Blog of the Moderate Left

Why Dayton Won

By Jeff Fecke | August 12, 2010

I think Spot has gotten to the nub of it:

Having the money to have access to the airwaves obviously helped Mark Dayton. But it wouldn’t have mattered at all if he didn’t have a message that resonated with DFL voters.

That’s very important to understand, because I absolutely believe Dayton wan his party’s endorsement because he spoke to the voters who would decide it — DFL voters. His ads focused on issues — support for seniors, support for schools — and remained resolutely on-point. He expressed a worldview that struck a chord with Democratic voters. My mom voted for Dayton, and told me flatly that Dayton “stood for what she believed,” and that she appreciated that.

I know I keep harping on it, but I truly believe Kelliher lost the nomination when she decided to target Matt Entenza for his opposition to No Child Left Behind. NCLB has been a disaster, under both Bush and Obama. And nobody knows this more than teachers and parents. I’m quite willing to pay more in taxes so that my daughter’s teachers can focus on teaching her to think, rather than teaching her how to take high-stakes tests.

Kelliher’s attack on Entenza ultimately hurt her a lot more than it hurt Entenza. My mom’s a public school principal, and spent decades as a public school teacher. Kelliher was endorsed by Education Minnesota, and my mom was very willing to vote for her, before she came out in favor of NCLB. Once she did, however, my mom was done with her. How many more educators and parents throughout the state did just as my mom did? How many more educators and parents said, “Well, if she’s going to support that, I can’t support her?” 4,000? I think so.

Kelliher lost because she was trying to run a general election campaign. Dayton wasn’t — he was focused on the primary. And he presented himself as a defender of DFL values. Ultimately, as a Democrat, I want to be represented by a Democrat on the ballot. I voted for Kelliher — but I seriously considered Dayton for the same reason that my parents ultimately voted for him. If Kelliher was willing to compromise on NCLB, what other issues was she willing to back down on in the name of a balanced approach?

Dayton, for good or ill, is standing for a mainstream DFL agenda. I can respect that. And I understand why he won. Quite frankly, he deserved to. And if the best the GOP can do is to rehash Dayton’s admittedly uneven senate career — a career that Dayton has admitted coincided with a relapse into alcoholism — well, I think he’ll deserve to win in November, too.

Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton | 5 Comments »

The Failure of the Caucus System

By Jeff Fecke | August 11, 2010

So last night, Democrats got together to choose a candidate to try to win back the governor’s mansion. And once again, the candidate chosen was not the candidate that the party endorsed at its convention.

This is nothing new. DFLers have turned their back on their party’s endorsee routinely over the years, and when they haven’t, the electorate as a whole has. No DFL endorsee has won the governor’s race since Rudy Perpich in 1986, and no non-incumbent DFL endorsee has won the governor’s race since Wendell Anderson did it in 1970 — a futility streak that spans 40 years, and now will reach 44.

Really, it’s even more stark in visual form:

Year	Party Endorsee	Primary Winner	Elected Governor
2010	Margaret Anderson Kelliher	Mark Dayton	TBD
2006	Mike Hatch	Mike Hatch	Tim Pawlenty (I)
2002	Roger Moe	Roger Moe	Tim Pawlenty
1998	Mike Freeman	Skip Humphrey	Jesse Ventura
1994	John Marty	John Marty	Arne Carlson (I)
1990	Rudy Perpich (I)	Rudy Perpich (I)	Arne Carlson
1986	Rudy Perpich (I)	Rudy Perpich (I)	Rudy Perpich (I)
1982	Warren Spannaus	Rudy Perpich	Rudy Perpich
1978	Rudy Perpich (I)	Rudy Perpich (I)	Al Quie
1974	Wendell Anderson (I)	Wendell Anderson (I)	Wendell Anderson (I)
1970	Wendell Anderson	Wendell Anderson	Wendell Anderson
1966	A.M. “Sandy” Keith	Karl Rolvaag (I)	Harold LeVander
1962	Karl Rolvaag	Karl Rolvaag	Karl Rolvaag
1960	Orville Freeman (I)	Orville Freeman (I)	Elmer Andersen
1958	Orville Freeman (I)	Orville Freeman (I)	Orville Freeman (I)
1956	Orville Freeman (I)	Orville Freeman (I)	Orville Freeman (I)
1954	Orville Freeman	Orville Freeman	Orville Freeman
1952	Orville Freeman	Orville Freeman	C. Elmer Anderson
1950	Harry Peterson	Harry Peterson	Luther Youngdahl (I)
1948	Charles Halstad	Charles Halstad	Luther Youngdahl (I)
1946	Harold Barker	Harold Barker	Luther Youngdahl
1944	Byron Allen	Byron Allen	Edward John Thye

It’s quite remarkable, the inability of the DFL convention to produce a governor who wasn’t already a sitting governor. The Republicans have done so as recently as 2002. The Independence Party did it in 1998, for goodness’ sake. And yet the only DFLer in the past 40 years to win the office of governor away from another party did so by going around the party, winning the party primary in 1982. If Mark Dayton wins this year, as I expect he will, he will have taken the same path as Rudy Perpich did.

This is, to be blunt, a huge indictment of the way the DFL caucus system works. For whatever reason, the party itself seems incapable of picking candidates for governor who can survive both primaries and general elections. More than ever, it’s clear that the process by which the DFL picks its endorsed candidates has to change — and that candidates who bypass the party conventions are not disdaining the party, but rather simply trying to win.

