Kihne on Biden and Abortion

Sheila Kihne is another Eden Prairie blogger. She hurled Guilt Bomb the other day--and I wanted to push back a bit. Kihne praises her childhood priest for shaming her into silence within the church; she believes shame isn't used enough these days. By that Kihne means righties should use shame more against the left; she clearly isn't advising Ashwin Madia to heap more shame upon Erik Paulsen [however easy that might be, rhetorically].

Kihne was building up to a condemnation of Sen. Joseph Biden:

Joe Biden got a little taste of shame himself this week in a letter to the editor written by his Bishop in Wilmington.

Biden had claimed that the Catholic Church 'has wrestled with [the abortion issue] for 2,000 years,' defending a non-dogmatic approach to the issue.

In Bishop Malooly's letter, the cleric responds 'The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate.' That is, of course, nonsense; many people find the Catholic Church's teaching quite debatable--and no less so due to its clarity. Even conservatives such as Kihne seem willing to debate the matter.

Malooly--like many--confuses the Catholic Church's officially-sanctioned dogma with The Catholic Church. In reality, there's a huge difference between what self-identified Catholics believe and what Malooly wants them to believe. More US Catholics support abortion rights than oppose them, for example; Catholics are only very slightly more antiabortion than the society at large.

The diversity of belief among US Catholics is generally underappreciated. Fewer than three-quarters of self-identified US Catholics are certain god exists--for example--and 1% don't believe in god at all. (Yup--approximately 700,000 American Catholics are simultaneously atheists.) About one-third of US Catholics grumble about the crummy God service levels they're experiencing--seldom or never having prayers answered. And about four-fifths of US Catholics believe There is MORE than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion--entirely rejecting orthodoxy of the Maloolian variety, in other words. Indeed, about four-fifths of US Catholics don't even think you need Jesus to get into heaven: They affirm Many religions can lead to eternal life. (Add to that the equally liberal 1% who believe Zero religions can lead to eternal life.)

During his thirty-six-year tenure in the Senate, Joe Biden has not been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. But he's provided some support, and in doing so his bishop has called him out for it. He should feel pride for that--not shame.

Jim Ramstad's Latest Hoax

Ramstad said Madia should forcefully disavow the ads, produced largely by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

**

A mystique builds up around a congressional representative. We ascribe lofty attributes to powerful people. In my lifetime here in CD3, citizens have always respected and deferred a great deal to our congressman. I was nine years old when Bill Frenzel was first elected. (In junior high school we politicos stuck his orange bumper stickers on our notebooks.) Frenzel served for two decades, one term longer than Ramstad. The orange-themed campaign became a tradition among Republican candidates in CD3.

When politicians have been in office for awhile, people assume they know what they're doing--and that they take their public role seriously, in the awareness that a politician's reputation is of the essence: It must be cultivated and on occasion defended. Since reputation is of such importance, a politician is going to think first before announcing a position...you might think.

In CD3, we have two reputational masters-of-the-universe, politically speaking--in Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad. People respect these two men hugely. They believe Frenzel and Ramstad are above the sickening rent-seeking and horse-trading of all of those lesser politicians: Frenzel and Ramstad care deeply and passionately about honesty, honor, integrity and the public weal.

Citizens assume Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad to be honorable gentlemen--high above perpetrating a cheap campaign hoax on the public. So when Frenzel and Ramstad observe a heated congressional campaign and issue a joint statement exclusively condemning the advertisements coming from one side, people assume that they have reviewed all of the campaign's negative advertising, and have determined that one side is disgraceful and one side is blameless.

Alas, that is not the case. I emailed the former and soon-former Congressmen:

Can I ask you to clarify something? Do you mean to say that the the advertising which has attacked Ashwin Madia--some from Erik Paulsen and some from independent groups--has steered entirely clear of 'gutter politics' and 'utter fabrication'? Do you mean to claim your side has refrained from gutter politics?

Tom Hauser of KSTP recently bestowed a dismal D on a recent Paulsen attack. And some of the most objectionable rhetoric has come from your side of the current contest. Does this cause any concern?

I think it would be great were you to release a statement evenhandedly condemning all unfair attacks, while acknowledging some embarrassment concerning your earlier, politicized statement.

Readers know that Jim Ramstad refuses even polite, fair questions from this blogger. But Bill Frenzel did answer. In his response, Frenzel admits he had reviewed none of the Republican attacks on Ashwin Madia.

So any citizen who assumed Ramstad and Frenzel used an ethical, fair process before issuing their statement would be wrong. Furthermore, in writing the Star Tribune's account of the Ramstad/Frenzel statement, Mark Brunswick committed a serious journalistic error in not making clear that their investigation--Frenzel freely admits--could not have been more one-sided.

Jim Ramstad had done the math--and knew he wouldn't be questioned by the perpetually Ramstad-worshipping paper of record. Ramstad knew he could get away with it--that his hoax would be interpreted as 'the wise judgment of an even-handed elder statesman.' Frenzel--the product of another political era--seems genuinely to have not thought through the ethics of participating in such a statement. But as I meant to argue in my penultimate post: In politics, good intentions are secondary.

