Aaron Landry links to Ted Stevens comments about Sarah Palin.

In related news, I have a line on Al Capone’s views on Elliot Ness.

In recent months, I’ve complimented the work of Zack and Sean from MNPublius. Sure they’re a couple of breathless DFL fanboys, but they keep their perspective about things, they usually have their facts straight (by DFL standards), and they are generally more into news than mindless snark – which alone puts them in the top 1% of leftyblogs. That is both a compliment and damnation by faint praise.

But there’s a big asterisk on their record; Aaron Landry.

Landry is, by all accounts, Al Franken’s full-time flak on the MNPublius staff. That’s fine – MNPublius can use its precious credibilty any ol’ way it wants to. But Landry combines a writing style reminiscent of a fourteen year old girl reviewing an Orlando Bloom movie with the reportorial chops of Grace Kelly.

For example, in this piece, about the Mark Olson flap:

The seemingly coordinated campaign by Republican operative Michael Brodkorb, Norm Coleman, the Senate Republican Caucus and others to fight against endorsed wife beater Mark Olson apparently didn’t include the people actually involved with the “grassroots” endorsement, the people in the Senate District 16 GOP and the leadership in the CD6 GOP.

So we have three statements, each of which requires a leap of logic:

First: “Seemingly coordinated?” Really, Aaron? Do tell. Do you know something we don’t? You have emails? Photos of people meeting at Keegans? Anything at all? Correlation does not equal causation. You either show the coordination – or at least why it should “seem” coordinated to us – or rewrite accordingly.

Second: “endorsed wife beater?” Olson was convicted of a misdemeanor charge, ““domestic assault by intending to cause bodily harm or death”. In other words, he made a nasty threat, and got busted. He’s never been convicted beating anyone. Did he do something very, very wrong? Yes. Did he “beat” anyone? Nope.

This is the kind of sloppy reporting that’ll get the “d” word – “defamation” – thrown around, sooner or later.

Third: About Brodkorb – what did Lewis say?

Ken [Weiner] recorded audio of Jason Lewis on KTLK talking with Chris and the MN CD6 GOP Chair Mark Swanson who are quite displeased with the “clear campaign to expel” Olson.

So listen and tell me – where does anyone mention Brodkorb?

I have no real opinion about Mark Olson; I haven’t followed his case or his story. I don’t live in his district; I have enough things to work on in my own city.

But could we at least get our actual facts straight?

MNPublius: How long will you keep squandering your hard-earned credibility on this breathless fanboy?

UPDATE:  Jeff Rosenberg brings less fanboy – but I had to react to this:

In polling news, Mark Olson is currently leading Alison Krueger 55% to 45% on the primary election question. Olson supporters appear to be coming out in droves to support the man and his actions.

Supporting his actions?

So if someone is accused of something (and/or convicted of something less serious), then supporting a guy’s politics is the same as supporting his actions?

Is that the story all you pro-perjury Clintonites, dubious-ethics-prone Hatch voters, pr0n-mongering Frankophiles and hostage-tolerant Carter schlubs want to stick with?

Gary Gross at LFR – fresh off his I-don’t-know-how-many-th Instalanche – covers the Parnell/Young race in Alaska, pitting a conservative against a RINO.

Gary’s leded: things are looking encouraging for Parnell, the conservative.

Farther down:

A new generation of politicians are climbing the ladder. Sarah Palin and Sean Parnell are prominent members of that new generation. Other members of this generation’s new leaders include Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann in the House, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and John Thune in the Senate, Gov. Palin in Alaska, Gov. Jindal in Louisiana and Gov. Pawlenty here in Minnesota.

It’s time for the GOP to start cleaning out the deadwood that’s accumulated in Washington, especially in the House. It’s time we started re-establishing the GOP brand. It’s long past time to start giving people reasons to trust us again.

Cleaning out the RINO deadwood in Washington and Saint Paul is vital, of course.

Even more important in the long term: getting more conservatives into offices at the bottom of the order; school boards, district councils, water boards and the like.

We’ve had some success: we’ve had Republicans elected to three community councils in Saint Paul, now (although two of them might not know it just yet). Expect more in the next round. Getting conservatives into the offices that might not get in the news, but do face people fairly regularly on pocketbook and community issues is a bet on the future; it shows people that the left’s cynical lies about conservatism and Republicans are just that; lies.

When the dust settles from the Presidential election, that’s going to have to be a big priority for conservatives.

