Now, I love this little parallel, mainly because I came up with it. Still and all, we don’t have to have a note-for-note replay of 1982. I mean, hey, UK and Argentina — don’t go starting a new Falklands War or anything silly like that.

What? Damn, too late.

Okay, it hasn’t developed into a shooting war. But Argentina and Britain are certainly jawing at each other. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail on both sides — after all, the first Falklands War cost the lives of a thousand soldiers, over territories with a population of about 3200. More to the point, while in 1982 Argentina was ruled by a military junta, today both nations are democracies. One would hope democracies could resolve their problems through dialog.

And with that said, never mind the bollocks, ladies and gentlemen, the Queen Haters.

What redeems my faith in the system is the fact that every so often, a politician comes along who actually exceeds my expectations, who comports themself the way we expect a politician to — without fear of losing, with more of a focus on the people they represent than the next election. The late, great Sen. Paul Wellstone, DFL-Minn., was one of those politicians. He ran a spirited campaign and talked a good show, but once elected he backed up his words with actions. He walked the talk.

And now, the man who holds his seat in the Senate is doing the same thing.

On Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken, DFL-Minn., served as the keynote speaker for the NARAL Pro-Choice America Roe v. Wade anniversary luncheon. And his remarks to the group were outstanding. Franken gave a full-throated, unapologetic defense of the right of women to choose their own reproductive destinies — and did so with both humor and grace. I haven’t found a video of the event yet — if I do, I’ll post it — but the transcript is exactly what pro-choice Democrats want to hear from our public officials. Here’s a selection:

Shortly after I (finally) became a Senator, I was appointed to the Judiciary Committee.

At first I thought: Well, this is weird. I’m not a lawyer. How am I going to ask the right questions?

But I did some research and discovered most Americans aren’t lawyers. It’s true.

And so to me, the right questions aren’t the ones a lawyer would necessarily ask. They’re questions the American people would ask.

And that’s what I did in my first hearing. It just happened that my first hearing was a high profile one: the Judiciary Committee was considering the nomination for Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[...]

Let me set it up a bit. The day before, one of my Republican colleagues had been – I guess the right word is “hectoring” – Judge Sotomayor, repeatedly asking her whether the word “abortion” appeared anywhere in the Constitution.

Of course, it doesn’t. But whether it does or not is beside the point. So she answered by speaking to the question behind the question. But finally after being asked for the third time, Judge Sotomayor replied, “No. The word ‘abortion’ is not in the Constitution.”

Which my colleague treated as an “Aha!” moment.

So the next day, I felt compelled to follow up.

I brought up her exchange with my colleague from the previous day, and then asked, “Do the words ‘birth control’ appear anywhere in the Constitution?”

“No, they don’t,” Judge Sotomayor replied quite correctly.

“How about the word ‘privacy?’ Does that appear anywhere in the Constitution?”

She said. “No, the word ‘privacy’ isn’t in the Constitution either.”

I think you can see where I was going. And so could everyone in the hearing room.

You know, there are a lot of words that express bedrock constitutional principles – words like federalism, checks and balances, and separation of powers – that never appear in the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that the Constitution didn’t set up a federalist system, enumerating certain express powers to the federal government and reserving certain powers for the states. And it doesn’t mean that the Constitution didn’t set up a system of “checks and balances” by creating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, granting each certain powers, creating what is well known as a “separation of powers.”

And even though the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution, the Court has long recognized a protection for privacy.

And that is why I followed my questions about the words “birth control” and “privacy” to ask whether Judge Sotomayor agreed that the Court had held that the Constitution created not just a right to privacy, but that it was also established precedent that women had a right to choose to have an abortion.

She said, yes, that was established precedent. That it was settled law. And she agreed that the job of a Supreme Court justice was not to make new law from the bench.

You know, it’s funny. Whenever a Republican runs for the Senate or for president and is asked, “What do you look for in a prospective Justice for the Supreme Court?” Republicans always answer, “I want a judge that doesn’t make law from the bench.”

[...]

In the last year alone….

We saw Representative Bart Stupak use the health care bill as a bludgeon, restricting women’s health choices in a bill that was meant to expand them.

We watched with frustration as the Supreme Court overturned a century’s worth of precedents to further their conservative activist agenda.

We are watching as the Senate continues to block Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation to a critical role at the Department of Justice because of her pro-choice views.

And we saw Dr. Tiller murdered at church… AT HIS CHURCH…. murdered for the choice he provided for women.

I want to thank Dr. Sella for being here today, and I want to join you in honoring his memory.

And that’s why the work you do at NARAL is indispensible. Because the forces on the other side are persistent, single-minded, and even violent.

A woman’s right to choose is never fully won. It must be won anew every day, every year, every Congress, and every generation.

Even though most Americans support abortion rights, even though most Americans understand that no woman ever plans an unwanted pregnancy, that no woman ever thinks she’ll have to make such a painful and personal choice, those who would deny that choice press on, undeterred.