Topics: DFL, Election 2006, Election 2010, MN-GOV, Minnesota Politics | 6 Comments »

Some Guy With a Website’s Endorsements

By Jeff Fecke | August 10, 2010

So it’s primary day, the time of year when a young wonk’s fancy turns to…well, primary day. Anyhow, it occurs to me that I have a website, and that it would be negligent of me not to tell you who I’m endorsing today. Not because you care. Just because I can.

So without further ado…

Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party

Governor

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis

All of the major DFL candidates have some strengths, and all have some weaknesses. But one of the three has stood out as a candidate whose focus is not on merely getting elected, but on governing once in office. That person is Margaret Anderson Kelliher.

Kelliher has advocated a balanced approach to fixing Minnesota’s financial crisis, which is the only logical way to attack the wreck of a budget left by Gov. Timmy. She’s picked a lieutenant governor candidate in John Gunyou who will be able to hit the ground running in January. And she has shown an understanding of policy befitting the leader of the state house.

This does not mean Kelliher is perfect of course. I stand by what I said previously regarding Kelliher’s stance on No Child Left Behind. She’s flat wrong about it. That said, I believe she’s wrong about it based on understandable concern about the fiscal damage wrought by the Pawlenty administration.

Of the other major candidates, Mark Dayton remains who he’s been through decades of public service: a decent, honorable guy who really cares about policy and people, but who doesn’t really enjoy the rough-and-tumble of politics. He would be a good governor, especially now that he has worked to conquer his personal demons. But I feel it is time for new blood in the DFL, and Dayton represents rather the opposite of that.

Matt Entenza, meanwhile, has done nothing to change my well-documented opinion of him. I’m just glad to see that opinion appears to be shared by the overwhelming majority of DFLers.

Attorney General

Leo F. Meyer

Leo F. Meyer is not Lori Swanson. That’s good enough for me. While I will probably have no choice but to vote for the incumbent in the general election, for now I intend to voice my displeasure at my party’s continued support of an anti-union candidate under its banner.

Secretary of State

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie

Of every incumbent on the ballot, none has earned reelection more than Ritchie, who presided over a recount that should serve as a model for the nation. The GOPers continue to snipe at Ritchie, sure he must have done something to influence the election in favor of Al Franken, but two years’ worth of spitballs have failed to connect. I, for one, remain proud of a Secretary of State who did his best to remain a neutral arbiter, just as he’s supposed to. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

Republican Party

Governor

State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano

Surprised? You should not be. Granted, I would probably prefer Ole Savior to win the GOP nomination. But this is the GOP primary. And there is no question that Tom Emmer suits the modern GOP to a tee.

Emmer is a bully. A loudmouth. A man who never met policy that he cared to study. He doesn’t care about you if you make under $100,000 a year, if you have a vagina, or if you love someone whose genitals match yours. Education, transportation, medical care — all are far less important to him than continued tax cuts for the wealthiest. He is a man who believes that Democrats qua Democrats are simply incapable of patriotism because they have different views than he does. He is, in short, the embodiment of today’s version of the Know-Nothing Party, and he is the perfect standard-bearer for them.

All the better if he loses; perhaps the Minnesota Republican Party will begin to rethink their hard right turn. Perhaps they’ll begin to remember that their party used to have room for Arne Carlson and Tom Horner and Jim Ramstad and John Gunyou. Perhaps they’ll realize that economic policy that always boils down to tax cuts and accounting gimmicks is not a policy, but a cult. Perhaps they’ll start recognizing that basic human rights are not a threat to their state.

Or they’ll double down and get even more bizarre in their beliefs. Bachmann 2014? It’s possible.

Secretary of State

Doc Severinsen

State Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, never was known by “Doc” before this election. But in a transparent bid to try to confuse the easily confused, Severson has decided to add the nickname to his line on the ballot, in hopes that people will 1. think he’s the former “Tonight Show” band leader, and 2. think the former “Tonight Show” band leader is a reasonable choice to run our state’s elections and business registration.

Well, I think Doc Severinsen would be a great choice for Secretary of State. His rapport with Johnny was always top-notch, and the guy can play the trumpet like no tomorrow. That’s why I’m supporting him for Secretary of State. Dan Severson? Not so much.

Attorney General

Sharon Anderson

Remember Sharon Anderson, of “Steve and Sharon” fame? She was so great on the television. And — why, look, there on the GOP ballot! There’s a Sharon Anderson running for Attorney General! Could it be the same person? For all you know, it is!

And it’s not like Anderson isn’t experienced. She’s very versed in confusing legalese. And she was the Republican Party’s nominee in 1994 for this very office! Sure, she lost to Skip Humphrey, but, I mean, that was Skip. It’s 2010 now!

Sure, you could be boring and vote for psychologist/attorney R. Christopher Barden. But that’s just silly. No, vote for Sharon Anderson, the person who very well could be former TV star Sharon Anderson.

Independence Party

Governor

Tom Horner

Horner gets my endorsement not so much because of anything he’s done — he’s a boring, mediocre candidate who would be a boring, mediocre governor — but because his main opponent, Rob Hahn, is an admitted domestic abuser who is running for governor because the system is so hard on men. Yes, he’s a certified MRA, ladies and gentlemen, and exactly what most MRAs are — whiny guys with rage issues who can’t view women as their equals.

Horner is dull, but he’s not particularly evil. Hahn is. Let’s hope today he ends up being sent home to stew about how hard life is for white men.

Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, Rob Hahn, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner | 5 Comments »

Super Power Rankings: The Spiraling Shape Edition

By Jeff Fecke | August 7, 2010

So as we enter the eleventh hour of the primary for Governor, I can only imagine that Republicans are looking on with envy at the fratricidal bloodbath that is the contested DFL primary. Mark Dayton, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, and Matt Entenza have kept their guns trained on the same target — Tom Emmer — while only occasionally sniping at each other. Yes, Entenza went negative on Kelliher this week — going after her on No Child Left Behind — but it’s a minor skirmish. Whoever emerges as the DFL nominee next Tuesday night is going to do so relatively unscathed.

As for Tom Emmer — well, let’s face it, he’s had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad summer. Since earning the GOP endorsement, he’s run a flat-out awful campaign, making his signature campaign issue an emphasis on cutting the minimum wage for waiters. Things have gotten so bad that rumors are swirling that the GOP would like to Go Grunseth and defenestrate Emmer in favor of someone — anyone –else.

Of course, Grunseth had to quit the 1990 gubernatorial race because it turned out he had been skinny dipping with his then-teenage daughter and two friends, which was icky on so many levels that the man ended up moving to Tasmania to get a new start on life. Emmer’s sins are less incestuous and ephebophilious, and more related to his being a paeloconservative with only a tenuous grasp on the issues. Since he’s a Republican candidate, that’s a feature, not a bug. And so the Emmer campaign is reduced to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and trying to woo Cullen Sheehan to run the campaign. You might remember Sheehan from this marvelous press conference in which he was unable to answer a simple question about where Norm Coleman got his suits. And let me say — he’d be a huge upgrade for the Emmer camp.

So anyhow, since we’re so close to the primary, we’re going to combine the entire race into one big Super Power Ranking, based on likelihood of winning overall. Let’s get it on!

1. Former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minnesota (LR: DFL-2)

Let me be the first to say that I didn’t see this coming, not at all. When Mark Dayton left the Senate in 2007, it was to a large chorus of sighs of relief by members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, who were grateful that he’d been willing to step aside and allow Amy Klobuchar to decimate Mark Kennedy in the general election.

Well, time heals all wounds, and Dayton has run a pretty typically low-key, positive campaign centered around his being a familiar face who cares about kids and seniors. His admission that he suffered with alcoholism and mental illness haven’t hurt him significantly, and likely won’t hurt him between now and the general; Emmer can’t attack Dayton for alcoholism without opening up his own DWI history, and there are too many folks like me taking Prozac every day for depression to be seen as disqualifying.

That’s not to say Dayton is unbeatable in a general election. He remains vulnerable to attacks on his admittedly weak Senate record. But his counterargument — that he’s just better in an executive office than the Senate — is a decent saving throw, as he had a decent record as State Auditor, at least as far as anyone does in a relatively low-profile position.

As for the primary, Dayton has led between 10 and 16 points is every significant poll. Granted, primaries are hard to poll, and Kelliher will have the advantage of the DFL machinery behind her. But it would be an upset for Dayton to lose, and I don’t expect him to.

2. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis (LR: DFL-1)

Kelliher simply has failed to consolidate the support of her DFL partisans, especially unions. Moreover, she hasn’t been strong enough in establishing herself as the force in the primary. Part of that, to be fair, is to Dayton’s credit; he has run a very good campaign thus far. But part of that is self-inflicted. Quite simply, Kelliher attacking Entenza for supporting No Child Left Behind was a huge unforced error, and one that indicated strongly that Kelliher was trying to pivot to the general before she’d won the primary.

That’s not to say she can’t win the primary, but she certainly hasn’t done anything to indicate she will. Her best hope is that the DFL ground game will bail her out, and who knows, maybe it will. If she gets the DFL nomination, she will win the general election. But I doubt she’ll get the nomination at this point.

3. Former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul (LR: DFL-3)

Remember last year, when Entenza followers were saying he had pretty much already won the nomination, so it was really horrible of me to express my dislike of the guy? Yeah, good times, good times. Flash-forward to today, and Entenza is an afterthought in the campaign, trailing Dayton by between 17 and 32 percent in the polls, and Kelliher by four to 22 points.

I still put him ahead of Emmer, because if lightning strikes and Entenza somehow gets the nomination, I think he beats Emmer; I think Emmer is unlikely to win against any credible DFLer. But I don’t think Entenza is going to win the nomination, and thank the Ceiling Cat. I mean, I don’t think I could vote for Entenza. But I don’t think I could pull the lever for Tom Horner or Ken Pentel if it meant Emmer could win. I think I’d have to move to Wisconsin or something. Happily, it isn’t likely to come to that.

4. State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano (LR: GOP-2)

Emmer surprised everyone when he edged out Marty Seifert for the GOP endorsement; who’s to say that he can’t do the same in November? Me, that’s who.

Emmer won the GOP endorsement by getting angrier and kookier, by getting endorsements from Sarah Palin and picking a running mate who once advocated eliminating her own position. This is a good strategy if you’re trying to win the endorsement of an angry, kooky political party. But the Minnesota electorate disdains hotheads usually, save for 1998, and it always blanches at perceived radicalism. Gov. Timmy won in 2002 by not being angry like the folks at the Rallemorial, and he won in 2006 by not calling reporters whores. He was preceded by Jesse Ventura, who won because both Coleman and Humphrey were perceived as too radical; Ventura was preceded by the purely moderate Republican Arne Carlson, whose political positions would make him a slightly conservative Democrat today. And Carlson was preceded by Rudy Perpich, who was an anti-choice moderate DFLer.