In issuing their extremely misleading statement, Jim Ramstad was acting with calculation; Bill Frenzel was genuinely duped. But both betrayed poor judgment, recklessly abusing the public's trust in their honor.

Twinwest's Idiotic Endorsement

Endorsements are a load of BS generally. Recently we saw the police issue one of the stupidest endorsements in memory. Before that, we've observed unions issuing bone-headed endorsements. During the current contest, some friends have also been zinged here for issuing silly endorsements.

Well, dumb endorsements continue:

Twinwest Chamber of Commerce organized a lavish debate on Aug. 21, extorting $35 for tickets. On Sept. 25, they issued their endorsement--for Erik Paulsen. Twinwest's endorsement statement is pure political BS: It identifies no issue position separating the candidates, it lists not a single fact learned during the debate nor does it identify one meaningful biographical distinction among the candidates--other than a false distinction: It says Paulsen is to be preferred for his business experience. (David Dillon's business experience certainly dwarfs Paulsen's.) Holding the debate was simply window-dressing for Twinwest; this endorsement is a sham.

In evaluating the three candidates, Twinwest admits it didn't weigh each on his merits. It took into account--as Twinwest says--electability. So Twinwest wanted to endorse David Dillon, but saw Erik Paulsen as the only person who could prevent Ashwin Madia from winning. What other thing could Twinwest mean when using electability to defend this dumb endorsement?

The Eden Prairie News has issued a surprisingly shallow endorsement for Erik Paulsen.

Thankfully, the Strib has decided against issuing any endorsement in the CD3 fight.

Sincerity is Overrated

One frequently hears people praising Candidate X because she's sincere. I heard one candidate for federal office recently disparage Al Franken because he's not nice. And I thought: Claims about people's sincerity or niceness are extremely subjective, freighted with posturing--and in a way unimportant.

In many areas of social life, the incentive to dissemble about what one believes or wants is so overwhelming it's a wonder anything truthful ever gets said by anyone. (To say nothing about the additional complication brought in by people's confusion over what they really believe, and how we prioritize our shifting allegiances.)

David Runciman lectures on political theory at Cambridge University and published Political Hypocrisy in April of this year. In September, Will Wilkinson interviewed Runciman on Bloggingheads.

Runciman argues that Thomas Hobbes is our greatest teacher on political hypocrisy. In explaining Hobbes' position, Runciman says [my paraphrase] that all public identities are riddled with dissembling--that there is no non-hypocritical terrain available to the fledgling politician. Playing 'hunt the hypocrite'--finding some minor contradiction within a politicians various statements--is a recipe for making political life worse, not better. We have to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable forms of hypocrisy, Runciman/Hobbes might argue. Runciman says:

Hobbes is not calling for full disclosure, truthfulness, accuracy—Hobbes, of all people, wasn’t saying that to rule a state was to expose everything you do to anyone who’s interested. He’s not pushing the whole way to the anti-hypocrisy of complete openness or honesty in any aspect of political life. But what he’s arguing against is the hypocrisy of people who draw a veil over—not the specific day-to-day details of political life—but its foundations in principle. Hobbes thinks that one way you can be a hypocrite in politics is to put too much weight on personal sincerity. Hobbes doesn’t want a politician to tell you everything they do during the day—but he does want politicians who do not pretend that in politics pleas of conviction and sincerity trump other kinds of arguments. That, for Hobbes, is political hypocrisy.

For Hobbes, it doesn’t matter whether [political actors] are sincere or not. For Hobbes, you can be genuinely sincere—you can believe god speaks to you, you can believe you are acting on the basis of convictions that run all the way through your heart—and yet you can still be a political hypocrite, not because of the sincerity of your convictions, but you ought to know, that in politics sincerity is not what counts. What counts are results.

[that's my somewhat speedily-typed transcription of Runciman speaking]

Card Check etc

Close listeners at last night's debate in Edina may recall David Dillon referring to EFCA, Ashwin Madia...and a certain blogger. Let me clarify a bit.

During a campaign candidates voice bold certainties on a host of topics--as Dillon, Madia and Paulsen have. On occasion, all have likely voiced commitments they don't strongly feel--that's the political world. They each have, on occasion, sought to hide some of their actual opinions, as people do.

The One Hundred Eleventh Congress will almost certainly pass EFCA again, in 2009. Opponents of EFCA's passage are banking on the Senate to stop it--so it would not be a sensible issue upon which to base one's vote for House, imho. Ashwin Madia has long voiced support for EFCA.

Over the course of the campaign, Republicans and MNIPfolk have often alleged that Ashwin supports EFCA due to the 'special interest money' dangled in front of him by unions. In fact, union money was of secondary importance. Madia participated in a ferocious intraparty battle for the DFL endorsement--which he locked up on April 12, 2008. Had Madia failed to support EFCA, he wouldn't have got the nomination. Simple as that.

