have to speak at length on a number of issues. If he had to openly discuss his position on stem cell research, for example, he'd likely lose much support. But he doesn't have to defend his position opposing stem cell research, since knowledgeable GOP politicos already trust him--due in part to their awareness of his church affiliation.

Righties have attempted to squelch discussion of Paulsen's denomination's various bizarre views by counterattacking my 'using religion to attack people.'

Such accusations are without merit--and neglect the documented fact that Paulsen himself put the association front and center.

And another thing: Can you think of any organization which believes attacking a specific religion to be an entirely honorable practice? I can: Erik Paulsen's denomination--The Missouri Synod, whose well-known doctrine singles out the Roman Catholic Church for vitriolic abuse. Paulsen has repeatedly, publicly underscored his membership in his LCMS church. Does he support or oppose his church's viewpoint that Catholicism is essentially a form of devil-worship? If Paulsen opposes his denomination's bitter hatred of Catholicism, as a church leader, what has he done to get the doctrine rescinded? When did he first publicly condemn his church's lunatic hate speech?

Paulsen's lengthy history of using his Missouri Synod association to harvest votes justifies our inquiry about that association--and not simply concerning the issue discussed above. Our country has a proud tradition at the forefront of scientific advancement. The US Congress plays a huge role in allocating resources and deciding where--and whether--funding goes for scientific research. If we were to learn that one of our congressional candidates radically rejects science, believing the earth to be just 10,000 years old--as Paulsen's church instructs--we would then know that the candidate is a moron, an embarrassment and too stupid for us to consider sending to Washington.

Erik Paulsen has a long association with an organization which says that if you believe in evolution, you can't be a Christian. ('Evolution cannot be “baptized”to make it compatible
with the Christian faith.') Erik Paulsen has made every effort to emphasize his church affiliation around election time. So I want to know Erik Paulsen's views on these matters; I somewhat fear he shares his denomination's nutty views.

As always, my concern with regard to Paulsen's views on Catholicism and evolution--stimulated entirely by the candidate's own public statements--has nothing to do with an interest in his religious beliefs. I simply want to know if Paulsen is evil, or stupid, as appears possible.

Erik Paulsen: A Question of Character

From The Star Tribune's 2006 Voter Guide

Each election year, the Star Tribune publishes a Voter Guide. The information included in the guide comes straight from the candidate. In his first several campaigns, Erik Paulsen proudly asserted--in his Voter Guide entry--'I do not accept special interest PAC money...' (That youthful idealism has long since receded from memory.)

In each voter guide--such as the 2006 version displayed above--Erik Paulsen has affirmed his affiliation with Victory Lutheran Church--a denomination which believes that the Catholic Church is led by the Antichrist.

What if I had long publicly stated my affiliation with an organization that declared Lutherans to be under the Antichrist's grip--and I was now running for US Congress? Do you think Lutherans would be too shy to ask me to state clearly my embarrassment with regard to my church's teaching? What if, after publicly making clear my impassioned opposition to my church's anti-Lutheran bigotry, an intelligent and reasonable Lutheran then asked me, 'So you participated in that bigoted organization for years, and never saw fit to dissociate yourself from your church's anti-Lutheranism until now, since now it matters to your political fortunes. Is that correct? What does that say about your character?'

**

Erik Paulsen tests the outer limits of silent majoritarian Dominionism:

Minnesota's Third Congressional District has been blessed with great leadership for nearly half a century by Jim Ramstad and Bill Frenzel. Rather than politics, they were guided by the same common sense values I carry with me: fiscal responsibility, government that is both small and accountable, a strong national defense and a deep conviction that results matter.

I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work on the difficult issues facing our state and nation today.

So Paulsen is now giving thanks to the almighty for giving us Frenzel and Ramstad. (Get me a bucket!) Paulsen's perspective on politics is distinguished by its common sense--he's the guy who believes results matter. By golly, he'll roll up his sleeves. Paulsen's cliche-drenched pabulum must sound insulting to at least some CD3 voters. November's congressional election will test whether Third District voters are brain dead.

