Sorry, had to run to run out for a moment, and didn't get the whole list in. Here's the rest:
5) Is Minnesota really in play as a swing state for the 2008 election? According to several news outlets, it is. Gallop polls and phone calls aside, though, is one of states perceived to be one of the most liberal states in the Union really going to go for a Repub in November? While I'll concede that it is possible, I'll believe it when I see it. In an email to a friend from earlier in the summer, I had made the statement that the last time a Repub carried Minnesota was in the 1950s with Eisenhower. I was mistaken; Nixon carried Minnesota in 1972. So, it's been thirty-six years, and eight presidential elections, since a Repub last carried the state. And, if what went on during the caucuses in February 2008 is any indication, it won't happen this year. Those contending that the state is in play - including pundits from inside the state - seem to have conveniently forgotten how many Dems turned out for the caucus. The attendance was huge - I'll concede that the main reason for the draw was that the nomination was still up for grabs, and Clinton and Obama supporters came out in force. While some pundits may view the showdown between Obama and Clinton in the caucus as some kind of proof of a schism in the party, or that McCain's choice of Palin will appeal to disenfranchised Hillary supporters, I'm not so sure. The pundits are quick to forget that while the turn out for the Dem side of the caucus was huge, Obama won the caucus by a pretty convincing margin. That doesn't exactly signal a problem for the Dems. Also, let's not forget that Mitt Romney beat McCain in the caucus here. For those reasons - Obama's big win, McCain's loss, and the voting history of the state - I can't see Obama losing the state to McCain.
4) So what's up with the US Senate race between Franken and Coleman? As much as I like my home state, and the people in it, sometimes Minnesotans make some dipshit choices which make them look like morons to the rest of the US. Case in point: the upcoming US Senate election between Democrat Al Franken (yes, that Al Franken) and incumbent Repub Norm Coleman. The choice between the two - if you can in fact call it a choice - reminds me of one of the closing scenes of the Monty Python film "Life of Brian": when Brian is to be crucified, he's led into a room with a group of other men. There are two doors: one leading to freedom, one leading to crucifixion. While there's a choice inherent with those doors - as a man trying to escape death learns when asking for door number two - there really isn't a choice. The problem with this election is you've got a Celebricrat (celebrity Democrat) with no (and I mean no) political experience at all, and Norm Coleman. What so bad about Norm? He is the guy that brought NHL hockey back to Minnesota, and Saint Paul in particular, which isn't a bad thing, but it's about as politically important as "Daily Affirmations with Stuart Smalley." Norm, unlike Franken, has political experience - former mayor of Saint Paul, and it's his seat which is being contested in this election. To me, Norm is one of those politicans which McCain was railing against last night - their own wants first, the country's second. That's a pretty good way to describe a politican who began his career as a Democrat (while the mayor of the StP, starting in 1994), and, when he saw that his political career aspirations could and probably would be placed in the passenger seat by more established Minnesota Dems, conveniently switched to the Republican Party in 1996. To prove my point: who remembers the 1998 governor election in Minnesota? If you don't, you should, as it was the year Jesse won. He ran against Dem Skip Humphrey (son of Minnesota political legend Hubert Humphrey) and freshly anointed Repub Norm Coleman. Humphrey was more than penciled in as the Dems' governor choice long before the election, which certainly casts doubts on the legitimacy of Coleman's switch. That, and Coleman seems to be far too interested in the concerns of big buck lobbyists (American oil companies especially). But to balance that off with Franken - Dems of Minnesota, what the hell were you thinking? Franken hadn't lived in the state for decades, and when he does come back, you endorse his candidacy on little more than name recognition. Weren't there solid Dem state senators, congress people, and political officials who could have tapped instead? Somebody with at least some political experience? Hosting a radio show on public radio, going out on USO tours overseas, and writing books with political twinges really doesn't count as practical experience in my book. Add in independent Dean Barkley - not much to that. While there is a choice involved with this election, it's a choice in name only - it sure isn't much of a choice in my book.