As we approach primary season, the Override Six are back in the news – a little, anyway.

We’ve been following the Keith  Downey race on one side of Edina, against Ron Erhard; we’d love to see Keith prevail, there.

On the other side of Edina, First Ringer writes about his horse in the race – Jan Schneider:

Nearly six months later one might wonder if the value of the “Override Six” has been ridden hard and put away wet.  Several members are retiring.  Others were quietly endorsed.  One has switched parties.  Of the offending six, only one significant primary remains – that of endorsed Republican Jan Schneider and incumbent Neil Peterson.  Peterson has the traditional advantages of incumbency alongside a name recognition born out of a career in politics stretching back nearly 30 years as a Bloomington city councilmember and mayor.  And thanks to his transportation bill vote, Peterson’s coffers are also flush with special interest cash.

Schneider’s career trajectory has been quite different – taking place in business, not politics, where she’s worked as a senior business consultant for both start-ups and Fortune 500 companies.  Having spent 25 years helping companies cut waste, prioritize spending, and strategically plan from soup to nuts, Jan’s background seems more necessary than ever in a state that’s gone from a $2 billion surplus to a $1 billion deficit.  Jan is experienced, conservative and unlike the incumbent won’t be voting 52% of the time with the DFL.  In the words of blogger Gary Gross, “I wish we had a candidate of Jan Schneider’s quality running in each hotly contested district. If we did, we’d be in great shape.”

What Jan needs is money – and your support.

He’s right, of course; Peterson got a ton of swag out of betraying the Governor last spring, to say nothing of the usual fawning coverage from the “The Only Good Republican Is A RINO” media.

But Schneider is worth your support.  Count on hearing her on the NARN before the primary; she’s pretty sharp, and Edina could sure use her in office.

Just another reminder; Saturday is the big sign giveaway at Stephano’s in Eagan.

We’re talking Col. Joe Repya’s signs.

Here’s why it matters; from Joe’s press release (I’ve added emphasis):

At noon on September 1, the anti-war crowd claims they’ll have upwards of 50,000 marching from the Minnesota Capitol Building to the Excel Energy Center where the Republican National Convention, at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul.

We are asking everyone who supports our men and women in uniform defending America in the War on Terror to line the streets from the Excel Center with our signs. It is our way of being “Minnesota Nice” and wishing these protesters a “nice day in Minnesota.” We encourage no discussion or verbal exchange with the demonstrators – only a pleasant “smile!

So show up!

You can pick up a sign as long as the initial order lasts on Saturday, August 16th, in the parking lot of STEPHANO’S Restaurant, the corner of Highway 13 and Cliff Road (across from Walgreen’s) from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 PM. Please arrive early since we are printing a limited number. Your donations will be greatly appreciated and will allow us to print more signs.

So I’ll see you Saturday at Stephano’s.

Leave a comment here and/or at the Colonel’s blog if you plan on showing up.

According to Mike Pence – one of the heroes of Friday’s insurgency on the House floor – te fun’s not over:

House Republican Leader John Boehner announced today that House Republicans would be back on the House floor Monday “to continue and unprecedented protest that began last Friday, when dozens of Republicans joined hundreds of American citizens on the House floor to protest Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) decision to send Congress home for the rest of the summer without a vote on legislation to lower gas prices and move America toward energy independence.”

And MOB blogger Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring got a nice surprise…

For a little flavor of what to expect, check out this blog entry that includes unedited video from Friday’s protest on the floor of the House.

Yes, I’ll be tuned in tomorrow…

This 4:52 worth of video should give us all the motivation we need to work our butts off the last 90-something days of this campaign. Watching Mike Pence got my blood flowing. It was inspirational watching him. I’m betting you’ll feel the same way.

Nancy Pelosi tried shutting the House down. Ms. Pelosi’s strongarm tactics failed. They failed because an inspired group of GOP representatives used their words, their camcorders and their smart use of technology to tell Ms. Pelosi that this is still the People’s House, not Pelosi’s Politburo.

Via Ms. O’Hara, I see that pandemonium has broken loose in the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi and the Dems tries to pack up, go on recess, and literally shut down the debate:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) [“Kim Jong Pelosi“, as Patterico says] and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi’s refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

What? Doing the people’s work on company time?

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

It sounds like a ton of fun:

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O’Connor.