Given the choice between ideologues and moderates, Minnesotans pick the moderate. And Dayton, Kelliher, and Entenza all read more moderate than the pugnacious, radical Emmer.

In short, Emmer is the wrong sort of candidate to win the race. Marty Seifert may not have been as in-your-face, but he would have been a strong candidate in the general election, because he presents himself as a fairly reasonable guy and because he can talk about policy at a deeper level than “we should cut stuff 20 percent. But what stuff, I’m not going to tell you.” Emmer could still win — the DFL hasn’t won since 1986, I’m not counting my chickens before they hatch. But it will take a massive screw-up by the Democrats and a wave of Brobdingnagian proportions for the GOP. I’m sorry, but no matter how big the wave in favor of the Republicans this year, I don’t think it’s enough to carry Emmer over the top.

5. Tom Horner, Independence Party (LR: IP-1)

Horner is polling reasonably well, in the high-single-low-double range. And while I expect he’ll fade just a bit, I also expect he’ll hold his moderate GOP support and finish in the upper-single-digit range.

That’s a decent finish, and it will keep the IP as a major party for a few more years, and that’s something, I guess. But Horner seems unlikely to repeat Ventura’s ’98 feat, and the IP will reach at least 10 years without a statewide elected official. At some point, the question of what exactly the IP is trying to do will have to be broached. I think their best bet is to attract socially tolerant fiscal conservatives who are actually serious about policy — the sort of Republicans who find Tom Emmer to be embarrassing. But sadly, I think the GOP rank-and-file is still in denial about what their party has become, and it will be a few more years before the IP starts pulling GOP votes in earnest — if, indeed, it ever happens.

6. Ole Savior, Republican Party (LR: DFL-5)

Of all the things I wasn’t expecting this year, Ole Savior running in the Republican primary with an Elvis impersonator as his running mate was definitely one of them. I mean, this would be like Sharon Anderson running for Attorney General as a DFLer — it just doesn’t seem right.

That said, Ole Savior is the only Republican challenger I can imagine somehow accidentally winning instead of Tom Emmer, so he’s sixth on the list, because I can imagine a scenario where Savior somehow gets through. I think.

7. Ken Pentel, Ecology Democracy Party (LR: NR)

Pentel is running for governor again, this time as a member of his own party, the Ecology Democracy Party, which, near as I can tell, appears to be a more radical version of the Green Party, because we all know the Greens are a bunch of moderates. That said, Pentel’s been running for governor since 1998; people have heard of him. He’s more likely to get elected governor by accident that some of the other randoms out there.

8. Rob Hahn, Independence Party (LR: IP-2)

I’m totally shocked that an MRA who once assaulted his ex-wife would decide he was the guy who should serve as standard-bearer for men’s rights in custody cases. Oh, did I say shocked? I mean not at all shocked. Funny how abusive assholes always seem to be the ones angry about how the system is rigged against men, innit?

Hahn has made almost no impression in the race, and if Hahn somehow accidentally won the IP nomination, I doubt he’d poll much above pond scum. That’s because contrary to MRA beliefs, most people see choking your ex as a bad thing. I can imagine people deciding to elect Ole Savior in a fit of randomness. I can see people mistaking Emmer’s anger for passion. I can see Ken Pentel winning because Minnesotans feel bad for him. I can’t see an abusive asshole winning, though.

9. Peter Idusogie, DFL (LR: NR)

I must confess, I keep forgeting that Idusogie is running, but I have a feeling that won’t be true in 2012 when he’s running for Senate or Congress or President. Idusogie has all the hallmarks of a nascent perennial candidate — the vaguely overinflated sense of self, the incomprehensible policy goals, the seeking of positions that may or may not even exist — these are the things that define a Dick Franson, a Leslie Davis, and dare I say, a Peter Idusogie. I will be watching his career with interest, and mirth. Mostly mirth.

10. Bob Carney, Jr., Republican Party (LR: NR)

Carney is the moderate alternative to Emmer, which would be the kiss of death even if he was a credible candidate, which he isn’t. Granted, if he managed to win it would be a victory for D-list bloggers making huge jumps into politics, so I probably should be rooting for him, but then again, I have about as much chance of winning the GOP nomination, and I am not on the ballot.

11. Leslie Davis, Republican Party (LR: GOP-5)

I still don’t have any idea why Leslie Davis decided to run as a Republican, and with Ole Savior in the race, he’s not even the most whimsically mislabeled Republican anymore, so I completely don’t get it. At all. Period.

12. John T. Uldrich, Independence Party (LR: NR)

Uldrich is not to be confused with Jack Uldrich, the former IP chair; he’s Jack’s father. He ran for Senate in 2006 as a Republican, and he’s running for governor now because…something. Actually, he seems like a perfectly cromulent IP candidate, other than the fact that he doesn’t really have much of a chance. So, you know, he seems like a perfectly cromulent IP candidate.

13. Phil Ratté, Independence Party (LR: NR)

Ratté is evidently running on a platform that argues that the government is secretly preventing Detroit from building engines that would, I don’t know, allow us to drive to Mars on a tank of Gatorade. Who knows, he may even be right, but running for Governor as an IP candidate is probably not the most effective way to advance one’s argument.

14. Rahn Workcuff, Independence Party (LR: NR)

Workcuff is another perennial candidate, but he’s generally set his sights a lot lower than Governor. The question is whether this heralds Workcuff’s triumphant entry into the big leagues, along with the Fransons, Saviors, and Andersons of the world, or whether he’s just a flash in the pan. I will say that given that he made note of his position on same-sex marriage during a campaign for Hennepin County Soil Commissioner, I’d say he’s at least an intriguing character. And hey, the Independence Party really needs its own perennial candidate haunting the party. If you’re gonna play in the big leagues, folks, you’ve got to act like you belong.