So Madia's support for EFCA wasn't quite a free choice act; it was a Hobson's choice. Don't get me wrong--overall, Ashwin Madia and Terri Bonoff's tough internecine combat benefited Ashwin-the-candidate immensely, by ratcheting up grassroots interest and by honing the raspy, shy advocate into the formidable candidate we see today. If that education saddled Madia with one minor [unpopular] position, that's life in the big city.

During the campaign, Madia hasn't shown passion on EFCA. He's argued that it has been mischaracterized by the opponents of organized labor--and then he pivots away from the matter entirely, saying that CD3 residents care more about other issues. A good sign, I think.

On EFCA, David Dillon and Erik Paulsen have not elevated the discussion. They grandstand the issue as if it constituted trading the Constitution for Mao's Little Red Book, looking at the proposal through an entirely moralistic lens. It would have been great had Paulsen and Dillon attempted a rational discussion on the likely practical effects of EFCA--and acknowledged that it will pass the next congress under any realistic scenario.

Madia is far less wed to a rigid ideological worldview than his GOP opponent. Personally, Madia is vastly more curious and social than Paulsen--who refuses nearly any interaction with critics. As a practical matter, Madia is smart enough to realize that this district isn't looking for an Ellison/McCollum clone--and dissenting with DFL orthodoxy, on occasion, will only solidify the esteem in which his constituents hold him.

David, Ashwin and Erik meet in Edina

Debate Minnesota held the last of the CD3 debates this evening, at Edina High School--your blogger's alma mater. David Dillon, Ashwin Madia and Erik Paulsen approached the event with somewhat updated deliveries--and a number of oft-heard lines. Moderators Steve Berg and Greg Huff started off this episode with the expected formulaic homily [on the elder statespeople's horror at the negative campaigning on display]. Yawn... A few observations:

David Dillon--the straight-talkin' anti-BS CEO--opens blasting partisan politics and special interest money as being at the core of our current woes. Partisan politics simply isn't going to go away anytime soon; basing a candidacy on opposing it doesn't add up. (Join a major party and try to make it support sensible policies, I say.) But campaigning to end partisan politics is really quite pie-in-the-sky, coming from the Rick Blaine character.

Dillon doesn't appear to be seriously seeking to win, as I've noted--though he clearly doesn't seek to hand the election to either Ash or Erik--even as I maintain that deep down, he does prefer one to the other.

Ashwin Madia's constant subtext is honor--and he's making use of this tone with greater fluidity than ever. As he has throughout the campaign, he's engaging in a radically different form of public speaking than any of the other men on the stage--employing an understated plea to the listener's conscience.

Erik Paulsen speaks slowly this evening, essentially reading his opening statement (which he hasn't entirely committed to memory), while making eye contact with every single audience member, looking there and then here and then over there, etc. Paulsen's delivery tonight is entirely managerial in tone. Normative questions have been solved, in Paulsen's mind; his campaign is merely a value-neutral effort to impose sound business practices upon a cacophonous assembly of [mainly] non-Lutherans. This evening Paulsen gestures often, with slow-sweeping hands/arms. His head moves up and down; his brow furrows. When listening to others, he has a hunched, neutral posture. He's the adult candidate; he is without an emotional life. At one point he refers to 'my opponent,' when sitting alongside two challengers.

Madia is advocating democratic solutions (entailing reciprocity and social interaction) in contrast to Erik Paulsen's Stephen Coveyesque deus ex machina. Paulsen invokes his beloved Congress is broken and I want to fix it; delivered in squinting math-major monotone. Paulsen--in some ways the most Ralph Reed-like candidate we've seen in some time [among GOP nominees for CD3]--has proved to be the candidate least adept at igniting any deep buy-in among supporters. Rep. Paulsen is not asking you to put on a uniform to join him in marching into the hills. He's asking for you to hire him as your middle manager.

Many Madia signs were waved outside the event, as usual. Among the 300 attendees, Madia t-shirts vastly outnumbered Paulsen shirts. Overall, the audience leaned Madia.

Questions took the candidates through the standard territories: Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran, EFCA, immigration, education, the financial crisis, energy, health care, budget-cutting and biography/district ties. All quite fun to listen to--and with considerable good humor--but not a great deal of new substance if you've been listening to these guys for months. Paulsen--the last concluder--ends with a surprise left-hook on taxation, when he knew his opponents would have no opportunity for rebuttal.

Crunch Time for Dillonistas

The MNIP's CD3 Candidate, David Dillon

Over the course of the campaign, I've come to like and respect two-thirds of our CD3 congressional candidates. In a district whose last non-Republican representative, Roy Wier, was a veteran of WW1, it seemed essential that everyone opposed Erik Paulsen's far-right politics unite around one alternative.

David Dillon had another idea, putting himself forward as a third way. It turns out he has not raised anywhere near the $500k he prophesied--when we first met in January--and the actual cost of putting up a competitive challenge to Madia/Paulsen has been revealed to be vastly higher than anyone predicted.