3) So, if a Repub win in Minnesota in 2008 isn't likely, why was the convention held in Saint Paul? Two reasons, I think - neither of them is a radical conspiracy theory, but as I'm plunking out the two reasons, I'll see if I can come up with a crazy third. Reason number one: the convention location was a way for a Repub candidate, be it McCain or not, to distance themselves from the current Bush administration. This thing can fall apart, of course, if the decision to have the convention in Saint Paul was made prior to the Iraq War, signficant price jumps in the energy business, and so on. But, I think I'm safe. The logic here could have been that to distance one new candidate's possible presidency from a very unpopular president (at least to most Americans, anyway) would be to hold the convention in a very unconventional location (pun intented). This could signal a change - the old regime is done, and a new one is coming, and just to prove that, they'll hold a convention in a largely Dem state to bring in that new message. Reason II: money, and lots of it. Despite what I had to say about Pawlenty and Coleman, they are considered to be prime up-and-comers in the national Repub party, so their influence on swaying convention planners could be integral. Also, Pawlenty is the chairman of McCain's campaign, and McCain, when he first announced his intentions to run in 2008, was considered an odds-on favorite to win the nomination (although, as it turns out and as we all know, he had a major fight on his hands during the primaries and caucuses). But, what makes me also scratch my head is that Minnesota Repubs (and Minnesota Dems, for that matter) can tend to deviate from national party policies and agendas. When you see a state politican - governor, state senator or congress person, etc., on TV, they're usually listed as DFL (Democratic Farm-Labor) or IR (Independent Republican). So, the GOP in Minnesota really isn't the same as the GOP nationally or in GOP strongholds (parts of the Mountain West and Deep South). So, it's a bit of a head scratcher I still can't figure out. Sorry, no odd-ball conspiracy theory comes to mind.
2) What did people make of McCain's choice of Palin? This, I thought, was kind of interesting. At the bar this past Monday, Palin's choice as VP was the hot topic of conversation. Seeing how the Repubs were in town, there were several Repub backers in the bar that night, from both the Twin Cities and nationwide. Putting the less serious comments aside- "Hey, she looks like Tina Fey!" and "Dude, she's hot!" - what I found surprising is that the excitement I saw in the Xcel when she hit the stage was by no means matched by the Repub supporters in the bar. Granted, this is a small group of people who had been drinking - point conceded that it's not the best of samples. But, the majority of people I overheard and talked to - men and women, different classes, and so on - were by no means excited over Palin's choice and less then thrilled about her credentials. Most people saw Palin's selection as a move made in desperation and out of fear - if McCain had chosen Pawlenty or Mitt Romney (who, by the way, most of the bar wanted), the fear would be that the ticket would be perceived as a standard, traditional (and therefore Bush-like in nature) ticket which Obama-Biden would destroy in November. This, to them, made McCain seem scared that he'd lose in November, and wanted to shake things up to try to complete with Obama's appeal.
1) What did downtown Saint Paul look like during the convention? I was only down there once, on Monday night, but that was good enough. The bird porn people were an obvious reason, as were the anarchist groups. But what really got me was the fact that my hometown looked like a war zone. As I came into downtown Saint Paul, a white van was along side of my car, on the left hand side. As we came to a stoplight, the door of the van swung open, and a group of police dressed in full riot gear sprung from the car and ran down the street towards a group of people. That's not something which you see every day - and I'm glad for that. Downtown Saint Paul, after normal business hours, is a pretty relaxed, peaceful place. So, needless to say, I'm not exactly shedding any tears now that this is over. I'm hoping my hometown returns to normal pretty quickly here, which I think it will. I didn't much care for it looking like a war zone.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Ten Things About the RNC in Saint Paul
It's all over. Finally. In case you've been living under a rock for the last week, the Republican National Convention wrapped up last night when John McCain made his acceptance speech. The RNC was held in my hometown of Saint Paul, MN, and I was actually around to experience some of the sideshows of the convention. Here's a list of ten things I'll remember from the convention, in no particular order.
10) Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura made a good point on Tuesday night's episode of "Larry King Live." No, seriously. While it may seem hard to believe that the Body made an insightful comment - given his gaffs while governor (my favorite: during an interview with Playboy, Jesse made a comment about men being with several women during their lifetime, drawing an analogy between being a player and test driving a car - something along the lines of putting your key in various ignitions to see if it fits!), this actually caught my attention. Jesse paraphrased a quotation about convincing a nation to go to war; I dug up the quotation, and the portion he spoke about reads "[a]ll you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing their country to danger." Now, I'll concede that this might make me sound like a reactionary lefty, but this quotation reads much like how the Bush White House was (and still is) able to justify keeping US troops in Iraq. This quotation doesn't come from a Repub, a Bush White House staffer, or a CNN talking head - it comes from Luftwaffe commander and ardent Nazi Hermann Goering. It could be that Herr Goering was making a historical observation - I'd imagine that the Greeks, Romans, barbarians, and several European powers (besides Nazi Germany) used a similar approach. But what scared me is how similar this line of thinking appears to our contemporary situation. And the fact that a Nazi articulated this statement is even more frightening.