The Party of the Media is upset that they’re being outflanked:

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

“You’re not covering this, are you?” complaing one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans “morons” for staying on the floor.

And it gets better:

Update – The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can’t watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don’t want Republicans getting any press for this episode. GOP leaders are trying to find other Republicans to rotate in for Blunt so reporters aren’t kicked out.

The First Amendment: It’s for Democrats only!

Update 2 – This message was sent out by Blunt’s office:

“Although, this Democrat Majority just Adjourned for the Democrat 5-Week Vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House Floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN camera’s have been turned off, House Republicans are on the Floor speaking to the tax payers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican Energy proposals.

Pelosi’s feeling a bit…churlish?

Update 3 – Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.

And kudos to good ol’ American, Republican do-it-yourself knowhow:

Also, Republicans can thank Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber’s public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again.

“I love this,” Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. “Congress can be so boring…This is a kick.”

The piece from Politico reads like a liveblog, and sounds like fun:

Update 4 – The scene on the floor is kind of crazy. Normally, members are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor galleries, or visitors are prohibited from cheering. But in this case, the members are walking up and down on the floor during their speeches, standing on cheers, the visitors are cheering loudly. Some members even brought in visitors, who are now sitting on the House floor in the seats normally filled by lawmakers, cheering and clapping. Very funny.

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), not normally known as an distinguished orator, just gave a rousing speech, accusing Democrats of stifling dissent. He referenced President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after being defeated in his bid for re-election as president. Waving his arms and yelling, Manzullo brought the crowd (including a lot of staff shipped in by GOP leaders to fill up the place), and he left the floor to hugs from his colleagues. You don’t see that up here every day.

Wonder if this’ll make The Daily Show?

Update 6 – Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chaber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said “I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan” and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around he house floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

Rumors that Janet Reno called Pelosi and told her to burn the Capitol down are unconfirmed.

Hard set upon by an oppressive tyranny, the people dutifully pulled their burdens.  At times, it seemed there was no hope; the overlords would work you to death and their pleasure, living off the fruit of our labors and the sweat of our brow, as it pleased them.

There were occasional whispers – kept silent, for fear of retribution from the overlords – of a liberator.  But most of the people kept it firmly in the realm of legend – as much for their own protection as out of lack of faith.  Some of the people even acquiesced with their oppressors; “truely, it’s better to go along than to resist”, they said, weary of the battle. 

But then, one day…

…in the middle of yet another dark, dismal year in the dank, oppressed land…

…the first glimmer of sanity broke over the rancid murk.

And a few of The People began to whisper under their breath.  Soon. 

Soon.

I – and quite a few other regional conservative bloggers – got an email from an MPR producer the other day:

MPR News asks: What course would you set for the GOP?

The Republican Party is at a crossroads. An unpopular president is on the way out, and the party’s election-year hopes are pinned to a candidate who sometimes strays from the party line. With the convention coming up and the GOP seeking the public input on their platform outline, we want to know: Where would you steer the party? And how was your Republican identity shaped?

To share your thoughts and your story, please visit: www.mpr.org/gop

Please contact Molly Bloom at mbloom [at] mpr [dot] org with any questions, thoughts or concerns.

Do go out and respond (presuming you’re a Republican, natch.  Not such a big deal if you’re a DFLer, since, doy, the programming is mostly about you anyway.

Scott Johnson, who also posted the email, notes in response:

President Bush is still relatively popular among Republicans from whom MPR hopes to hear, but the reference to his unpopularity by Ms. Weggel is not unfair. President Bush’s unpopularity contributes to the enormous electoral challenge facing Republicans in the fall and to the interest of a project such as MPR’s.

All very true. 

I can think of a few responses, and I suspect so can you.

Your mission is clear.

Nothing official yet, but Zack at MNPublius notes that…:

A reliable source at the Capitol tells MN Publius that Ron Erhardt will file as an Independent candidate for the State House in 41A shortly before the filing deadline next week. 

I’m torn; I think it’s possible Erhardt will take more votes from the DFL than from Keith Downey, the endorsed GOP candidate. 

Did I say Keith Downey?  Yes, I did.  If you’re a Republican in Edina, or in one of the safer Congressional Districts, it behooves us all to get out and get behind Keith Downey.

Oh, and I love this bit of DFLer boilerplate.

Erhardt was denied the Republican endorsement for reelection after he voted to override the Governor’s veto of the transportation bill despite decades of service to the MN GOP.