In a lot of ways that fight is going to be incremental. In 2007 – after Justice O’Connor’s departure, we saw the Roberts Court reject the longstanding precedent that an exception for a woman’s health must be a component of any law that restricts abortion rights.

Even when the woman’s health includes her reproductive health. That’s what Dr. Tiller did so often in his work. Perform abortions on fetuses that would not be viable outside the womb in order to protect a woman’s ability to bear children in the future. Ironically, what could be more pro-life?

[...]

Now, let me say that there are millions of people in this country who have a sincere objection to abortion, and much of that is based on strongly held religious conviction. And I respect that. In America, we respect each other’s religious beliefs. But we are not governed by them.

It’s called the “separation of church and state,” a phrase which, like “separation of powers,” does not appear in the Constitution, but which is created just as clearly in the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

So to those people whose religious conviction leads them to a moral opposition to abortion, I say that’s your right, that’s your choice. Don’t have an abortion. But also, do everything you can to work together with us to diminish the reasons we have abortions.

Support comprehensive sex education and access to affordable family planning services. Support funding for maternal child health programs, WIC, and affordable child care so new mothers have security and the resources they need to raise a healthy child.

Oh yeah, and support comprehensive affordable health care for all.

[...]

I want to leave you today with a story. It’s one that should sound familiar to the millions of women across this country who understand in a very personal way the importance of protecting women’s reproductive rights.

The story is about a Minnesotan named Kim. Kim was a 19-year-old single mother. She was struggling to make ends meet, working full time as a receptionist. Her daughter had health insurance through the state, but she did not. Her boyfriend, her daughter’s father, was extremely abusive.

She was getting the pill through Planned Parenthood at a reduced rate, but after her car broke down, she couldn’t afford that either.

One day her boyfriend demanded that they have sex, but refused to use a condom. He threatened her. She was too afraid to say no. And she ended up pregnant.

She said, “Abortion was absolutely the right choice for me at that time… Had I stayed in that relationship and brought another child into the mix, I would have continued the cycle of abuse and poverty.”

“Making the decision to stop the cycle [allowed me] to concentrate on my daughter and ensure that she will have the financial and emotional stability to go to college and live a successful, happy life. Women need options, women need choices.”

I am here to ask you to keep up the fight, for Kim, and for every woman who has learned – and will learn – that women need options and choices.

Thank you for the work you’ve done – and are continuing to do — to stand up for women’s rights.

I’m proud to stand with you.

I know that’s a long excerpt, but it is as eloquent a defense of the right to choice as any I’ve seen. And it comes during a three-decade run in which Democrats have been almost embarrassed to support a woman’s right to choose, in which we’ve run away from support for abortion rights, even as we paid lip service to them.

Franken’s speech is something we need to hear out of more Democrats. Abortion rights are fundamental rights, because women — as humans — have a fundamental right to control their bodies. It’s nice to hear my junior senator say so.

So much fail, so little time. Is it the way Fiorina suggests that good fiscal conservatives are mindless sheep? The way she attacks Campbell for deficits while simultaneously attacking him for supporting tax hikes that might have ameliorated them? No, truly the best part of the ad is the Demon Sheep Itself:

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Incidentally, the title of this post comes courtesy of Cake:

Minnesota Republican Party Straw Poll, 96% Reporting

✔ State Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall   50.0%
State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano  39.5%
State Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie  5.2%
Write-in  1.9%
Fmr. State Rep. Bill Haas, R-Champlin    1.6%
Phil Herwig    1.1%
Leslie Davis    0.6%
Bob Carney, Jr.    0.2%

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Straw Poll, 77% Reporting

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak    21.8%
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis    20.0%
Uncommitted    14.5%
State Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville 9.8%
State Rep. Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis    7.3%
State Sen. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia    7.2%
Fmr. House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul    6.9%
State Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Chisholm    6.1%
Fmr. State Sen. Steve Kelley, DFL-Hopkins    4.2%
Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner    2.1%
Ole Savior    0.1%
Felix Montez 0.1%

So…Who’s Up, Who’s Down, and Who’s Out?

Who’s Up

State Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall

The buzz this week indicating an Emmer surge had grown to overwhelming by caucus eve, but it’s evident that Seifert still has Emmer out-organized; just over half of the votes in the straw poll went to Seifert, and if he manages to get all his delegates to show up to their BPOU conventions, he’ll win the GOP nomination.

Of course, that’s the trouble, isn’t it? Because there’s no guarantee that all the delegates who backed Seifert tonight will still be backing him come April. If there was, Tim Pawlenty — who only won about 35% in the 2002 GOP straw poll, to Brian Sullivan’s 50% — would not be running for President today.

So this isn’t over yet. That said, this was a huge shot in the arm for the Seifert campaign, and it puts to rest some of the Emmer inevitability talk that was surfacing in recent days. For all the sound and fury of the teabaggers, they still represent a minority even of the Republican Party. Seifert — who is, after all, pretty conservative — still has the lead right now.