9) The two candidates on the Repub short list. It was either Tuesday or Wednesday that the local news broadcasts here in the Twin Cities were abuzz with McCain's second choice for VP. According to those broadcasts, the final two contenders for the VP nom were Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who, of course, got the nod) and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Why Palin over Pawlenty? There is, of course, a lot of speculation over why McCain chose Palin, from reaching out to the Repubs' more conservative base to trying to steal disgruntled Hillary supporters away from Obama to trying to make his ticket historical as well (the first female Repub VP versus the first African American presidential nominee). But, when it comes to Pawlenty versus Palin, there hasn't been much discussion. So, when it comes to this question, let me provide an answer; Palin was chosen over Pawlenty because Palin has a personality. This is not to say that Pawlenty doesn't have a personality - he does, but he's about as dry as melba toast. He's a bit of a wet noodle, and really too nice of a guy to make an impact on the national stage. Plus, I think Biden would have ripped him apart in a VP debate.
8) What I've learned about anarchists. Although they're very passionate about their cause - perhaps zealous (and overly zealous) - I don't think they qualify as the brightest bulbs on the string of Christmas lights. Case in point: Wednesday's local newsbroadcasts reported how anarchists planned to block traffic on one of the busiest freeway off ramps in downtown Saint Paul (the 7th street exit off of I-94 in Saint Paul, for those of you familiar with the area). Good idea in principle - cause chaos and fender benders by sitting in the middle of an off ramp (and, possibly being killed. Ouch.). But, when they got there, they realized that they forgot to do their homework - that off ramp had already been blocked off by the city a few days prior. A little reconnaissance might help there.
7) Is Governor Palin's pregnant 17-year-old daughter fair game for a political discussion? Absolutely not. I credit Senator Obama here for making a very definitive statement about that the same day the pregnancy was broadcast by the media - she isn't fair game, and Obama doesn't want anyone in his camp or Dems as a group to make this an issue. Cudos to him - although this could be read as a political tactic (and, more likely than not is), it's also the right thing to do. But, it does raise a question: why would she be a politicial target in the first place? In my opinion, it's due largely to the perception that the Repubs have of themselves, as being morally superior to Dems. This is derived largely from the different stances on abortion (Repubs typically pro-life, Dems typically pro-choice), sex education (Dems for a broad approach, Repubs advocating for abstinence), and appeal to conservative Christian groups (strong for Repubs, not so much for Dems). So, with this said, the pregnant teenage daughter of a conservative Repub VP nominee could be a scandal, as it could alienate a core group of Repub supporters who believe that sex before marriage, especially for people under age, is a big no-no. I remember talking to former female students living in a red state about the rings they wore on their hands - I thought they were married, but they told me that these were promise rings, promising to maintain their virginity until marriage (by the way: they often receive their rings from their fathers. Is it just me, or is there something kind of disturbing about a girl promising this to her father?). The example here is not meant to suggest that this type of situation happened in the Palin family - in fact, I don't know. But, the example is meant to illustrate the perception of premartial sex for some groups of people associated with Repubs. This, of course, could blow up in the Dems' faces if they push the issue, and really isn't appropriate for a political campaign. With that said, though, evidently someone forgot to send the Repubs the memo. The daughter has been paraded around the convention for days. I can see her wanting to be on the stage during her mother's acceptance speech, and during McCain's acceptance speech, but she's literally been seen all around the convention this week. I'm not suggesting that she should be hid off camera somewhere, or that she should feel shame or embarassment over her situation - she shouldn't, as these things happen. But, if the Dems don't want to make this an issue, it does seem like the Repubs very much do want to make this an issue. What I don't understand is why she was there on an airport tarmac welcoming John McCain to the Twin Cities. McCain whispered something to her - the news broadcasts later said that he told her how sorry he was that she was in the spotlight and that was happening to her. But who's continually putting her in the spotlight? Is it the media who's making a big deal out of this, or are the Repubs using her and her situation for their own political gain? While it could be the media, there are some things the Repubs did this week to suggest that it's them doing the spotlighting. In addition to the tarmac thing, the McCain-Palin camp was awfully quick to release a press statement this week that the daughter and her boyfriend would be getting married. Kind of seemed like a way to calm any anxieties from conservative groups, and, for a campaign which is supposedly going to take on the "good old boy" groups, seemed like a good old boy strategy to employ.