Dillon spoke at the Humphrey Institute four days ago, before the KSTP debate--and as much as admitted he has no chance of winning. Let me reiterate: I like and respect David Dillon. Had things turned out differently--and he was now running neck-and-neck against Erik Paulsen, with Ashwin Madia down in single digits--I would be advising Democrats to support Dillon on November 4. If Dillon then won, I'd feel confident we'd have a great representative working for us in Washington for the next two years. When running into a fellow political junkie, I'd be proud to tell them David Dillon was my Congressman.

But it didn't shake out that way. And now there's precisely one alternative to Erik Paulsen in the current race--David Dillon himself admits as much.

A Dillon supporter might honestly retort: 'But we're indifferent between Erik Paulsen and Ashwin Madia. If David Dillon can't win this thing, we don't care who gets it.'

Fine--though I'd hasten to point out that your candidate doesn't agree with you. David Dillon would strongly prefer Madia to Paulsen. When I told Dillon of his opinion, he didn't directly challenge my clairvoyance; he just said he 'wouldn't go there'.

Dillon is genuinely in the middle of Madia and Paulsen, ideologically. So why would Dillon strongly prefer Madia to Paulsen?

Throughout the campaign, Madia has spoken with great passion about his revulsion for the federal deficit: He's constantly promised he'll represent the district as a deficit hawk. Yes, Madia has made some big-spending promises too--and Madia had no option other than to support EFCA. (Had Madia opposed EFCA, Terri Bonoff would now be the CD3 DFL candidate.) If elected, Madia could well choose to govern as a budget balancer.

But there's another reason David Dillon would vastly prefer Ashwin Madia to Erik Paulsen: biography. As a successful entrepreneur, Dillon deeply admires the sensible, ballsy risk-taking of Ashwin Madia. And Dillon disdains the clock-watching careerism and humdrum humorlessness of Erik Paulsen.

So while I like David Dillon, reality bites: He doesn't stand a chance of winning. (If you disagree, please email me suggesting a $100 wager; we can arrange something.) There's a huge difference between Ashwin Madia and Erik Paulsen. So please Dillonistas: It's not too late. Put on a blue t-shirt.

Esquire's Endorsement, etc.

Michael Brodkorb finds Esquire's endorsement of Norm Coleman worthy of a blogpost, so I took a look. Never having gone through an Esquire phase, I have no sense for that magazine's politics. The editorial line at Esquire reveals itself as 'stupid.' John Kline gets the Esquire nod; Kline 'fits his district,' just as Betty McCollum does hers...though Franken should be rejected since he's 'a knee-jerk partisan...' This is a 'politics' for people who haven't given politics a moment's thought.

And I'm sick and tired of every CD3 candidate having to be the real heir to Jim Ramstad--as Esquire tells us Ashwin Madia is. (Madia has many virtues; who cares whether he's Ramstadish or not?) During Geoff Michel's recent 17-minute self-immolation several weeks ago, he described Ramstad as being 'a titan' in the House of Representatives. In fact, Ramstad will be forgotten by spring, in the House. After almost two decades in office, the non-partisan Congress.org ranks Ramstad the 203rd most powerful member--right smack in the middle. Ramstad will be remembered as one of the best-dressed, least interesting Reps of his era--a man who enjoyed a neverending love affair with the media--while making no effort to build an effective moderate wing within his party. A vain failure, in short.

If Erik Paulsen loses, he will lose because he has failed to inspire. His own supporters can point to no courage or honor narrative. He's the stereotypical teacher's pet: Paulsen waited in line to run for Congress for more than a decade--he's a dull clock-watcher. Ashwin Madia took on his own party's establishment in a manner so shocking that observers had difficulty acknowledging what they were seeing: Out of nowhere, the rank-and-file found a voice that inspired. And the rank-and-file showed determination and moxie in rejecting the know-it-all advice from on high--and following their gut with Madia.

Having neglected--in a stodgy political career and in a somnambulant adulthood--to author a compelling autobiography, Paulsen thrust his daughter to the fore, in the hope his 12-year-old could fill the void where 'candidate identity' is supposed to go.

Please, Ashwin Madia, win.

Saturday Update

Today I went to an event billed as the Long Lake Victory Office Grand Opening, which was held here. Jim Ramstad was a no-show; someone said this was due to his father's ill health. (We wish him well.) The front door was open and the activists were assembled in the back room. Erik Paulsen was in the bull session, as people were taking turns pepping up the 30 activists. Brian Grogan gave his anti-John Benson talk, followed by Jeff Johnson and others. A man named Bill spoke as a Minnesotan now living in Colorado--and how all kinds of Democrats there are going to vote for McCain/Palin. He listed a number of reasons, among them, 'Some people just aren't going to vote for a black man for President.' Bill assured everyone that Obama will need an 18 point lead in the national polls to squeak by with a victory, apparently alluding to the Bradley Effect. As with Ron Carey and Geoff Michel, the rhetoric had a certain plausible-deniability built in, but it was obvious that to many Republican activists, benefiting from lingering racial prejudice is okay. (Carey/Michel were worse, in that they actually sought to massage and legitimize the he's-not-one-of-us meme.) Somewhat to his credit, Paulsen did not applaud when Bill finished speaking. (Though no one cared to express regret about Bill's observation--that [to paraphrase] racism is helping our candidate, and that's okay, since we're not racists.)