Ultimately, this will come down to organization. Emmer supporters are naturally going to be more committed than Seifert supporters. But I think Seifert has a better organization. Ultimately, the GOP endorsement battle should be very close — and I don’t think anyone will really know who the nominee will be until the votes are cast.

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak

Rybak probably won the DFL straw poll on Tuesday — he was leading by about two percent with 77% of precincts reporting. By doing so, he cements himself as the frontrunner for the DFL endorsement.

Of course, if Marty Seifert is still a ways away from clinching the GOP nod, Rybak is light years away from securing the DFL endorsement. For one thing, House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher is breathing down Rybak’s neck, and both are in the low 20’s for support right now. It’s not enough for Rybak to win the straw poll — he also has to secure the votes of Marty and Bakk and Kelley supporters at the convention.

Don’t get me wrong — this was a really good result for Rybak, especially since anecdotally, at least, he showed a fair amount of strength statewide. But this is just the first of many, many steps for the Minneapolis Mayor. It’s a long way to the nomination.

State House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis

Anderson Kelliher pushed Rybak very hard for first, and is alone with Rybak on the first tier of candidates. Both Rybak and Kelliher more than doubled the third-place finisher, John Marty. The perception going into the night was that Kelliher and Rybak would be duking it out for preeminence; that perception has only been strengthened.

Kelliher, like Rybak, will have to woo the disaffected supporters of other candidates. It will be interesting to see how the uncommitteds break — I suspect many are Mark Dayton supporters, and they could swing this either way.

State Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville

Marty earned a surprising 9.8% of the vote, showing that at least 9.8% of DFL caucusgoers don’t remember 1994. Ultimately, that 9.8% is probably Marty’s ceiling — I can’t imagine him winning the endorsement (I mean, for God’s sake, please). But it does put him in position to play king- or queenmaker at the convention, and I expect his delegates will go to the candidate who is most willing to position themselves to the left. If nothing else, Marty will have a significant say in who the party nominates, and that is something he can be proud of.

State Sen. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia

Rukavina is not quite dead. Unlike Marty, he has some room to grow his support, and after an initial showing in the high-single-digits, it’s possible he could do just that between now and the convention. He’ll have to get himself into the low-double-digits to have a chance, but he at least is positioned to do that.

State Rep. Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis

Like Rukavina, Thissen did just well enough that you can’t quite write him off. Basically, Marty, Thissen, and Rukavina are still alive to become the “third choice” candidate at the convention, one who could become an alternative to the big two. Thissen has done very well to get this far, and he’s still got a shot at the nomination. It would be a surprise, of course, if he managed to get it, but he’s been surprisingly strong so far.

Former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minn.

Dayton wasn’t on the ballot on Tuesday, and that has proven to be a very smart move. Already, many Dayton supporters have been trumpeting the “Uncommitted” vote as a vote for Dayton, and while that’s almost certainly not the case, they can spin it that way. Ultimately, Dayton didn’t hurt himself at all by staying out of the endorsement process, and if even a third of the uncommitted supporters are his, he’ll be able to have some say in who comes out of Duluth.

Who’s Down

Former State House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul

Entenza’s dismal, seventh-place showing is nothing short of disastrous for a candidate whose raison d”être was inevitability. Yes, Entenza was punished somewhat for bypassing the endorsement process. Yes, Entenza didn’t need to put as high a priority on the caucuses because he’s going to the primary regardless. But still, there’s no spinning seventh place — especially with R.T. Rybak tripling you, and Margaret Anderson Kelliher coming close.

Entenza is far from done, of course; he’s still got plenty of cash on hand, and he’s going to the primary no matter what, so losing the nomination is not mission critical. But that doesn’t erase the fact that so far, Entenza seems to be coming up short in actual tests of popular strength. Since that’s what elections are, Entenza needs to find a way to right the ship — if he can.

State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano

Emmer backers can correctly point to 2002 as a situation where the guy who lost the straw poll went on to win the nomination. And that’s fine, and it’s true, but that doesn’t erase the sting of losing to Seifert after a week in which everything seemed to be pointing to strong Emmer momentum.

Again, I think the GOP race will be very, very close. But if you had to pick which side to be on right now, you’d want to be on Seifert’s side — it’s easier to hold on to your own supporters, rather than trying to peel off the other side’s. Emmer can still win this. But tonight was a blow.

State Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Chisholm

Bakk is evidently going to the primary regardless, and one can even envision the way he could find a path to victory — if Rukavina fails to get the nomination, he will be the only Iron Ranger on the ballot. But eighth place kind of speaks for itself, and I just don’t see this being Bakk’s year.

Who’s Out

Former State Sen. Steve Kelley, DFL-Hopkins

The fourth time wasn’t the charm. Mired back at 4% in a distant ninth place, Kelley has pretty much validated the belief that his time has come and gone. He’s not a bad guy. But he’s not going to be governor.

Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner

Yes, Gaertner’s going on to the primary, but unlike Bakk, it’s hard to see how she expects to win it. Look, if you want to be taken seriously as a candidate, you have to beat someone other than Ole Savior and Felix Montez. And Gaertner failed to do it. Frankly, nothing I’ve seen from the Gaertner campaign suggests that she’s ready for prime-time. Tonight was a fatal blow to her candidacy. The only question is whether Gaertner is going to waste her time and ours by prolonging the agony.

State Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie

Hann’s 5% would have been mediocre in the crowded DFL field. In the relatively open Republican field, it’s fatal. He didn’t come within a country mile of Emmer, and there is absolutely no reason to think he will be the GOP nominee. The only question is whether Emmer can win over Hann’s supporters, or whether Seifert can use them to build his lead.

Fmr. State Rep. Bill Haas, R-Champlin

Haas’s night made Hann’s look rosy. When you win less than 2% of the vote, nobody cares about you.

Leslie Davis

Again: why was Leslie Davis running as a Republican? I assume the 109 Republicans who supported him thought he was someone else.

Phil Herwig

I guess he ran for the U.S. House back in the 90s. He didn’t win then, either.

Bob Carney, Jr.

Surprising to see that his plan for an enclosed Segway and bike path in Minneapolis didn’t win over more Republicans.

Felix Montez

Who?

Ole Savior

Of course, despite the fact that Savior won just 21 votes in the straw poll, he can take solace in the fact that he did better than Felix Montez. By four votes. Unless more votes come in, and Montez beats him. That would suck for Ole.

Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party

1. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak (Last Rank: 2)

Rybak rises to the top slot because of all the campaign, his has the most momentum. He’s fundraising at a remarkable clip, and he just won the reNEW.mn straw poll, gaining one of TakeAction Minnesota’s three endorsements. He’s clearly got the most juice going into the caucuses — indeed, Rybak is taking most of the smearing from GOP operatives. Rybak has also strongly benefited by the decision of St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman to sit this race out. There was really only room in the race for one of the big-city mayors, and I think Coleman saw the writing on the wall, and wisely decided to wait. That frees up Rybak, who is arguably the best-known of the local politicians in the state.

Does that mean Rybak has this in the bag? Of course not. But he’s the candidate who pledged to abide by the endorsement process who is most likely to come through the endorsement process a winner, and he’s the most likely candidate to win both the endorsement and the primary.

Rybak’s Achilles’ heel will remain the fact that he is the mayor of Minneapolis. While that means he’s gotten a lot of free publicity and name recognition over the years, it also can serve to separate him from outstate Minnesota. Rybak will need to continue to work outstate if he wants to win the endorsement, and if he wants to win the primary. But he’s in great shape — for now.

2. Former Sen. Mark Dayton, DFL-Minn. (LR: 3)

Dayton has the least to lose from a bad caucus showing — he’s already ruled himself out of the endorsement process. He already has the strong name recognition of a Dayton, and he’s got money to run a campaign — including over $500 thousand in cash that he’s loaned to the campaign. And unlike any other candidate on either side of the aisle, Dayton has won two statewide races. That’s important, as he’s proven his ability to manage a state-level race in ways no other candidate has.

Of course, the usual caveats with Dayton apply. While it was brave and important of him to publicly admit to his struggles with depression and substance abuse, that admission is politically a double-edged sword, as it may reinforce the perception that Dayton is unstable (a perception that predated the admission by several years). And Dayton has showed boredom with the day-to-day drudgery of politicking, whether during his time as state auditor or his time in the Senate.

Nevertheless, Dayton is in great position for the fall, and should be in the race till the end.

3. Former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul  (LR: 1)

Entenza can survive a bad showing in the caucuses; he’s pledged to go on to the primary, and he’s got the money and the ability to make it through without competing in the caucuses. But Entenza still is falling due to the simple fact that his aura of inevitability has completely evaporated.

Entenza’s strategy early was pretty clear: push hard on the idea that Entenza was the only candidate with the money and organization to win. That has pretty convincingly been proven false, and the candidates Entenza was hoping to dissuade from running all jumped in the race, save for Chris Coleman. Rybak’s fundraising has been torrid, Dayton can match Entenza on self-funding, and there are a number of other formidable Democrats who could parlay a nomination win into a primary win.

That makes Entenza’s showing in the caucuses rather more important than it should have been, and it’s why, I think, he’s seeking endorsement. Quite simply, Entenza has obviously slipped a bit, and he needs to regain a bit of his lost momentum. A good showing in the straw poll would demonstrate that he still has significant mojo.

But if Entenza slides out of the top three in the straw poll (Dayton isn’t competing), it could be another blow to a campaign that really seems to be spinning its wheels. Of course, when your candidate is Matt Entenza, even the best campaign is going to struggle. Ultimately, the best Entenza may be able to hope for is that his campaign controls enough delegates to derail a Rybak coronation.

4. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis (LR: 7)

Anderson Kelliher has established herself as a viable candidate for the endorsement. Finishing in the top three of the reNEW.mn straw poll gives her a fair amount of momentum going into the caucuses. And make no mistake: she needs it.

The problem for Anderson Kelliher is that very quickly, we’re going to be in the middle of the legislative session. And that is a serious problem, because the Speaker of the House can’t go AWOL in the middle of session. The Speaker is going to have to walk a fine line between campaigning and running her caucus, and I don’t know how she’s going to do both. If she can, she’ll deserve the DFL endorsement. But it’s just as likely that she’ll have to back some pretty unpopular measures to get the budget back into balance, and that could just as easily derail her campaign.

What keeps MAK afloat is the fact that she’s the most viable female candidate left in the race, and there’s more than a little sentiment behind the idea that the DFL should be willing to nominate a woman for the Governor’s mansion — especially given the last twenty years of bland white men we’ve put forth. Anderson Kelliher and Rybak strike me as the two most likely candidates to be around at the end of the endorsement process; the one who can win over Thissen and Marty and Entenza delegates probably will win. Anderson Kelliher stands a good chance of winning those votes. She’s very much alive at this point.

5. State Rep. Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis (LR: 9)

Thissen is rising, because of his strong second-place showing in the reNEW.mn straw poll and a strong grassroots campaign. Now comes the hard part. Thissen really needs to show up in the top four in the caucus straw poll to boost his standing. He’s still seen as being in the second tier of candidates. A good showing on Tuesday could change that.

Ultimately, I still don’t know if this is Thissen’s time — but he’s already doing better than I would have expected. My feeling at this point is that it’s unwise to count Thissen out. He seems to be beating expectations regularly.

6. State Sen. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia (LR: NR)

Rukavina has vaulted over his fellow Sen. Tom Bakk to hold the lead among Iron Range candidates. Unfortunately, with the Range split between Rukavina and Bakk, he probably doesn’t have enough support to pull off the nomination. Still, the Range has a lot of DFLers in it, and if Rukavina can win the lion’s share of them, he could become a player in the nomination process.

I don’t see 2010 as the year of Rukavina. But he’s still viable.

7. State Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook (LR: 6)

Bakk has really been hurt by Rukavina’s entry into the race. Before, Bakk could have ridden Iron Range and union support to a strong position at the state convention. Now, however, Bakk is sharing the Iron Range with Rukavina, who frankly is a better-known candidate.

That doesn’t mean Bakk is done — but he’s close. He will need to beat Rukavina in the straw poll on Tuesday to stay alive. If he finishes below him, I think he’s probably out of the race.

8. Oleveuse Scorpio Savior (LR: 10)

Ole has been his usual genial self on the campaign trail, what with his proposals to keep the State Fair open year ’round, and to move the Vikings to Manitoba. He has no chance, and that’s why we love him.

9. State Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville (LR: 11)

Marty is not going to get the endorsement. I don’t care if he wins the straw poll on Tuesday, there are enough DFLers alive who remember 1994 to keep Marty from getting the nod.

Of course, that’s not why Marty’s running, really. He’s running to push the party leftward, to make it known that there are a lot of very liberal people who’d like the party to move their direction. And he’s attracted a lot of those disaffected people to his campaign. Of course, there aren’t enough of them to get Marty over the top. But he could control enough delegates to make things interesting come convention time.

10. Former State Sen. Steve Kelley, DFL-Hopkins (LR: 8)

Kelley’s campaign has simply failed to ignite, and I expect him to have a dismal showing in the straw poll on Tuesday. I like Steve Kelley — he’s a decent guy with good policy ideas, and I’d hope he would be considered for a commissionership by a DFL governor. But he’s failed in statewide races three times. At some point, you just stop being taken seriously. Kelley, alas, has reached that point.

11. Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner (LR: 5)

Talk about a campaign that failed to ignite. Gaertner started with all kinds of advantages. But she simply hasn’t managed to garner support. Maybe it’s her role in prosecuting RNC protesters, or the fact that her “Susan’s Take” emails read like they were written by someone completely disconnected from reality. Whatever the case, Gaertner started as the candidate I expected to win — and now stands as a candidate who will be lucky to survive tomorrow.

(Dropping out: 4. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman)

Republican Party

1. State Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano (LR: 11)

Emmer jumps all the way to number one, thanks to the timely withdrawal and endorsement of former State Auditor Pat Anderson, his strong fundraising, and a raft of other endorsements, from Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau to former Sen. Rod Grams.

Emmer represents the purest teabagger in the race on the GOP side, and he’s riding that momentum to a strong position, probably the lead position for the nomination. I think he’s arguably outmaneuvered Marty Seifert, and frankly, the rest of the GOP field is now pretty weak. My guess is that the nomination is Emmer’s to lose, which should make for a very entertaining election season. Of course, should Emmer actually win in November, I may have to move to Wisconsin. But the race itself will be fun.