6) Things I've learned about Repubs during the convention. A handful of things. First, that they aren't the best spellers - I saw a sign at McCain's acceptance speech last night which supported "The Mavrick." Also, they like more than country music. That to me was shocking - every Repub I know can name at least one Toby Keith song. When Trace Atkins, he of "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk" fame, sang the National Anthem last night, that wasn't a shocker. But, when the speech was over last night, and the usual stirring patriotic music was over, did you hear what was being played? I heard Heart's "Barracuda" - seriously. Now, most politicans bypass the lyrics of a song - Reagan was fond for using Springsteen's "Born in the USA" during the 1984 campaign, for example - if he'd listen to the lyrics a little more closely, he wouldn't have been so quick to latch on to that song. But, "Barracuda"? I can usually make a mountain out of a molehill, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Who knew they liked classic rock? Third, I think they drink more - a LOT more - then the dems. I frequent a bar a few blocks east of the Xcel, and was there Monday night. The theme of Monday night's convention was pretty somber, as people were unsure of what Hurricane Gustav would do. Evidently those concerns were gone when the official business was done, though - at the bar, I met delegates from Maine, Alabama, and Missouri who were pie-eyed and having a great old time. I've seen liberals drink before - and they do drink liberally - but the liberals ain't got nothing on them. Lastly, they're opposed to all forms of pornography - including bird porn. I was of two minds when I first heard that term - first, a curiousity over what bird porn was, and secondly, a little voice in the back of my mind not wanting to know what it is. But, three people carrying signs for banning bird porn came into the bar on Monday night, and enquiring minds wanted to know. Bird porn is nothing sexual - it involves ardent bird watchers going to places where they shouldn't be - private property, public lands used by hunters, etc. - and ogling birds. Bird porn advocates want that type of behavior banned, and a member of the Maine delegation agreed. Shortly after that, though, the delegate engaged the bird porn group in a discussion of the assets of one of the waitresses. Ogling of the species: bad for birds, good for humans, evidently.
10) Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura made a good point on Tuesday night's episode of "Larry King Live." No, seriously. While it may seem hard to believe that the Body made an insightful comment - given his gaffs while governor (my favorite: during an interview with Playboy, Jesse made a comment about men being with several women during their lifetime, drawing an analogy between being a player and test driving a car - something along the lines of putting your key in various ignitions to see if it fits!), this actually caught my attention. Jesse paraphrased a quotation about convincing a nation to go to war; I dug up the quotation, and the portion he spoke about reads "[a]ll you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing their country to danger." Now, I'll concede that this might make me sound like a reactionary lefty, but this quotation reads much like how the Bush White House was (and still is) able to justify keeping US troops in Iraq. This quotation doesn't come from a Repub, a Bush White House staffer, or a CNN talking head - it comes from Luftwaffe commander and ardent Nazi Hermann Goering. It could be that Herr Goering was making a historical observation - I'd imagine that the Greeks, Romans, barbarians, and several European powers (besides Nazi Germany) used a similar approach. But what scared me is how similar this line of thinking appears to our contemporary situation. And the fact that a Nazi articulated this statement is even more frightening.
9) The two candidates on the Repub short list. It was either Tuesday or Wednesday that the local news broadcasts here in the Twin Cities were abuzz with McCain's second choice for VP. According to those broadcasts, the final two contenders for the VP nom were Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who, of course, got the nod) and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Why Palin over Pawlenty? There is, of course, a lot of speculation over why McCain chose Palin, from reaching out to the Repubs' more conservative base to trying to steal disgruntled Hillary supporters away from Obama to trying to make his ticket historical as well (the first female Repub VP versus the first African American presidential nominee). But, when it comes to Pawlenty versus Palin, there hasn't been much discussion. So, when it comes to this question, let me provide an answer; Palin was chosen over Pawlenty because Palin has a personality. This is not to say that Pawlenty doesn't have a personality - he does, but he's about as dry as melba toast. He's a bit of a wet noodle, and really too nice of a guy to make an impact on the national stage. Plus, I think Biden would have ripped him apart in a VP debate.
8) What I've learned about anarchists. Although they're very passionate about their cause - perhaps zealous (and overly zealous) - I don't think they qualify as the brightest bulbs on the string of Christmas lights. Case in point: Wednesday's local newsbroadcasts reported how anarchists planned to block traffic on one of the busiest freeway off ramps in downtown Saint Paul (the 7th street exit off of I-94 in Saint Paul, for those of you familiar with the area). Good idea in principle - cause chaos and fender benders by sitting in the middle of an off ramp (and, possibly being killed. Ouch.). But, when they got there, they realized that they forgot to do their homework - that off ramp had already been blocked off by the city a few days prior. A little reconnaissance might help there.