Senator Prissy

'Early on, I believed Al Franken could defeat Norm Coleman. Now, two years and millions of dollars later, it is clear that his record of pornography, degradation of women and minorities and questionable financial transactions will be the source of blistering ads from the Republican attack machine I represent Minnesota values as a teacher, volunteer and advocate. September 9, I ask you for your vote in the DFL primary.' Priscilla Lord Faris

Lord Faris' Sunfish Lake house is on the market, so she appears confident she'll win. Don't let her fuddy-duddy act fool you, Lord Faris' daughter Maggie is an atheist lesbian waitress/comic--'just a fat old lady who likes to participate in extreme sports,' as she described herself on her website, before civilization-saving Mom had her take it down. (I'd vastly prefer the daughter to be my Senator.) Lord Faris' other daughter Emma, a realtor, has a banner ad for mom on her site.

Weeks before the ad above came out, Lord Faris appeared on TPT's Almanac, admitting she is making a pure electability play, not based on any moralistic concerns. On Almanac Lord Faris says she's not sure why Franken isn't clicking with the public; she then lists 'pornogate' third among potential explanations for Franken's poor standing in the polls, without showing any hint of familarity with the facts underlying the matter. Now that she's thought about it--though still without evincing any familiarity with the facts--she's decided to throw honesty to the wind, accusing Franken of a record of pornography.

It's somewhat unusual that Lord Faris' law office website has been converted into a campaign placard:

Abolish the DFL Faith Caucus

So a new DFL caucus has been recognized--The Faith Caucus. Its chair, Matt Gladue, explicitly acknowledges that the new caucus does not prefer faith to anti-faith. All DFLers are welcome.

When you hear Americans praising faith, it's usually a euphemism for a small group of 'legitimate' religions. It would be weird for a devout Muslim (or Missouri Synod Lutheran) couple to think, 'So long as little Muhammad [or Steve] grows up believing in Thor, Krishna, Satan, Zeus...Jesus--or worships the sun, the moon or some other god or gods--we'll be contented in our old age.' No one thinks that way, c'mon.

So don't get me wrong--it's not just the DFL Faith Caucus. Rare is the person who would argue any religious belief is preferable to no religious belief. But the DFL Faith Caucus unambiguously states that it makes no ranking among faiths or even in comparing faith and anti-faith. Atheists typically do not view their cosmological perspective as just another belief system--but as a rejection of the idea of faith. The DFL Faith Caucus welcomes all party members to join on an equal footing--so even PZ Myers could chair the caucus, if he won the support of its members.

What if I started a new club here in Eden Prairie--and started welcoming straight and gay people to join. I tell people we're going to call the group The Eden Prairie Straight People's Club, but I make a point of informing gay people that they're welcome to join and that the club does not view being straight as either superior or inferior to being gay. 'So please join our club; it will be a lot of fun,' I tell everyone.

If you were a gay Eden Prairie resident, would you find my new club a welcome arrival, or a pernicious one? Would you join it or voice objection? I mean, you'd likely be thinking:

1) Gavin means no harm; he is just amazingly unaware of how offensive his club's name is; or
2) Gavin is lying to gay people when he tells them they will be treated as equals within his new club--clearly, he seeks to weaken their social position, hence, the new club's name; or
3) In announcing his new club, Gavin deviously seeks to sock it to the anti-gay people in the community, by feigning cultural conservatism and yet actually striving for progressive inclusion of Eden Prairie gays.

A faith caucus that isn't able to state a preference between faith and anti-faith is a strangely named entity, no? It would be like forming a swimming club and telling prospective members that if they don't want to get in the pool, fine, 'we don't believe swimming to be any better than any other activity.' Like the hypothetical Eden Prairie Straight People's club, the DFL Faith Caucus bears its deceptive name for a reason. And I'm guessing it's #3--as a well-intentioned though misguided anti-Republican cudgel.

Calling things by deliberately deceptive names (in the absence of irony) is pernicious. In this case, it suggests to the public that DFLers believe something which few party members actually believe, in the interest of gaining political advantage. That's not right.

Faith Healing

The right has had success in convincing wide swaths of the public that god would vote Republican; I frequently call that connection into question here. For my efforts, I'm occasionally accused of trying to use religion to advance a political agenda. In fact, I'm doing the opposite. I'm opposing Katherine Kersten and Erik Paulsen when they dangle their religious credentials in the service of rhetorical point-scoring or--in Paulsen's case--getting elected. My goal is to persuade readers that religion ought to have no political use. When a politician seeks to harvest votes based on his religious affiliation--as Paulsen finds ethical--it is this blogger's job to hound him mercilessly for the transgression. We've only just begun.