I wish I’d had a blog in 1996:  “Norm Coleman was chased from the DFL after he took a moderate line on taxation and abortion despite decades of service to the Saint Paul and Minnesota DFL”. 

To say nothing of 2005: “Randy Kelly was purged from the DFL after governing to the center, and endorsing on pure foreign-policy principle George W. Bush, despite decades of loyal service to the  Saint Paul DFL”. 

Anyway, where was I?  Oh, yes.  Keith Downey is running in 41A.  Keith Downey. Keith Downey.

As we approach the twentieth anniversary of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, Zev Chafets has a fascinating profile coming out on the man in tomorrow’s New York Times magazine.

It’s about 8,000 words, and very worth a read. I’ll have some comments next week.

UPDATE: The leftysphere reacts with the sort of class we’d expect.

I grabbed this  John Hawkins piece last winter.  It’s been sitting in my drafts folder – just a link and a long quote – ever since.

Oddly, it still pretty much applies:

The conservative movement and the vehicle that we use to implement our ideas, the Republican Party, have a number of problems right now that need to be addressed. For example:

Taking Care Of The Base: The first rule of politics is to make sure that your base is reasonably happy and if they’re not, find a way to change that. Unfortunately, too many Republican politicians have forgotten that most basic of rules and they’ve allowed their biggest supporters to become dispirited and angry with them. Even the beatings that the GOP took in the 2006 election only partially shook George Bush and the Republicans in the Senate out of their stupor (To the House’s credit, it seems to have gotten the message). This anger/malaise is reflected in the lack of conservative activism right now, the querulousness of many conservatives, and the fundraising gap that has sprung up between Democrats and Republicans.

While it’d seem the fundraising gap is closing, I think we’re seeing more of what worried me during and after the ’06 campaign.  The GOP relies on volunteers (unlike the Democrats, who tend to pay not only their Get Out The Vote workers but much of trhe rest of their “grass roots”).  And those volunteers turned out and gave it their all in for Grams in ’94, Coleman in ’98, Bush in ’00, Pawlenty and Coleman again in ’02, the Presidential race in ’04…

…and were rewarded with an administration that didn’t deliver on many of the values for which these people had volunteered so much of their time.

I started sensing exhaustion among a lot of key volunteers – the kinds of people GOP campaigns need, the kind that keep coming back for more – in ’08.  I started asking GOP officials – what about the state of our volunteers?

I don’t think they’re back yet.

Yes, maybe some conservatives do have unreasonable expectations of Republicans in Congress, but that’s a reason for Republican pols to try even harder to make it clear to conservatives that their hearts are in the right place. The GOP absolutely cannot get back on track until conservatives feel that they are being well represented in DC and the Republican Party needs to make that happen.

That goes for Saint Paul as well.

Where’s Our Soros? The conservative movement has had plenty of rich, civic minded members who haven’t had a problem with greasing the wheels of democracy with a bit of lucre in the past, but the Left seems to be blowing our doors off in this area of late.

You can hardly turn around without finding some project funded by George Soros that’s making a political impact, but when we look for conservatives to do the same thing, we hear crickets chirping. There aren’t many conservatives who have enough money to make a big difference, but there are a few, and we need their help, now. If Soros and his limousine liberal pals are willing to spend the money while deep pocketed conservatives stand by and watch, the conservative movement — and this country — are going to suffer the consequences.

It’s tempting to respond “yeah, but what does Soros get for his money?  Steve Perry and Molly Priesmeyer?  Atrios?  Ollie Willis? SFW?”  At least on the alt media side of things, the conservatives have always done it for the love of the game (except for talk radio, which does it because they make a ton of money.  Except the NARN; we’re also about that love of the game thing).

And yet when you work a day job – like the vast majority of conservative bloggers do – it’s hard sometimes to counter the immense flood of BS the Sorosphere generates.  Soros’ money has turned the information war into a war of attrition.

Practicality vs. Purity: Yes, we want politicians to live up to our expectations and when they don’t, they can expect consequences. On the other hand, if we refuse to vote for a Republican politician every time he does something we don’t like, we’re going to be responsible for putting Democrats in office who don’t agree with us on anything. That’s the dilemma conservatives always have to deal with: practicality vs. purity.