I was standing on the outside of the room. Paulsen exited; I took the photo above as he was heading off, while he faux-grumpily muttered 'Always!' When I returned, I got thrown out by the Republicans, as is pretty typical. They send observers and videographers to every DFL event, but they go ballistic when a non-Republican tries to observe their events...

**

The KSTP debate last night was good. There's plenty of BS coming from both Paulsen and Madia, at this point, of course. Behind all of the flying mud, I still think Ashwin makes the more hope-filled appeal, with Erik making a less-agreeable, fear-based argument. Perhaps after the weekend I'll be able to comment further on the debate.

We ought not elect Erik Paulsen

Erik Paulsen Speaks at the HHH Institute

Erik Paulsen arrives at the Humph this afternoon
with Communications Director Stacey Johnson

It was Erik Paulsen's turn to present at the Humphrey Institute today. The GOP candidate attracted an audience much smaller than the one which came to see Ashwin Madia yesterday.

The event starts a bit late, with Lawrence Jacobs introducing Paulsen. Paulsen presents himself as a non-ideologue moderate-conservative, using his frequent line 'Congress is broken and I want to fix it.' He has slides underscoring key points; he puts in a serviceable performance, without any serious mistakes.

He talks at some length about the dangers of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. He wants to reduce the corporate income tax and simplify the US tax code. Paulsen wants to promote competitiveness by emphasizing science, technology, engineering and math education. His entire interest in China and India, he again makes clear, is as trading partners.

After Paulsen's talk, he sits down with Lawrence Jacobs for what amounts to a public interview.

Paulsen criticizes members of Congress of both parties for failing to maintain fiscal restraint. He criticizes John McCain's recent $300 b proposal for solving the financial crisis. Throughout the discussion of the financial meltdown, Paulsen emphasizes his pragmatism and resistance to excessive government involvement in resolving the problem.

He supports free trade and finds it 'a travesty' that the USA-Colombia FTA was not passed by Congress in 2008, 'with the world being flat now.'

He mentions his concerns as the father of four on occasion; at one point he refers to having grown up 'a good, German Lutheran.'

**

Paulsen has come out in favor of a proposed Balanced Budget Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

I was sitting in the front row; when the interview is finished, I ask Paulsen if he supports any other constitutional amendments (beyond the two just mentioned). Do you agree with Jim Ramstad--that we need a Flag Desecration Amendment? Would you support an amendment banning abortion? Paulsen reiterates his support for the Budget and Marriage amendments, but won't state clearly any position on Flag or Abortion. Then I see he's reminding himself Never Acknowledge Sullivan and I abruptly disintegrate in the candidate's field of vision; my words no longer come out in English. Logically, it couldn't make much sense--given Paulsen's voting record--to oppose an antiabortion amendment.

To the extent that the current CD3 election is a referendum on Erik Paulsen, much of the chatter concerns how conservative is he? If you take him at his word, he's a pragmatic, low-tax, economic-growth-focused competitiveness wonk.

On the other hand, he received a 100% rating for six consecutive years from Minnesota's leading antiabortion lobby and opposes stem cell research. (A state representative with a similar rating sees benefit in statutorily equating abortion with homicide.) He wants to write restrictions on gay rights into the US Constitution. His campaign orchestrated some disturbing attacks on his DFL opponent. In addition, Paulsen is a leader in a church which teaches that if you're not a creationist, you're not a Christian--and that Catholicism is a form of satanism. So many people just can't take Paulsen's claim--that he's a post-ideological problem-solver--seriously.

A good deal of personality gets suffused in conflicts such as Paulsen-Madia. Paulsen exudes a business executive's persona. He has almost no sense of humor. For a smart, well-educated, presentable early-40s suburban dad, it's surprising how little affection or excitement he can inspire. The Ramstadian back-slapping friendly gruffness has not rubbed off. (Paulsen was a math major at St. Olaf, lest we forget.) While he's comfortable speaking at the lectern, he cannot tell an anecdote or establish any warmth with his audience, nor does he give evidence of knowing sports. Those boardroom business suits strengthen our perception of his aloofness.

On the way into this afternoon's talk, Paulsen runs into Steve Kelley, calling out to him and sharing a self-confident handclasp. Momentarily one could see a personable Paulsen, opening up briefly to a fellow insider.

With just a few dozen people in the room, afterward I ask the entirely pleasant Larry Jacobs why he insists questions have to be submitted to proctors and then delivered to him for approval. It has to be done that way because the event is being recorded and there is no way questioners' voices can be recorded audibly, he explains. And people will speechify discordantly [if allowed to ask questions without benefit of his full mediation].