15. Fareen Hakeem, Green Party (LR: NR)

Hakeem has actually had some reasonably strong showings in Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Hey, pulling 14 percent of the vote for Mayor isn’t bad for a Green. I don’t think she can win, unlike Ken Pentel (who, I should be clear, is about a one in a million shot), because Pentel is actually a name people might have heard once, in passing. That said, I would be unsurprised if Hakeem actually outpolled Pentel on election day. I will be surprised if she can get to five percent and get the Greens major party status, but one percent would be a decent showing.

16. Chris Wright, Grassroots Party Founder (LR: NR)

Wright has been working for marijuana legalization since he co-founded Minnesota’s NORML branch and the Grassroots Party back in 1986. That’s an awfully long time to be pushing to legalize it, but hey, everybody’s gotta have a dream. I will say he’s unlikely to finish dead last, because stoned college folks love the idea of the Grassroots Party. I will also say he’s unlikely to win, because stoned college folks aren’t the most motivated voters out there.

17. Linda Eno, The Resource Party (LR: NR)

I’ve been trying like heck to figure out what The Resource Party stands for, and it’s not as easy as you might think. Near as I can tell, they’re a radical libertarian group with a fixation on Native American issues. Which is, you know, okay I guess. But it doesn’t scream “big electoral winner.” Also, the fact that they oppose “political correctness” in schools while supporting reparations to Native Americans — I’m still not quite sure how those two things work together, except to break my brain. Anyhoo, I’m all for small splinter parties that deal with a couple issues. That doesn’t mean I think they’ll win. And this one most certainly won’t.

Falling out: Marty Seifert (GOP-1), Bill Haas (GOP-3),Susan Gaertner (DFL-4)

Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, Rob Hahn, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner | 5 Comments »

But There’s No Racism in the Tea Party

By Jeff Fecke | August 2, 2010

Lost in the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle was the impetus for Breitbart’s smear — the NAACP’s decision to call out the teabaggers for their unwillingness to disavow racism. The Sharrod smear was a desperate attempt to prove members of the NAACP were the real racists, that the tea party was free of racism, despite the strong evidence that Mark Williams had presented to the contrary.

Well, in further proof that the tea party is free of racism, let me introduce you to Tea Party Comix,whose imagery really speaks for itself.

Yes, the image of a horrible caricature of a black judge (meant to be Obama, natch) threatening Batman with a trial before a jury of twelve “angry black commies” is pretty much racism defined — so much so that the Tea Party’s response to the comics was to declare that they just had to be a liberal plot, because, uh…look over there!

Well, it turns out that the artist behind Tea Party Comix has come forward. He’s a real member of the tea party movement. He really hates Obama. And he admits he’s a racist.

Kidding! Well, not about the tea party and the hating Obama:

The creator of the now-infamous “Tea Party Comix” has spoken. The response, sent to Comics With Problems’ Ethan Persoff last week, ends speculation by some that the black-and-white comics featuring a racist caricature of President Obama might be a liberal parody gone wrong (or just misunderstood). In the rambling email sent early Thursday morning, the unnamed creator of the comics (the name was withheld by Persoff) suggests that they were created out of anger at Obama, but — according to the creator — not out of any intention to make a racial statement.

“I do not understand the connection with ‘big ears’ and ‘racism’, and I do not understand how a ‘dark face’ implies racism,” the creator of the comics wrote to Persoff. “The accusation of ‘Hate’ is true, but it is the hate of an IDEOLGY [sic], not a of race of people….. I understand that the ideology has captured 80 or 90% of the race(s) in question, but it is STILL a AN IDEOLOGY and NOT a “race” that this comic book attacks.”

You know, I think I liked the racists better when they’d just admit to being racist. I mean, at least then you could argue against them. But nobody’s racist anymore. Whether they’re running a Klan-themed bar that suggests Obama’s plan for health care is to “N—-r rig it,” or making an image of Obama as a witch doctor, or suggesting that “coloreds” want slavery to be reestablished, the racists are never, never racist anymore. They believe that all people are equal. It’s just that black people happen to be savage, lazy, dice-throwing, jive-dancing, welfare-cheating scum. But they don’t hate black people. No no no! Indeed, it’s you who are the real racists for suggesting such a thing.

The problem is that the racism is getting more and more overt, to the point where it’s not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn. An organization with decency would recognize this obvious fact, would strongly disavow racism, would work against it. The tea party will not. But don’t call them racist. You’re the racist, for thinking that that racists are racist.

Topics: Race | 8 Comments »

A Strange and Bitter Crop

By Jeff Fecke | July 26, 2010

Jeffrey Lord has good news, America. You may have thought that Emmett Till and those like him who were killed by extrajudicial mobs were lynched. Killed in an effort not just to exact some sort of perverted justice, but to terrorize people, people whose skin happened to have a somewhat higher concentration of melanin than most Caucasians have.

But Jeffrey Lord has it straight, America. You see, Till was beaten, tortured, and murdered, as were a number of others throughout America in our long period of racial apartheid. But Till wasn’t hung — just like Bobby Hall, a relative of the recently vilified Shirley Sherrod, he was beaten to death. And that means that he wasn’t lynched.

And that makes Shirley Sherrod a lying lying liar who totally lied in her speech when cited Hall’s lynching in her speech to the NAACP.