Unfortunately, the conservative movement has tilted too far towards expecting purity from Republicans in Congress — so much so in fact, that we’ve got conservatives threatening to form third parties if certain candidates are elected — even as different factions of the conservative movement beat up on each other on an almost daily basis

When conservatives start acting like Libertarians or Greens – taking their toys and leaving to go someplace more ideologically pure – it’s a bad thing.   And the next time I hear a conservative venting about how much they “hate” Norm Coleman or Tim Pawlenty for being not ideologically-pure enough, they’re going to get my lecture about the tug of war.  The whole thing.  I’m serious.

.Technophobia: Liberals have made much better use of the internet as a messaging and fundraising tool than conservatives.

That astounds me.  Given the percentage of technical people who identify as Republicans, it should be much closer.  Money, of course, counts for a lot here.

Ronald Reagan Isn’t Coming Back: Unfortunately for conservatives and for America, Presidents like Ronald Reagan only come along every 50 to 100 years. So, comparing every Republican politician who comes down the pike to Reagan — or worse yet, the idealized version of Reagan who has had all the times he deviated from conservative orthodoxy airbrushed out of existence — is only going to produce disappointment

Every time I hear some of the “I hate McCain/Coleman/Pawlenty” crowd, I’m tempted to haul out my copy of George Will’s The Morning After – his collection of columns from the mid-eighties, most of which involved some degree of sniffing about how conservative Reagan wasn’t.

This next one is my peeviest pet peeve of all:

We Don’t Reach Out To New Constituencies: Conservatives have started to get into the bad habit of allowing ourselves to be perceived as hostile to potential blocks of new voters, for no good reason.

This has been my complaint about the Fourth District for years; how can a party in a district that is almost entirely urban (Saint Paul and its environs) expect to get anywhere by ignoring the city?  The Fourth District GOP should be out in front of the people in this district who are repulsed by the horrible state of education, the decay of society and respect for hard work, and the erosion of free enterprise; all of these, and crime, are issues that, party labels aside, are vital to the “urban” voter of whatever party.

Not Defending Our Own: Unlike the Left, which considers the only sins its members can engage in to be not being liberal enough or helping conservatives somehow, the Right doesn’t mind cracking down on our own when they deserve it…There has to be a happy medium between the Left’s Pavlovian defense of each other under almost any circumstances and the Right’s current willingness to too quickly agree with the Left’s lies about people on our side.

Tom Delay, anyone?

Abandoning Our Principles In Office: One of the weirder tics of American politics is that liberals typically pretend to be much more conservative than they are to get elected while conservatives run on their principles, then break their promises once they get in office because they believe, falsely oftentimes, that it will be to their political benefit.

That is, indeed, the price of having principles; having to uphold them.

…is that Ron Paul no longer has the “feet stuck firmly in the clouds” vote locked up.

Just a reminder – Barb Davis White is going to be at Keegans tonight, just in time for the 8PM Trivia round.

Barring any last-minute catastrophes, I’m going to be there – and whether you’re a blogger or not, I hope you can make it down to meet her. 

A journey of a thousand miles – which is truly what winning the Fifth District is – begins with a single step.  Make sure you take that step with a large, raucous group of friends and a pint of Smithwick’s!

To: Ron Paul supporters

From: Mitch Berg – former Big-L Libertarian, now Republican

Re: Welcome to Saint Paul

Ronulans,

Welcome to Saint Paul – my city. I hope you have a good time here.

Now, as I’ve written in this space in the past, I’m not among the ones crying “foul” that you are coming to our caucuses and conventions and making “us” – the “insiders” who’ve been working within the party apparatus for years – work to defend the status quo, because I used to be one of the “outsiders”, too. And I’ve been frustrated dealing with what I thought was a hide-bound, old-boys-and-girls club. And being in Saint Paul, south of County Road C, I do feel like an insurgent in my own party sometimes.

So I’ve defended you (even as I’ve argued with, let me be frank, some of you more nutbar friends; the people who came to caucuses with sheaves of resolutions about the North American Highway and GATT and so on), because I thought it was good for the party.

Provided, of course, that you were sincere about being fundamentally interested in being in and working with the GOP, even to change it – as opposed to seeing it as a vehicle to forward a personality cult.

So stories like this perk my ears up:

“I have a busload of Ron Paul supporters on the way to Minneapolis-Saint Paul for the National Convention, along with an expanding army of volunteers from more than 1500 locations coast to coast. We are resolved to make these next few months count. We look forward to the list of speakers. We will converge on Minnesota regardless of whether you invite Dr. Paul, but we would prefer to stay in hotels and attend the convention as members of the Republican Party rather than stay at the YMCA and protest outside as disaffected ex-Republicans. The choice is yours.”