So those are the reasons he deems it necessary to have total personal control over the Q&A portion of these candidate events. He bristles at the notion of allowing attendees uncensored access to the mics--he tells me he wouldn't be associated with such an event. And he insists that his questioning today and yesterday was legitimately prodding and aggressive--he tells me to read the transcript and I will then be able to perceive the subtle aggressiveness hidden within his apparent deference.

That's just standard bureaucratic fertilizer, of course. It's a lesson in political science which the Humphrey Institutes' students are failing miserably--by allowing such a practice to continue. When I was in school, there is no way we would stand for such a thing.

Ashwin Madia Presents at HHH Institue

Ashwin Madia spoke at the Humphrey Institute today. (MN Daily story here.) I caught the tail end of his PowerPoint presentation, which was good. I hadn't previously heard him go into such detail on the need for reducing oil consumption in the US. Most of the rest--both in his talk and in the moderated Q&A that followed--adhered to the oft-heard Ashscript. The almost-full-house (75 or so?) appeared to be primarily Humphrey Institute grad students.

Disappointing that within such a small crowd, they require people to write down their questions and then submit them to the moderator, Larry Jacobs. This discourages aggressive questioning. I peg the crowd for young liberal policy wonks; the Q&A is soporific. I'm pretty sure they liked Ash; I had to leave before it was finished.

Erik Paulsen's Ashcam

Going All Negative

Paulsen, Dillon and Madia -- file photo

The CD3 congressional candidates met for a brief debate on Twin Cities Public Television the other day. (Click on Third District Debate Live!) The debate was a clear Madia victory.

The MSM has been reporting recently about the negative attacks in the CD3 contest. Outside money has been pouring in, mainly tarnishing Erik Paulsen's name with bullshit accusations. Why can't we do like our noble Senator, and forswear negativity?

On the other hand, Erik Paulsen engineered a coded racist attack against Ashwin Madia.

In other words, both sides went negative, but Erik Paulsen went a lot negativer. Paulsen's filthy smear was so disgusting mainstream journalists (such as Mary Lahammer and Erik Eskola) couldn't consciously ponder it. But the attacks against Paulsen (on behalf of the Madia candidacy) weren't as shocking, so the MSM deemed them mentionable on the public airwaves.

That put the DFL candidate in the hot seat in Friday's debate. Ashwin Madia is asked to defend the independent attack ads. Madia gives the standard BS line [that candidates give in such situations]: He condemns unfair attacks against Erik Paulsen but regrets he has no control over the advertising put on by outside organizations.

David Dillon chimes in with naive good-governmentism: 'I think we've reached a new low in Minnesota politics. I'm embarrassed for both of you.' Dillon tells Madia that after one particularly egregious anti-Paulsen ad ran, Ashwin should have called the group and told them to pull the ad. So Dillon is also giving Paulsen a free pass.

Paulsen then chides Madia for failing to contact the independent group requesting that the ads stop. 'If you had the right moral standards, you would make that phone call.'

Were you Ashwin Madia, what would you do? Would you make a serious effort to end the scurrilous anti-Erik ads, or would you earnestly--though not too earnestly--condemn them, allowing them to continue?

Were I Madia, I'd cry crocodile tears over the ads, and allow them to continue, just as the candidate is in fact doing. With the Paulsen-orchestrated he's-not-one-of-us attack confirming long-held suspicions about Erik Paulsen's character, the Democrat would be a fool to adopt a unilateralist approach to political purity.

Late in the TPT debate, Lahammer--carrying water for Paulsen--rephrases the Michel-Carey attack in sanitized form; Paulsen's he's-not-one-of-us attack against Madia isn't even presented as 'an attack.' Sadly, Dillon uses the question to promote his own candidacy. Paulsen lies, claiming Geoff Michel and Ron Carey acted without coordination with Team Paulsen. Remember:

1) The word carpetbagger was supplied to Geoff Michel by Erik Paulsen.
2) The accusation concerning Madia using his parents' address on his affidavit of candidacy was supplied to Geoff Michel by Erik Paulsen.

So Lahammer instructs us to consider he's-not-one-of-us a minor though legitimate line of questioning and Paulsen is allowed to deny he's even behind it. Bigotry gets a free pass.

Geoff Michel Advises on Civility

This evening Edina's state senator Geoff Michel spoke at Bethlehem Lutheran Church in South Minneapolis on Bridging the Partisan Divide, attracting about fifteen people. Michel spoke informally and distributed copies of Terri Bonoff and his recent Strib op-ed.

I was more interested in exploring some of Michel's thoughts on Madia-Paulsen. Michel had just delivered a 17-minute talk on September 30, firing cheap shot after cheap shot against Ashwin Madia under the guise of expressing sadness over the ads which have been airing. Michel's September talk was a coded attack, in which the state senator ruminated on whether Madia is really capable of 'feeling what my family feels' because he is not 'grounded in the suburbs'. Voters--Michel announced--'want to know what's in your background.' Get it?