2. State Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall (LR: 3)

Seifert is, as I’ve said before, like a somewhat less charismatic version of Tim Pawlenty. Of course, Tim Pawlenty is pretty liberal, if you’re a teabagger. And that’s hurt Seifert somewhat. That and Pat Anderson’s withdrawal, which allowed the staunch conservatives to unite around Emmer.

That’s not to say Seifert is done. He has raised a fair amount of money, and he’s likely the more establishment pick in the race; I think he could still manage to squeak out the endorsement. But there’s no question that right now, he trails Emmer in momentum. He just has to hope he does well enough in the straw poll to keep it interesting.

3. State Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie (LR: 10)

Hann is in third place by default — a lot of candidates who would have been better-positioned than him took a pass on the race. I strongly doubt that Hann can outmaneuver Seifert or Emmer to get into the top two; his best bet may simply be to work to position himself as a kingmaker.

4. Former Champlin Mayor Bill Haas (LR: NR)

Haas is running a more anonymous campaign than Hann at this point. Maybe if the two could somehow merge into one candidate — Hans Dills — they could together challenge Seifert for second. But realistically, Haas is out of the race.

5. Leslie Davis (LR: NR)

Why is Leslie Davis running as a Republican? In explanation, I can only offer the Chewbacca defense. Chewbacca is a Wookiee. He comes from the planet Kashyyyk. He’s about 6′8″, and covered in hair. Why am I talking about a Wookiee? It makes no sense! And that’s why Leslie Davis is running as a Republican — it makes no sense.

6. Phil Herwig (LR: NR)

Herwig is running for Governor, I guess. I know nothing about him, and since he won’t win, I don’t need to.

(Dropped out: 1. Brian Sullivan 2. Mary Kiffmeyer 4. Steve Sviggum 5. Pat Anderson 6. Charlie Weaver 7. David Senjem 8. Laura Brod 9. Norm Coleman 12. Carol Molnau 13. Erik Paulsen 14. John Kline 15. Jim Ramstad)

Independence Party

1. Lt. Col. Joe Repya (ret.)

Repya’s entry into the race for the Independence Party endorsement has a lot of Democrats happy. Repya, after all, is a former Republican who still has strong support from conservative activists, many of whom supported his 2007 bid to be GOP chair.

Could Repya steal votes away from the Republican nominee? Well, first he has to get the IP nomination. The good news is that the usual crowd of mediocre and questionable candidates have gotten in line for the nomination — and Repya was recruited by IP leaders. Honestly, unless Dean Barkley has a change of heart and decides to seek the IP nomination, I expect Repya to get through to the general election. I suppose it’s possible he might not. But I’d be surprised.

2. John Uldrich

The son of IP bigwig Jack Uldrich, John Uldrich has become a perennial candidate for the IP nomination. Why? Dunno. I’m sure there’s some family issue there or something. Doesn’t matter. He won’t win.

3. Robbob Hahn

His campaign website would be awesome if this was 1999. I especially like the way it sings his obnoxious campaign jingle at you. That’s leadership we can believe in.

It turns out that, based on her own words, Pam Tebow’s life was never in jeopardy at all during her pregnancy.

The reporting comes from Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check:

During a bible study class, Pam Tebow related that “during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus.”

Suggested that she abort the pregnancy? Or laid out the various risks that were possible, leaving her to her own judgment and choices? Made a definitive judgment that the fetus would unquestionably be harmed? Or described the risks of the medication necessary to treat the dysentery, including possible risks to the fetus? All of these are very different scenarios than the ones earlier suggested.

[...]

This indeed changes the whole narrative, and makes even more suspicious the trotting out of Pam Tebow as an anti-choice spokesperson.

First, as someone who herself had to be on strong medication during both of the pregnancies with my now 10- and 13-year old children, and indeed whose own health was at serious risk, the issue of “risks that could cause” problems is very different than receiving a definitive diagnosis either that something is proved to be wrong or that this pregnancy might or will kill you.

This is quite a different story than “My doctor told me that my pregnancy would kill me, but I ignored him and now America’s been blessed with a quarterback.” And quite a bit less powerful. And ultimately, the story still boils down to Pam Tebow having a choice — a choice she and Focus on the Family would deny others.

Ultimately, if you have to lie to convince others of your beliefs, it’s your beliefs that need to be examined. Pam Tebow has now been caught in at least two lies. I think that tells us in no uncertain terms just how weak her case is — and how much credence needs be given to it.

Now, there are many directions one could go with this news. One could note that the United Church of Christ was not allowed to run an ad during the Super Bowl because one of its arguments — that homosexuals are human — was “too controversial.” One could note that anti-Bush ads were routinely rejected as “too political.” One could note the fact that the founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, has advocated that men shower with young boys to show off their penises. (I am not making this up.)

But the direction I choose to go is different. You see, while Pam Tebow may have been advised by doctors to seek an abortion, she’s leaving a very big background piece unstated: abortion is illegal in the Philippines.