Of course, here on planet Earth, people actually know the definition of lynching does not include hanging. True, hanging was a very common method of lynching, and it is perhaps the image that first springs to mind when one thinks of the terroristic act.

But lynching doesn’t require a rope. It just requires punishment to be extrajudicial and carried out by a mob — to be done without legal sanction. Beating someone to death for allegedly whistling at a white woman, or for stealing a tire? That’s lynching.

Of course, even if Lord was right, and lynching required hanging, few would quibble with her saying her relative’s beating death at the hands of police officers rose to the level of lynching. Few would argue that such a misstatement would rise to the level of a lie, or even a misstatement. Any decent human being, with a heart not made of stone and without a desire to punish Sherrod for the crime of being a black woman who won a battle with a white man — any decent human being, in other words — would view this not as a hook to hang a column on, but at best, a minor misstatement.

But of course, Sherrod made no mistake — none at all. She was telling the absolute, precise truth when she said that Bobby Hall was lynched at the hands of those police officers who took him into custody, killed because he was black at a time when such things were acceptable. And Lord, in his zeal to catch Sherrod in a lie, to prove that she is the real racist in all of this…well, once again, we are shown exactly where racism lies. Not in the woman whose family history is scarred by lynching, but in those who seek to minimize the vast horror of lynching to find a way, somehow, to paint whites as the true victims.

Topics: Race | 2 Comments »

Left Behind

By Jeff Fecke | July 24, 2010

One of the most important issues our state government will need to deal with in the next several years is education. Quite simply, education has been left to decay during the Pawlenty administration, with reduced funding and a deeply wrongheaded focus on high-stakes testing — one started by George W. Bush and lamentably continued under Barack Obama.

Even if I didn’t have a daughter in elementary school, I would be very concerned about the educational plans of DFL candidates in this race. And I have to say, what Margaret Anderson Kelliher is saying disappoints me greatly:

Democrat Margaret Anderson Kelliher is taking aim at fellow Democrat Matt Entenza over his education policy. In a news release, Kelliher pointed out that Entenza’s plan to scrap the federal No Child Left Behind law would cost the state $440 million in federal funding.

“My opponents have proposed unrealistic education plans that either dramatically cut school funding or throw it down the rabbit hole of a broken school funding formula,” said Kelliher. “Neither plan addresses the challenges facing our schools.”

[...]

Entenza has repeatedly called for Minnesota to get out of the federal No Child Left Behind standards. He’s argued that Minnesota won’t lose out on federal funds because he’s talked to education officials within the Obama Administration and is confident the state will get a waiver. He refused to name the officials he’s talked with.

Kelliher said in December that the federal government needs to fix No Child Left Behind and that she wants more rigorous testing to ensure students are learning. When asked if she’s in favor of scrapping the plan, Kelliher said at the time that “we need to talk about it” if the feds don’t fix it.

[Mark] Dayton told MPR that he would do everything he can to convince the federal government to produce a waiver.

Entenza and Dayton are flatly right on this issue, and Kelliher is flatly wrong. No Child Left Behind has been a disaster, forcing schools to put finite resources into helping students test well, rather than helping students learn to think.

This is not to say that testing has no place in education, of course. But it should be one tool in the toolbox, not the only one. Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations have fallen in love with shiny, easy-to-measure test scores, making them the only important metric in defining school success or failure.

Having a governor willing to stand up to the federal government, to at the very least push for a waiver that will allow Minnesota more latitude in setting its own educational agenda, is therefore important. Both Dayton and Entenza have signaled a willingness to do that. Kelliher, contrawise, is doubling down on testing to guarantee federal money.

Leaving aside that Kelliher herself previously voted to get Minnesota out of NCLB, the simple fact is that not every federal dollar is worth the string attached to it. Yes, I know that we’re in a budget crisis. And Dayton’s nuanced view — that he’ll seek a waiver before continuing — is probably the best approach. But refusing even to try, and indeed, defending an indefensible program, is not the educational leadership this state needs.

Kelliher is flatly wrong on this issue, and this is one of the most vital issues facing our state. I have been supporting Kelliher up until now. I don’t think I can anymore.

Topics: Education, Election 2010, MN-GOV, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza | 2 Comments »

Supra Genius

By Jeff Fecke | July 23, 2010

No comment is really necessary here:

It appears gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer might be suffering from a case of legislative amnesia.

Emmer told a crowd of about two dozen veterans in Elk River Thursday that he supports the creation of a Minnesota GI bill, which would give money to the families of fallen soldiers for higher education expenses.

“I don’t know if you remember, a few years ago the governor had proposed [a Minnesota GI bill],” said Emmer, a state representative. “And I think that’s something we should certainly be looking at and it’s unfortunate we haven’t done something like that already.”

There’s just one problem: The proposal became law in 2007. It was included in a broader higher education appropriations bill, which Emmer voted against.

If the DFL manages to lose to this guy in November — and the Ceiling Cat knows it’s possible — they should simply implode the party and start over.

Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Tom Emmer | 1 Comment »

The Only Answer

By Jeff Fecke | July 23, 2010

If you want to know what a Republican-controlled Congress would do, you really just need to listen to Republican members of Congress. You won’t hear much about actual policy, other than the ludicrous “we’re gonna repeal health care” claim. This is because the Republicans have pretty abandoned policy in favor of articles of faith and deeply-held tribal grievances.