Look; you’ve infiltrated the party. You’ve gotten elected to delegate slots – perhaps not enough to pick the nominee, or to drive the Convention Committee’s decisions on which speakers to invite, but you have arrived.

Your choices are these:

1. Prove it’s not a flash-in-the-pan personality cult: Find more candidates that believe as you (and to some extent “we”) do, especially down-ticket. Stay involved; get more delegates elected for more races. Remain a factor in the party, and extend your influence. The biggest problem “third parties” have is that they are made up of purists; people who are impatient to see their “perfect” solution right now. That’s not how politics works; it took Ronald Reagan (and his supporters) two tries! You have to show everyone – not just the GOP – that you are serious about reforming politics over the long term, which in politics means the long term.
2. Prove it is a flash-in-the-pan personality cult: Find out that Rep. Paul isn’t speaking, walk out in a huff, and stomp around the streets bitching about the party that, after one election cycle, isn’t carrying you (who are, after all, a minority of delegates) to the podium on its shoulders.

So what’s it going to be – influential faction, or petulant personality cult?

That is all.

Simple truism of the American mainstream media; the faintest move to the left will be portrayed as a major tectonic change in American politics (while any drift to the right will be regarded as an anomaly or pathology).

One classic example; when Ed Schultz “went national” four years ago, he had six stations; Minneapolis, Fargo, and a bunch of small rural towns.  Joe Soucheray had a bigger network at that time.  And yet Schultz got a raving full-bore-hype showcase on the Today show, complete with Katie Couric cooing “is he the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh?”.

Six stations.

Of course, that’s as nothing compared to the cacaphony any time any “traditionally Republican” group sheds any demographic dandruff.

Which brings us to this headline:  “Evangelicals Flee the GOP“.   That’d be pretty serious news, if were true…:

Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man.

He’s a born-again Christian with two family members in the military. He grew up in the Bible Belt, where almost everyone he knew was Republican. But this fall, he’s breaking a handful of stereotypes: He plans to vote for Democrat Barack Obama.

“I think a lot of Christians are having trouble getting behind everything the Republicans stand for,” said Dudley, 20, a sophomore at Seattle Pacific University.

Dudley’s disenchantment with the GOP isn’t unique among young, devoutly Christian voters.

Er, I’m sure it’s not – inasmuch as the GOP does, always has, and always will poll weakest among “the young”; Churchill’s dictum (“a man who’s not a liberal at 20 has no heart; a man who’s not a conservative at 40 has no brain”) is as true now as ever.  Whether being “an evange
Still – could it be true?  Could young evangelicals be fleeling the GOP?

What is the nature of this catastrophic exodus? (I add emphasis):

According to a September 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 15 percent of white evangelicals between 18 and 29, a group traditionally a shoo-in for the GOP, say they no longer identify with the Republican Party.

“Traditionally a shoo-in?”

Since when?

If 15 percent of that group “don’t identify with the GOP” now?  Fine – what was that number in 2004?  2000?  1996?

We don’t know – because, I suspect, the answer would show what a non-story this is.

Or would, if it needed to – since, like most of those “[name your group] are deserting the GOP’ stories, further reading shows there’s really no there there.

But, Howard Dean, don’t count your chickens quite yet. College-age and 20-something Christians may be leaving the GOP, but only 5 percent of young evangelicals have joined the Democrats, according to the Pew survey. The other 10 percent are wandering the political wilderness, somewhere between “independent” and “unaffiliated.”

So in other words, out out of six evangelicals in an age group that society-wide traditionally doesn’t vote GOP, claim to be falling out with the party – and of them, only one in three is actually jumping to the Tics?

The real news would seem to be “Among Young Evanglicals, the GOP has a 17-1 (85%05%) Majority”. 

I mean, wouldn’t it?

If you live in the Second District – which includes a big chunk of southeastern Minnesota and the south/southeast metro areas – you are lucky.

Politically, anyway.  No, I have little desire to move to Eagan, and none for Lakeville.

But you have John Kline in the House.  He’s solid, He’s generally conservative.

And he’s safe.  Even the Democrats realize that Steve Sarvi isn’t much more than a warm body to put on the ballot; while he has lower negatives than the insane Colleen Rowley, I also suspect he’ll garner less fundraising from outside-the-district wackjobs.