“Well,” you say, “this is different. I mean, her life was in jeopardy, so obviously, that was legal.” Au contraire. The Philippine criminal code makes no exception for life or health of the mother. Had Pam Tebow had an abortion, she could have been jailed, as could her physician and anyone else who assisted her.

Now, that doesn’t mean Pam Tebow is lying. There are about 470,000 abortions performed annually in the Philippines, and about 80,000 women hospitalized for complications of abortion. 12 percent of all maternal deaths in 2000 were due to unsafe abortons, of course, because abortion is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of abortion policy knows, outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it much less safe.

But this is an important part of the story that Pam and Tim Tebow are ignoring. Because the organization they’re supporting — Focus on the Family — is virulently anti-abortion, and supports making it illegal. But by Pam Tebow’s own admission, outlawing abortion didn’t stop her Filipino physician from recommending it. She had a choice — but one that was more dangerous than it had to be, one that could have had legal repercussions for her and her family.

Understand, I don’t begrudge Pam Tebow if she would have made that choice freely. The whole point of pro-choice is that it places the ultimate decision to continue or abort a pregnancy with the woman who is pregnant. Pam Tebow was willing to risk her life to bring her son into the world. That was her choice.

But doubtless, there are Filipinas who even today are in the same grave position Pam Tebow was in, who would like to make their own informed choice, but who are not American and lack the connections and relative wealth Tebow had. Some may choose to carry to term. Some may choose an abortion. But all of them deserve to make that choice based on the dictates of their own consciences, without fear of jail or death.

Ultimately, Pam and Tim Tebow want to limit the right of women to decide what happens in their own bodies. And to do so, they’re willing to fudge the truth about the circumstances surrounding her own choice — one that was not completely free, one that was not completely safe, one that she could not make based solely on her own conscience. She wants to argue that she had a choice when, frankly, she did not. I do believe the Bible has something to say about bearing false witness. But that, I suppose, isn’t important when you’ve got an anti-choice message to share.

It depends on what the meaning of “freeze” is. Indeed, under certain conditions, this could be a great idea.

Before you try me for heresy, read this bit of reporting by Jonathan Chait:

Within the administration, White House budget director Peter Orszag appears to have settled on another solution. Last month, Orszag raised eyebrows when word leaked that he’d asked most cabinet agencies to prepare two budgets: one that freezes spending, the other that cuts it by 5 percent. Many congressional liberals were livid, and, according to multiple sources, Larry Summers’s National Economic Council reacted negatively to the emphasis on the deficit. (“The economic team has a healthy debate about most major issues,” says an administration official. “Getting people back to work is central to addressing the deficit. Similarly, putting the country back on a fiscally sustainable path is vital to confidence in the economy.”) The concern among wonks outside the administration is that clamping down on domestic discretionary spending without touching entitlements would take money out of the economy in the short term while doing nothing to close the long-term deficit.

These same liberals and wonks rejoiced when Obama backed job creation. But there is a logic to Orszag’s gambit, which runs roughly as follows: It’s almost certain that Congress will pass, and the president will sign, a jobs bill early next year, probably in the neighborhood of $100 billion to $200 billion. Given that, and given the difficulty of doing anything about the long-term deficit next year, the administration needs some signal to U.S. bondholders that it takes the deficit seriously. Just not so seriously that it undercuts the extra stimulus.

My guess is that this is the plan — announce, with great fanfare, a “spending freeze” that covers basic departmental budgets and not much else. A freeze that doesn’t come within a furlong of covering the cost of a jobs bill. It’s brilliant politics — you get all the benefits of posing as deficit hawks without any of the actual deep spending cuts (including, it can not be stressed enough, defense) and/or tax increases that a real attack on the deficit would require. Actually, since this is how deficit hawks really behave (when’s the last time Joe Lieberman suggested actually cutting defense? Or Evan Bayh floated a tax hike?), you simply become deficit hawks. And as we all know, deficit hawkishness is A Very Good Thing In Official Washington. Obama’s bound to get great press out of this.

What’s more, eventually, cuts are going to be necessary, as will tax increases. Not now — actually taking on the deficit in the midst of a deep recession would be catastrophic. That said, at some point, some day, we will have to take the deficit on. And that will require dealing with the budget like responsible adults, not Americans. A relatively small, symbolic cut this year to offset a jobs bill and a health care expansion isn’t a bad idea, politically and policywise.

But that’s the key — the Obama Administration can and should find ways to reach out to the center. But they also have to find a way to energize the left. Failing to pass a health care bill would be catastrophic; it guarantees a GOP takeover of at least the House come fall. Passing a health care bill, a jobs bill, and a repeal of DADT while simultaneously limiting other spending growth? That’s a trade that liberals can and should be willing to make.

Of course, if there’s no quid pro quo — if this is a spending freeze just for the sake of freezing spending, and if no jobs bill or health care bill is forthcoming — then it should be rejected out of hand. There’s making a play for the middle, and then there’s rank stupidity. I’m going to bet that the Obama Administration isn’t stupid. But we’ll see.