The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party's website lists the following subgroups: African American Caucus, American Indian Caucus, Asian/Pacific Caucus, Asian-Indian Democratic Association, Disability Caucus, Faith Caucus, Feminist Caucus, Greater Minnesota Caucus, Latino Caucus, Minnesota Young DFL, Progressive Caucus, Senior Caucus, Stonewall DFL, Veterans Caucus, Local DFL Party Units and DFL Links.

That Faith Caucus just came into being a few months ago. So while my inclination is to goad religion out of the public sphere, Minnesota's Democratic Party wants to embrace the participation of the in-your-face religious, within political life.

If you were a believing Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Pagan, Yezidi, Cao Dai or whatever (perhaps you are), it would not seem self-evident that you would want to bond with all other supernaturalists as your politico-spiritual homeys. Many of the subgroups in the DFL represent communities that have historically been excluded and oppressed; that cannot be said of all religious believers during our nation's history. And the older DFL subgroups aren't aimed at marginalizing any specific minority group which has itself been mistreated in our country's history--as the Faith Caucus would seem to [but read on]. Had the decision to authorize the Faith Caucus been put to a vote at my senate district convention, I think I would have pointed my thumb down.

The Faith Caucus can only merit existence if believers have reason to meet with each other primarily in the absence of non-believers. If the faith caucus invites members without regard to their 'faiths'--even welcoming atheists--why then call it a 'Faith Caucus' at all? Why not call it the 'Faith and Non-Faith Caucus'?

Matt Gladue, DFL Faith Caucus chair, couldn't be clearer on this point. I emailed him; he replied 'the [DFL Faith] caucus does not believe that adhering to a religious faith is in some way better than not adhering to one' and 'DFL Atheists are welcome to join.' IOW, when it comes to the DFL Faith Caucus, a DFL atheist is preferred to a Republican Unitarian-Universalist. (There's probably at least one.) No god--no problem. No liberalism--beat it.

Since the DFL Faith Caucus does not claim that belief is better than non-belief, perhaps I'm pushing against an open door. But I remain mystified by the Faith Caucus' name. It was nice of Gladue to respond; if you think he got the best of our exchange feel free to fire away in the comments. In the interest of fairness, here is Matt Gladue's friendly response to my email:

Hi, Gavin. Thanks for your interest in this. I've read your blog some, and have enjoyed it. I'll try to answer the questions as best I can:

The answer to your first question is no, the caucus does not believe that adhering to a religious faith is in some way better than not adhering to one. The caucus is more accurately described as an affinity group of people who come from a very wide background of religious, spiritual and ethical experiences and traditions whose politics is informed by those experiences and traditions. DFL Atheists are welcome to join. I think that fits this definition.

I studied the civil rights movement as an undergrad and then a graduate student at the University of Michigan. I worked on the Martin Luther King Papers Project at Stanford in grad school, and nearly finished a dissertation about the role young people played in the movement.

So I am quite aware that many of King's inner circle drew from something other than a particular relgious experience or tradition in fighting for civil rights. I don't know the role that religion played in the lives of Bayard Rustin, Stanley Levinson, and Ella Baker, three of King's top aides at different moments. I believe they would've described its role as minimal. But they in many ways contributed as much and more to the movement.

King himself made his appeals using Christian language that was familiar to him and familiar to many across the country (he also worked closely with Abraham Heschel, a prominent Rabbi in the movement), but he also made what we might call more "secular" appeals using the language of the Constitution and other sources. I'd argue his amazing ability to draw on both sources, often in the same breath, was the key to his success in moving the nation.

Kersten's Immaculate Confection

Katherine Kersten is a conservative columnist for Minnesota's newspaper of record, the Star Tribune. Just over a month ago, she penned an article criticizing gay supporters at a famously lefty local Catholic parish. Her article included the following subheading and sentence:

Theology, cafeteria-style

But there is a religious vision that dissents from this cafeteria-style theology.