But if there’s one thing the Republicans know, in their hearts, to be true, it is that our Marxist Kenyan Muslim Overlord is a horrible criminal out to destroy America. Saul Alinsky, also, too. And so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann, R-You Kidding Me, has identified one thing, and only one thing, for Republicans to do under Speaker Boehner:

Should Republicans take back the House in November, Rep. Michele Bachmann said she wants the GOP to focus all of its attention on issuing subpoenas and holding hearings investigating the Obama administration and Democrats.

“I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said at the GOP Youth Convention in Washington on Thursday. “I think all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that has gone on.”

That’s right. Remember the Clinton administration? Remember the lame-duck ’98 Congress impeaching him for no particular reason other than spite? Yeah. That’s what we have to look forward to over the next two years if Republicans win back the House.

And don’t tell me that Obama hasn’t really had any serious ethical lapses. It doesn’t matter. The Shirley Sherrod matter, for example, would be good for dozens of subpoenas and weeks of hearings. I’m sure the GOP could find it in their hearts to call Bill Ayers to the Hill, so they can find out exactly when he wrote Dreams From My Father. I’m sure Hawai’i will be getting a subpoena for the Vault Copy. As will Kenya.

Will the Republicans be doing anything to make things better for, you know, actual people? The ones who are unemployed and hungry and suffering? Well, sure, there will be tax cuts for the rich. And more tax cuts for the rich. If that doesn’t solve things, they might propose other, deeper tax cuts for the rich. But other than that…sorry. Actual policy will have to take a back seat to finding out something that Barack Obama has done wrong, and impeaching him for it, because that’s what the GOP does. It’s all they should do, as far as they’re concerned. That it’s does nothing for America in a time of crisis? Well…too bad, America.

Topics: Election 2010, Michele Bachmann | No Comments »

Losing Weight Will Let You Enter a Bizarre Nightmare World!

By Jeff Fecke | July 22, 2010

This New Zealand ad for Xenical has convinced me. I’m much, much better off being fat than being skinny.

Incidentally, I can tie my own shoes. And while the woman at the end of the ad says she can’t — unless she has a disability other than being fat, she can, too.

(Via Jezebel)

(For the YouTube impaired, a thin woman wanders through a landscape of Felliniesque horrors — trench warfare, bleeding knives, walking around naked in the winter — talking about how she’d like to live life unafraid, but — surprise — she’s a fat woman who’d just like to tie her own shoes.)

Topics: Fat Phobia | No Comments »

The Cornerstone

By Jeff Fecke | July 18, 2010

For all our nation’s many faults, there is one thing that our country got inarguably right, and that is freedom of religion. From the founding of the republic, religious tests for office have been banned, religious freedoms supported. The right to worship as one pleases, free from government coercion, is one of the cornerstone liberties of our nation, one equal to the freedom to speak and write as one pleases. By allowing all Americans to seek out God (or not) in the manner of their choosing, the Constitution has recognized that the freedom to profess one’s faith is, at its heart, one of the most important freedoms one can exercise.

A couple blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood, a Muslim organization wants to build a community center, which will include a mosque. This is not particularly noteworthy; America is full of churches and synagogues and temples and mosques, places for people of all different faiths to worship as they see fit. Mosques may be less common than churches, but they are places for the faithful to meet and seek God; America has always been a land where that is encouraged and supported.

But of course, those who destroyed the World Trade Center said they were acting in the name of Islam. And because some people are unable to separate the religion of terrorists with their religion in general, the idea that a mosque could be built within walking distance of the World Trade Center has been twisted into something it is not — a provocation.

The latest to advance this canard is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who, tweeting in her typically malaprop-laden way, demanded that “peaceful Muslims” should “refudiate” the mosque, as if the mosque was not already being built by peaceful Muslims.

Whatever refudiate is supposed to mean, I hope that Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Unitarians, agnostics, Hindus, and all Americans of good conscience reject Palin’s demand, and call it what it is: religious bigotry.

Some humans have twisted Islam to support killing. This is nothing new. Judaism, Christianity, and atheism alike have been twisted in support of violence, repression, and evil. But just the Centennial Olympic Park Bombing has not forced a moratorium on Christian churches in Atlanta, neither should the 9/11 attacks, however horrific, force a moratorium on mosques.

America by its very nature is supportive of people gathering where they choose, to worship or talk together as they wish, without government interference. A community center and mosque somewhat near Ground Zero is, in its own way, a very American thing. It is a place where people can express their own ideas, their own dreams, their own vision of God. It is, let me state, a vision I disagree with — I do not agree with most tenets of mainstream Islam. But that is neither here nor there. The freedom of Muslims to gather and worship is my freedom as a Unitarian to gather and worship, and your freedom as a Christian or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist to gather and worship — or your freedom as an atheist not to.

When political leaders start arguing that it is somehow wrong for Americans to gather together and worship as they choose, we lose something of that freedom. Thankfully, the people of New York City — the people who actually endured the most serious attacks in 2001 — seem to understand this far better than Sarah Palin, who was thousands of miles away at the time. And thankfully, my fellow Americans, who happen to be Muslim, will be able to worship as they see fit. As they well should.

Topics: Islam, Sarah Palin | 5 Comments »

I Love This Times Infinity

By Jeff Fecke | July 12, 2010

This diatribe is useful the next time someone explains how the last half-season of Show X was so implausible:

So Doctor Who is not a complete loss. But then there are some shows that go completely beyond the pale of enjoyability, until they become nothing more than overwritten collections of tropes impossible to watch without groaning.

I think the worst offender here is the History Channel and all their programs on the so-called “World War II”.