One of the interesting things about that fresh start was that it was just that — a complete reboot of humanity, jettisoning any technology more advanced than agriculture. Of course, that was partially because BSG was set roughly 140,000 BP, and you can’t have us only inventing electronics in the 20th Century if we were using them 140 millennia ago.

Now, I never found the idea that humans might trade technology for a new start as ridiculous as some people — after all, if technology came a hair’s-breadth from destroying you, you may want to emulate the Amish as well. Especially if you could do it in Africa, with a pretty yellow sun overhead and plenty of food to eat that wasn’t derived from algae.

But there are other reasons that the survivors of the Fall of the Twelve Colonies might want to give up technology. After all, while the Colonies were portrayed as earthlike in their existence, they weren’t Earth. These were peoples with a different history than ours, who had seen technology literally rise up against them and destroy everything they held dear.

That history begins with Caprica.

The new prequel, set 58 years Before the Fall, is the story of two grieving fathers — Daniel Graystone and Joseph Adams — both of whom lost their daughters in a terrorist bombing of an elevated train. (Adams lost his wife as well.) Zoe Graystone was a brilliant, temperamental 16-year-old with a fervent, heretical belief in monotheism — and a boyfriend whose fervor led to the bombing. Tamara Adams and her mother, Shannon, are innocent bystanders.

Adams is a defense attorney from Tauron, a member of a persecuted minority. He’s Capricanized his name — he was born Yosef Adama, but such a name makes him seem more ethnic. He does business with the Tauron mafia, who like many minorities chose a life of crime over toiling as second-class citizens. He does so reluctantly — he has a conscience, and he doesn’t like the violence associated with the mob. But he works with them because they helped him go to college, because his brother is a part of them, and because honestly, it’s easier than the alternative.

Graystone, on the other hand, is a multibillionaire, the Caprican equivalent of Bill Gates, only he’s played by Eric Stoltz, so he’s both more attractive and creepier. He’s working on a defense project — a military robot, one that can be used for defense. It’s not going that well, though — a rival from Tauron has developed a new processor that could doom his project. But he’s not as concerned about that as he is about data left behind by his daughter, including a link to a virtual night club full of unspeakable virtual perversions — including bland ones like orgies and drugs, and more sadistic ones like torture,  murder and human sacrifice — all set to bumping techno music. (This is not farfetched. As Graystone’s guide, Zoe’s friend Lacy, notes, the first use for the virtual imagers Graystone himself invented was pornographic — and porn was one of the first serious industries to tap the internet. All of this has happened before….)

But nothing in this virtual club is more odd than Zoe Graystone’s avatar.

That’s because Zoe’s avatar is not just an avatar. It’s Zoe, more or less — a copy made by Zoe before her death, one that includes her memories, her personality, her likes and dislikes, her faults and strengths. The copy is made from many sources, including her school records, medical records, television viewing habits — things that could be used to make a good simulacrum of any human.

And thanks to his daughter’s genius Daniel Graystone finds the chance to do the unthinkable — to raise his daughter from the grave.

Daniel finds an unlikely ally in Joseph, who he meets at an information session for family members of victims of the bombing. He uses Joseph’s connections to steal the Tauron technology that could make his daughter live in the real world — albeit in a body that is made of metal. And he promises Joseph the same — a resurrection of his daughter, and his wife.

Joseph ultimately balks when Daniel shows him the proto-avatar of his daughter — she’s afraid, confused, and certain that something is terribly wrong. Joseph agrees, believing that there’s something Frankensteinian in what Daniel is doing. And yet Daniel is trying to do what any heartbroken, desperate parent would do if they could do it without punishment — bring back his daughter. To let her live the life she was supposed to live, before it was senselessly snuffed out.

Is such a thing Right? I don’t know. I do know that I would rather rip my right arm off than even think about my daughter coming to harm. That I can’t bring myself to write the comparative sentence between myself and Adama or Graystone because the mere thought is too painful for me to bring into enough clarity to express it in English. Suffice to say that I would gleefully make a deal with Satan himself if it guaranteed my daughter’s safety through a long and happy life. Eternal damnation would be a small price to pay. Simply messing with the laws of the Gods and Nature? That’s kid stuff.

That doesn’t mean that there will be no price for violating those laws. Just that in that pit of grief and despair, I can imagine being able to justify almost anything, grasping at any straw, praying to any false idol.

This tension — between Upholding That Which is Right and Saving Those We Love — is the driving force behind Caprica. We know, of course, how it will end — with the nuclear bombardment of the Twelve Colonies, with the flight of Galactica and the fleet, with the eventual colonization of Earth (Mark Two). But how we get there — a path that, like BSG, is not straight or clear, not good or evil, but rather a road paved with good intentions — that appears to be a fascinating journey. And one that I’m looking forward to.