Aware just how close he was coming to garden-variety bigotry, Michel gussied up his speech with supposedly non-racial attacks--about Ashwin's childlessness, bachelorhood or tax history. But the message rang through: Madia is not one of us.

During his anti-Madia diatribe, Michel claimed to know that Ashwin Madia had never owned a home. This opposition research (however irrelevent) had apparently been handed to Michel by Erik Paulsen, unless you think it likely that Michel himself ran a background check on Madia. Whatever the outrages of the DCCC's attacks on Paulsen, none come close to the Erik Paulsen-authored bigotry of Geoff Michel's Sept. 30 speech.

Were his carpetbagging accusation against Madia factually accurate [it's not], it would be dishonest for Geoff Michel to claim he cares. Michel supports John McCain for President. McCain hadn't resided one day in AZ's CD1 on the day in 1982 when he decided to seek that seat; Michel freely acknowledged this evening he couldn't care less.

During his September talk, Michel was reading from a script handed to him by Paulsen for Congress; while lobbing his Paulsen-authored carpetbagger attack on Madia, Michel freely admitted he didn't know either the meaning or origin of the word. Michel then attacked Madia for putting down his parents' address on his affidavit of candidacy. (And perhaps that was the case, somewhere, though why anyone should care is beyond me.) Again reading from Erik Paulsen's cue card, Michel claimed that Ashwin Madia was the only person filing for office in Minnesota in 2008 using his parents' address.

So Sen. Geoff Michel was apparently claiming to have sifted through more than two hundred candidates' names here--and then verifying that no address listed on any candidate's affidavit was that of the candidate's parents. Someone in the room asked Michel if he really knew that to be a fact--and Michel gestured toward his Paulsen for Congress handlers and said 'There are people here who know it to be true.'

This evening Michel reaffirmed he does not know anything about the origin of the word carpetbagger.

Carpetbaggers were antislavery northerners who controlled the former Confederacy in the decade following the Civil War, before white racists regained control of Dixie. (The initial impetus behind the KKK was in large part to attack carpetbaggers.) So while readers of this blog ought to be aware that Ashwin Madia has an entirely legitimate biographical connection to CD3, they should also know that the actual carpetbaggers were mostly honorable--and that those pleased with the result of the Civil War ought not use carpetbagger as a pejorative. It is sad that Geoff Michel is so ignorant.

During the talk the St. Olaf grad repeatedly says he 'is blessed' to represent SD41 in the state senate. Michel also reminds us that he's just dropped off his brood at Christ Presbyterian for religious instruction. I wish Michel could imagine why some might take issue with his self-perceived blessedness. Is he suggesting that the Almighty anointed him Edina's spokesman in the Minnesota state senate? (Perhaps the Borenes' tribulations were part of Jesus' script.)

another St. Olaf grad--and Ellen Erdahl

In the audience this evening were Arlen and Ellen Erdahl. Arlen Erdahl represented CD1 for two terms in the US House of Representatives during the 1980s. We chatted for awhile after the Michel talk; the Erdahls are very nice and aren't particularly enamored of their current congressional representative. I mentioned to Arlen how Geoff Michel's repeated 'I am blessed' sentences grated on me. Erdahl understood my point, but having a sunny disposition, he said my interpretation didn't immediately occur to him, as he listened to Michel speak.

I pressed Erdahl: 'But when you were in politics, you wouldn't have spoken like that, right?' And the religious-but-not-sanctimonious ex-Congressman admitted it: 'No, I wouldn't.'

**

A hat tip to Lloydletta for bringing this evening's event to my attention.

Paulsen "The Internationalist"

Erik Paulsen at the JCRC Debate in Minnetonka

Projecting an image of intellectual curiosity can benefit an aspiring politician. When such a person makes claims to being interested in the wider world, we should ask whether the person is serious--or simply striking a pose for the gullible.

Erik Paulsen takes considerable pride in his love of travel and interest in foreign countries and cultures. This is of particular interest now, since he's that odd public figure who shuns interaction with the opposition, no matter how polite. An enigma indeed, Paulsen: A person with zero curiosity concerning the battle of ideas within his chosen realm--the political world--claims great open-mindedness with regard to the wider world. Could it be so?

In the past week, two Erik Paulsen surrogates have spoken out on their candidate's behalf--with Paulsen staffers present--in an attempt to stir up provincialism and bigotry in the service of their candidate's electoral success.

So, deep down, is Paulsen someone who takes a sensible multiculturalism seriously? Or would it be more accurate to think of him as Chanhassen's Lester Maddox, as Ron Carey and Geoff Michel have inadvertently suggested?

Is the real Erik Paulsen a tolerant, multiculti St. Olaf global citizen--who only rarely employs bigotry, when his pollster tells him he's in trouble? Or is Paulsen's claim to internationalism an easily-dispelled hoax?

Fortunately, in this case we have good, hard evidence--in the candidate's own handwriting:

Last year, Erik Paulsen maintained a blog which he titled Paulsen's Travelogue. In it, he describes his travels in China and India in late 2007.