Let’s start with the bad guys. Battalions of stormtroopers dressed in all black, check. Secret police, check. Determination to brutally kill everyone who doesn’t look like them, check. Leader with a tiny villain mustache and a tendency to go into apopleptic rage when he doesn’t get his way, check. All this from a country that was ordinary, believable, and dare I say it sometimes even sympathetic in previous seasons.

I wouldn’t even mind the lack of originality if they weren’t so heavy-handed about it. Apparently we’re supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? And that they diverted all their resources to use in making ever bigger and scarier death camps, even in the middle of a huge war? Real people just aren’t that evil. And that’s not even counting the part where as soon as the plot requires it, they instantly forget about all the racism nonsense and become best buddies with the definitely non-Aryan Japanese.

Not that the good guys are much better. Their leader, Churchill, appeared in a grand total of one episode before, where he was a bumbling general who suffered an embarrassing defeat to the Ottomans of all people in the Battle of Gallipoli. Now, all of a sudden, he’s not only Prime Minister, he’s not only a brilliant military commander, he’s not only the greatest orator of the twentieth century who can convince the British to keep going against all odds, he’s also a natural wit who is able to pull out hilarious one-liners practically on demand. I know he’s supposed to be the hero, but it’s not realistic unless you keep the guy at least vaguely human.

Really, go read the whole thing. Now.

(Via LG&M)

Topics: Potpourri | No Comments »

Fugitive Child Rapist Freed on Technicality

By Jeff Fecke | July 12, 2010

Convicted child rapist and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski was freed this morning by a Swiss court, on the grounds that the American request for extradition might not have been sentenced to more than 90 days in jail, and that he really didn’t think he’d be arrested despite, you know, being a fugitive:

In rejecting the extradition request from the United States, the Swiss ministry cited two factors: first, the Swiss said, the U.S. had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977 agreed that “the 42 days of detention spent by Roman Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to.”

Second, the Swiss said, when Mr. Polanski traveled in September 2009 to the Zurich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in “good faith” that “the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him.” The Swiss justice ministry noted that Mr. Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though “he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities.”

Well, that’s nice. I’m going to use that should I ever be arrested on an outstanding warrant. “Judge,” I’m going to say, “when I went to the mall, it was on good faith that I wouldn’t be arrested for my outstanding warrant for punching a mime. I mean, I wasn’t arrested yesterday. So that means that the warrant doesn’t count. So there.”

Obviously, this is a defeat for those of us who view child rapists as people who deserve punishment, and a defeat for the rule of law. It’s also a defeat for Roman Polanski’s legacy, though Polanski today is, I’m sure, ready to invite Bernard-Henri Lévy over to his posh Paris home for a big freedom party. This was Polanski’s last, best chance to get this over with, to pay his debt to society, to eliminate the “fugitive” part of “convicted fugitive child rapist.” He could have brought some closure to his victim, and maybe, just maybe, allowed the wound to heal. Instead, Polanski has guaranteed that when he dies, he will be remembered as much for assaulting a child as for his film legacy.

Polanski will always be remembered as a child rapist who, I assume, will die in exile. That’s his choice. It’s just too bad that the Swiss courts had to agree.

Topics: Roman Polanski | 5 Comments »

A Song For Tonight

By Jeff Fecke | July 9, 2010

Topics: Potpourri | No Comments »

Minimum Wage! Hiyah!

By Jeff Fecke | July 6, 2010

I never knew that the way to get rich in America was to become a waiter. I mean, sure, I suspected; waiters are always driving those sweet ’99 Hyundais, rolling with fat stacks of Washingtons, and spending holidays at their vacation homes in their regular homes. But still, it’s nice of Tom Emmer to come along to alert the rest of us to the dread scourge of waiters earning a living wage.

For those who’ve somehow missed it, Emmer has suggested that Minnesota should join those states that allow businesses to pay their servers $2.13 an hour if said servers make tips. Right now, Minnesota restaurants have to pay servers $5.25 if they’re a small employer, or $6.15 an hour if they’re a big one.

Now, you may note that $6.15 an hour isn’t that much. And you may realize that if you’re a typical Perkins server on a slow night, you may only be bringing in another three or four dollars per hour in additional tips. Indeed, if you live here on planet Earth, you’re probably not surprised to find out that, far from being the richest of the rich, the median server earns $9.36 an hour — about $19,000 a year. Of course, Emmer claims that waiters actually average $15.43 an hour, which is a bit better — $31,000 a year.

But Emmer is proposing a wage cut for waiters and bartenders equivalent to $8361.60 a year. Even using Emmer’s inflated statistics, that’s cutting a $31,000 a year salary to $22,638.40 — a 37 percent pay cut for people barely making a living wage. Using real statistics, the pay cut is even steeper — cutting wages 79 percent, from $19,000 a year to $10,638.40.

Why Emmer would want to cut someone’s wages by 79 percent — to literally drop servers below the poverty line — is simple. Servers aren’t rich. Restaurateurs aren’t all rich either, of course. But they’re a lot more likely to be rich than their employees. And Emmer cares very much about making the rich richer. If he has to do so by making the poor poorer, well, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Tom Emmer doesn’t mind snatching away basic protections from the working poor — from people working hard, five days a week, doing what they’re supposed to do. Indeed, he revels in it. Tom Emmer doesn’t care if you work hard. He only cares if you make a lot of money. If you don’t — no matter how hard you work — screw you.

Topics: Election 2010, MN-GOV, Tom Emmer | 11 Comments »

« Previous Entries