Indeed, it seems to be an issue:

“Critics say Sarvi isn’t perceived as a threat in the race, with party officials targeting campaigns considered more competitive.

‘I haven’t seen any evidence that national Democrats are taking the race seriously — or on the local side,’ said Republican activist and blogger Michael Brodkorb.

Fundraising has been admittedly difficult so far, Sarvi said.

Let’s face it, CD2 Republicans; Kline’s seat is pretty well safe.  We needn’t be complacent, of course; y’all gotta work for the guy.  But barring some scandal favoring the Iraq veteran Sarvi – say, someone discovers that Kline’s bio is faked and that he didn’t actually win four Legions of Merit, his Naval Commendation Medal, a Meritorious Service Medal, a Joint Service Commendation Medal, and a Defense Superior Service Award, serve in Vietnam, serve as an aide to two Presidents and as pilot for Marine One, and have a son who has served as a chopper pilot in Iraq – y’all can most likely look forward to a couple more unchallenged years of good representation in Washington.

So when it comes time to do your political donations, how about peeling off a couple of bucks for where the party needs some help?

I’ve talked with both of the GOP’s “inner-city” candidates – CD5’s Barb Davis White and CD4’s Ed Matthews.  And while I’ve supported all of the GOP’s candidates in both of these offices, I don’t believe I’m disparaging any of them in saying that Barb and Ed are the best couple of candidates we’ve seen for these offices in a long time.  They’re both sharp, articulate, with that combination of solid conservative beliefs and keen understanding of their communities that it’ll take to many any inroads in their districts.

Because let’s face it; while this state has been flirting with being “purple” and on the ragged brink of voting “red” for a decade now, we’ll never really flip this state until we can make a contest of the Fourth and Fifth Districts.

And don’t forget the Republicans running down-ticket from the Congressional candidates!  We have a decent shot of taking back some of the House seats we lost in ’06, and flipping a few RINO seats to actual conservative control.  They need your help too.

If you’re a GOP activist and perennial volunteer, you’re probably used to – and tired of – hearing that every campaign is do or die, make or break, the big one.  Fact is, the only places where Republicans can relax are in places like Utah – where Republicans win everything – or Malibu, where we’ll never make a showing.

Everywhere else?  It’s a battle.  Every two years.

If you’d like to help out Ed Matthews – GOP-endorsed candidate for US House from the Fourth Congressional District – then by all means go to his website.

Since the GOP nomination’s been wrapped up for almost three months, now, the question “Who’ll Mac pick for VP” has been gurgling about the place.

Governor Pawlenty, of course, has been a key contender for a long, long time; young, great approval, decent if not invincible record of success as governor and legislator, conservative enough to not spark a rebellion in the provinces, and he supported Mac when it wasn’t cool to be in the McCain camp.

But as Gary Miller at TvM notes in reversing his own prediction:

The problem is that the GOP has a a dearth of talent in both our gubernatorial and congressional ranks. I couldn’t help but read this Redstate roundtable on possible veep choices and feel discouraged — much like those who participated in the discussion.  The most likely choices all have significant electoral or ideological shortcomings…

Which takes out Sanford, I think, as well.  South is out in the GOP.

Miller:

My reptilian brain stem has been working on finding someone who meets the following seemingly impossible criteria: 1) palatable (if not exciting) to conservatives; 2) satisfactory name recognition; 3) geographic advantages; 4) able to reaffirm McCain’s maverick creds; 5) able to assume the presidency should tragedy strike; 6) not necessarily currently in politics.

Allow me to offer the name of MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough.

Hm.

Hmmmmm.

I had not thought about this:

Scarborough boasts a rock-solid lifetime ACU rating of 95.  Even so, he does not shrink from criticizing Republicans when events warrant so he would help brandish the McCain maverick brand.  He does not harken from, or have any association with, the unpopular Bush Administration or current congressional GOP leadership as he left the House to spend more time with his children in early 2001.  His name recognition is not off the charts but would still probably exceed that of many of the other contenders.

OK.  The affirmative case is there.  The most important thing for GeeEmInEm to do is not blow the case with a complete howler…:

He is obviously telegenic and well-spoken.

Ooof-da.  There ya go.

Now, I’ll cop to the fact that I watch very little cable news and almost no cable talk shows.  But the times I”ve seen Scarborough I wasn’t especially impressed with the “speaking” bit.  I’ll allow that I could be wrong.