7) Is Governor Palin's pregnant 17-year-old daughter fair game for a political discussion? Absolutely not. I credit Senator Obama here for making a very definitive statement about that the same day the pregnancy was broadcast by the media - she isn't fair game, and Obama doesn't want anyone in his camp or Dems as a group to make this an issue. Cudos to him - although this could be read as a political tactic (and, more likely than not is), it's also the right thing to do. But, it does raise a question: why would she be a politicial target in the first place? In my opinion, it's due largely to the perception that the Repubs have of themselves, as being morally superior to Dems. This is derived largely from the different stances on abortion (Repubs typically pro-life, Dems typically pro-choice), sex education (Dems for a broad approach, Repubs advocating for abstinence), and appeal to conservative Christian groups (strong for Repubs, not so much for Dems). So, with this said, the pregnant teenage daughter of a conservative Repub VP nominee could be a scandal, as it could alienate a core group of Repub supporters who believe that sex before marriage, especially for people under age, is a big no-no. I remember talking to former female students living in a red state about the rings they wore on their hands - I thought they were married, but they told me that these were promise rings, promising to maintain their virginity until marriage (by the way: they often receive their rings from their fathers. Is it just me, or is there something kind of disturbing about a girl promising this to her father?). The example here is not meant to suggest that this type of situation happened in the Palin family - in fact, I don't know. But, the example is meant to illustrate the perception of premartial sex for some groups of people associated with Repubs. This, of course, could blow up in the Dems' faces if they push the issue, and really isn't appropriate for a political campaign. With that said, though, evidently someone forgot to send the Repubs the memo. The daughter has been paraded around the convention for days. I can see her wanting to be on the stage during her mother's acceptance speech, and during McCain's acceptance speech, but she's literally been seen all around the convention this week. I'm not suggesting that she should be hid off camera somewhere, or that she should feel shame or embarassment over her situation - she shouldn't, as these things happen. But, if the Dems don't want to make this an issue, it does seem like the Repubs very much do want to make this an issue. What I don't understand is why she was there on an airport tarmac welcoming John McCain to the Twin Cities. McCain whispered something to her - the news broadcasts later said that he told her how sorry he was that she was in the spotlight and that was happening to her. But who's continually putting her in the spotlight? Is it the media who's making a big deal out of this, or are the Repubs using her and her situation for their own political gain? While it could be the media, there are some things the Repubs did this week to suggest that it's them doing the spotlighting. In addition to the tarmac thing, the McCain-Palin camp was awfully quick to release a press statement this week that the daughter and her boyfriend would be getting married. Kind of seemed like a way to calm any anxieties from conservative groups, and, for a campaign which is supposedly going to take on the "good old boy" groups, seemed like a good old boy strategy to employ.
6) Things I've learned about Repubs during the convention. A handful of things. First, that they aren't the best spellers - I saw a sign at McCain's acceptance speech last night which supported "The Mavrick." Also, they like more than country music. That to me was shocking - every Repub I know can name at least one Toby Keith song. When Trace Atkins, he of "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk" fame, sang the National Anthem last night, that wasn't a shocker. But, when the speech was over last night, and the usual stirring patriotic music was over, did you hear what was being played? I heard Heart's "Barracuda" - seriously. Now, most politicans bypass the lyrics of a song - Reagan was fond for using Springsteen's "Born in the USA" during the 1984 campaign, for example - if he'd listen to the lyrics a little more closely, he wouldn't have been so quick to latch on to that song. But, "Barracuda"? I can usually make a mountain out of a molehill, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Who knew they liked classic rock? Third, I think they drink more - a LOT more - then the dems. I frequent a bar a few blocks east of the Xcel, and was there Monday night. The theme of Monday night's convention was pretty somber, as people were unsure of what Hurricane Gustav would do. Evidently those concerns were gone when the official business was done, though - at the bar, I met delegates from Maine, Alabama, and Missouri who were pie-eyed and having a great old time. I've seen liberals drink before - and they do drink liberally - but the liberals ain't got nothing on them. Lastly, they're opposed to all forms of pornography - including bird porn. I was of two minds when I first heard that term - first, a curiousity over what bird porn was, and secondly, a little voice in the back of my mind not wanting to know what it is. But, three people carrying signs for banning bird porn came into the bar on Monday night, and enquiring minds wanted to know. Bird porn is nothing sexual - it involves ardent bird watchers going to places where they shouldn't be - private property, public lands used by hunters, etc. - and ogling birds. Bird porn advocates want that type of behavior banned, and a member of the Maine delegation agreed. Shortly after that, though, the delegate engaged the bird porn group in a discussion of the assets of one of the waitresses. Ogling of the species: bad for birds, good for humans, evidently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