I don't know Kersten's religion, but I assume that she is Catholic. Why? Well, if you talk to a person of any religious faith and find she dissents with her religion's orthodoxy on at least one point, you then know she's in that cafeteria subcategory. If that person's cafeteria theology occurs under the Catholic rubric, she has earned a Kerstenian sneer.

I am not a Mormon. If I interviewed a self-identified Mormon who explained that he dissented with his church's orthodox teaching on a certain doctrine, it would seem weird to insult him for engaging in 'cafeteria-style theology.' Not being a Mormon myself, I don't hold that being a 100% orthodox Mormon ought to be considered superior to being a 95% believer in that faith's authoritative doctrines--or less, for that matter. As one moves along the spectrum from atheist to 100% Mormon, one is not gaining in the respect of this blogger.

So in suggesting the people at Joan of Arc are practicing cafeteria theology, Kersten is revealing her own religious affiliation--otherwise the epithet makes no sense. Is the pot calling the kettle black--or is Kersten herself truly without a single dissenting viewpoint? To be a cafeteria Catholic, all it takes is a single dissenting viewpoint--it's a word like nonvirgen. Opposing your church's hierarchy on a single doctrinal matter requires the crossing of a philosophical line--a recognition of the dignity of your own status as an individual, with a dislike of being told to believe in positions you reject.

So does Kersten herself affirm a pristinely non-dissenting Catholicism, lacking a single quibble with her church's dogma? Transubstantiation [of which fewer than one in three US Catholics finds credible], a celibate, all-male priesthood, no technologically-enhanced birth control, etc? The recent Pew study [under Beliefs and Practices click on the drop-down and select Catholics] on religious belief in America found such orthodoxy to be quite rare among American Catholics. Self-identified Catholics were asked which of the following two sentences reflected their own viewpoint:

There is only ONE true way to interpret the teachings of my religion [19%]

There is MORE than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion [77%]

In other words, fewer than one in five US Catholics might conceivably fall outside of the cafeteria variety Kersten so disdains.

Not Our 9/11

Traffic fatality -- May 17, 1963 -- Texas

While listening to MPR recently, I learned that a ceremony was to be held to commemorate the 35W bridge collapse. People would be observing a moment of silence; Bodell too advised that we 'take a few minutes today to remember those who died in that tragedy. Then let us work together to make sure it never happens again.'

'On May 2, 2008 the state of Minnesota reached a $38 million agreement to compensate victims of the bridge collapse,' says Wikipedia. The payout was negotiated with the victims' families; in that process, they waived their right to sue. But such a payout should only be required if the disaster was the result of real negligence. It probably wasn't.

503 people died in traffic accidents in Minnesota last year. The transportation system here continues a long-term trend, becoming ever-safer. In 1962--when I was born--the fatality rate on Minnesota roads was more than five times what it is today. Just ask any Minnesota old-timer--back then they were having moments-0f-silence and traffic prayer vigils every other week--entire blogs were devoted to no other topic. And Gov Elmer Andersen was doling out zillions of dollars to compensate victims' families.

But seriously--among our state's 503 road accident victims last year, many were surely no less innocent than those killed by chance on August 1, 2007. Awarding massive compensation to a small minority of the families of the 503 victims (and zilch to the rest) makes little sense, until you factor in the role of the media, which seeks to Oprahize an essentially meaningless, tragic chance event into a civic group hug moment. (Our very Oprahistic Governor enjoys playing the indulgent father from time to time--and never moreso than during the record-breaking 35W bridge episode.) The media need to take the meaningless tragedy and build a civic-uplift dramatic arc around it--a narrative in which every person must play her assigned role. No responsible individual with a Blogger account can be seen failing to remind one and all of their need to devote thoughts and prayers to these favored victims.

Thanks, but I have other plans. Their tragedy is a tragedy--but it is their tragedy.

500-or-so traffic fatalities are going to happen in 2009 whether or not you bow your head today. We should--and do--devote significant resources to reducing the incidence of such accidents ever further. One of the simplest ways to further reduce the fatality rate would be to better educate Minnesotans on the dangers of motorcycling. Since 1997, the use of motorcycles on Minnesota roads has doubled. Most motorcyclists underestimate their risk: The state should remind people that mile-for-mile, your chance of dying is more than five times greater on a motorcycle than in a car.