Ten Things About the RNC in Saint Paul, Round II

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.