While traveling in the world's two most populous, ancient nations, Paulsen does not experience a single interesting thought:

When I saw China for the first time that year, my initial reaction was “Wow!” – there was so much development and activity evident everywhere.

He does not describe any interesting interaction with anyone, nor does he engage in any introspection of his own. He makes no attempt at probing beyond superficiality. At one point he encounters a group of the very poor--people who subsist on less than $2/day. Paulsen makes no attempt at interviewing any one such person or listening to such a person's story. (He identifies exclusively with yuppies.) Paulsen's travelogue includes many lists of economic statistics and gee whiz statements about the economic growth he observes. But Erik Paulsen expresses nothing but the most antiseptic 'curiosity.' He takes no interest in the day-to-day lives of the Chinese or Indians. He never asks anyone about their opinion of the United States, about their hopes, dreams, pastimes or troubles. It does not occur to Paulsen that average Indians or Chinese might feel ambivalence--perhaps even some dissatisfaction--concerning the current historical moment, or the global order. Paulsen accepts the most superficial drivel his blue-ribbon hosts spoon-feed him, and then he moves on. He does not establish a single personal connection during the entire sojourn.

Calling Erik Paulsen 'an internationalist' would be similar to mistaking Geoff Michel for Abraham Lincoln. It's bullshit.

Barkley Tilts Senate Debate To Franken's Benefit

Dean Barkley, Norm Coleman and Al Franken in Rochester

I attended the US Senate candidates debate in Rochester this evening. 850 others also showed up for the event. The Strib's Pat Lopez give a good straight-news account of the proceeding here. The entire debate may be viewed on The Uptake.

We're in that phase of the calendar in which assessments of the opposing candidate and the problems facing the country get compressed into sweeping one- or two-sentence solutions. The pressure to be political is never as high as it is during the final month of a grueling political campaign. There's plenty of muck flowing in both directions between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. In entering a three-person debate, the role of the MNIP candidate can have a huge effect.

Dean Barkley won't be able to rise into serious-contender numbers. He has very little money, he isn't on television and he doesn't exude charisma. Dean is a likable guy and he injected humor and a less focus-grouped personality into tonight's mix. If either Franken or Coleman concluded that Barkley's presence was eating disproportionately into his own turnout, he could unleash some anti-Barkley ads--and it would be quite easy to come up with some effective ones. (The isolationist Barkley favors reducing the drinking age and legalizing drugs, for example, both of which could be turned into scary ads.)

Dean didn't arrive at this evening's debate determined to hammer Coleman and go easy on Franken--though in fact that's what he did. And that had a huge effect on the overall tone of the debate. Franken and Barkley were in effect tag-teaming against Coleman. And just when an independent viewer might have started viewing Franken as 'being political,' the plain-spoken guy would nail Coleman ten times harder.

Few voting-age Minnesotans will ever watch this evening's debate, in full. Most of those who learn anything about this evening's confrontation will get their info from the Strib or from local television. But Norm Coleman didn't get any traction out of this debate. And I think Franken benefits a lot from Barkley's slugging, as people conclude that Barkley is correct--Coleman is George W Bush--but don't want to waste their vote on a non-contender.

It's been quite interesting seeing how the financial bailout has been playing out politically. Ashwin Madia supported the first proposal, while Erik Paulsen opposed it. On round #2, Paulsen came out in favor of the plan. So Paulsen duplicated Ramstad's voting pattern, leaving Madia looking good. In CD1, both DFL incumbent Tim Walz and GOP challenger Brian Davis oppose the bailout.

Statewide, the bailout likely polls poorly. Franken has come out against it; Coleman supported it. Barkley had already derided Coleman's job performance repeatedly, but late in the debate Barkley smote Coleman for having committed two trillion-dollar mistakes: The Iraq War and the bailout. Franken's position on this issue--whether sincere or not--is politically opportune and prevents Barkley from gaining traction. (I happen to think Ashwin's position is the more responsible one, though I'll cop to not being entirely au fait on the matter.)

**

Someone asked, so I should mention: At yesterday's Plymouth parade, the Paulsen contingent was a bit larger and brasher than the Madia flock. (Team Madia is projecting great confidence, just the same, with a hint or two that internal polling numbers have been coming back favorably.) It seemed improper that a police car would precede the Erik Paulsen flotilla, without equal treatment for the Madia folks. The Coleman group was much larger and noisier than the Franken group. I saw no David Dillon presence at the Plymouth parade, which indicates resignation. (Sen Terri Bonoff was away at a conference but Team Bonoff [for SD43]--not even up for election in 2008--still managed to field a fully-respectable entry in the Plymouth parade.)

When approaching a Madia-Paulsen debate venue, Team Madia absolutely crushes Team Paulsen in signage and people; Madia has a passionate activist army. Frankenistas don't outclass Colemanites in a similar manner. The excitement level in Madia-Paulsen--among activists--is greater than in Franken-Coleman. As much as libs disdain Norm Coleman, Erik Paulsen is igniting new dimensions of disgust among anti-Nixonion suburbanites.