Someone convince me.

Miller also noted:

Meanwhile, two of the more exciting prospects, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, are long on vision but short on experience.

Compared to Obama and Clinton?

I’ll admit I’ve gotten a bit more excited about Jindal lately.  I think his pluses far outweigh his minuses: Young, solidly conservative without the “paleo”, “neo” or “doctrinaire” labels, ethnic, in-but-not-of the south…

…and Catholic.  Michael Medved noted at dinner the other night that Catholics whom make under six digits – a fair chunk of the “Reagan Republican” coalition of 28 years ago – will likely be the swingiest of the swing votes in this election.

Somebody convince me.

Pat Toomey, former conservative Republican rep from Pennsylvania and current president of the Club for Growth, writes an excellent post on the GOP’s reflexive defense of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). 

You need to read the whole thing for its background.  The story is, of course, an important one in Minnesota, as the GOP grassroots in many districts have taken action to shun RINOs – including some sitting incumbents. 

Toomey:

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.

Last week on the NARN, I said that in a sense – in the long-term, certainly – putting RINOs to the (rhetorical and political) pike is more important than defeating DFLers.  Hyperbolic?  Maybe – but also on point.  If we, the GOP, don’t offer a coherent choice (and in 2006, the voters were pretty clear that we did not), the voters will have no reason not to vote Tic.  Acting like Tics – like Reps. Erhard and Peterson and Tingelstad and the rest of the Override Six – eats the party’s seed corn; it gets a short-term electoral bump, at the expense of long-term viability as a party.

A number of people – from insufficiently-perceptive stalkerbloggers to people in my comment section – have reacted to my statement on the NARN last weekend that “defeating RINOs is almost more important than defeating DFLers”.

Some commentators have spun that, in their invincible ignorance, to read like an either-or scenario.  It’s not, of course.  Far from it; for the GOP to win, it has to provide an alternative to the DFL.  Republicans who are indistinguishable from DFLers – as Rep. Peterson, who voted with the DFL 52% of the time – are not; they provide no alternative to the DFL, and indeed one would be hard put to answer the question “if Peterson were a DFLer, what would be different?”

Put another way – if it were revealed that the way for the GOP to pick up an additional 10% come election time was to embrace higher taxes, more intrusive government, abortion on demand, gun control and a continued state monopoly on education, would we?

No.  The future of the GOP is to provide an alternative to the dominant vision of poltiics in this state.
Commenter MarianneS notes in my comments:

You’re right, of course, in that the viability of the GOP requires brand dependability, basic core principles the general public can come to rely on.

That’s right.  The fringe benefit of providing the alternative tp the stultifying “moderate”/leftist vision is that it is, in the end, the only way to really affect politics in this state; the odd RINO may or may not win an election, sure – but when the party as a whole acts like Tics with better suits – the sixties, seventies, eighties, early nineties, and 2006 – we not only lose, but we become irrelevant.

Any chance you’d care to extrapolate that to the presidential race?

I tried!

Look – I’ll cop to it.  I’m idealistically ideological, and pull like hell to pull the rope in the great electoral tug of war as far to the right as I can, on every issue.

But I think people need to balance their ideology and their idealism with some pragmatism.  I’d have vastly preferred Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney to be the GOP standard-bearer at this point – but that’s not the way the break broke.  We’ve got McCain – an imperfect conservative, to be sure (although not quite as imperfect as some of the more hysterical Republican commentators would have him; as bad has he is on immigration, immigration is not the only issue), but incomparably better on every single issue than the alternatives.  The utility of a protest vote needs to be balanced against the fact that there’ll be three Supreme Court seats opening up – and if Hillary or Obama wins, they’ll go to a French transgender-issues theorist, a Ghanaian Maoist and Dennis Kucinich.

I’m not sure that I’d even say “holding my nose” applies to my support for John McCain – although I, and every conservative within the sound of my voice, should be working overtime to ensure Mac knows which way the wind really does blow in the party.

Some commentators have tittered and asked that since Marty Seifert – the best GOP leader we’ve had in the legislature in forever – is publicly supporting Representative Tingelstad, so why am I being such a hard-liner on the Override Six?  It’s simple; Seifert’s job is to lead a party caucus; it’d be very bad form for him to be tossing his team – as crummy a bunch of teammates as they may be – under the bus.  There are people in the party whose job it is to toss her under the bus – her district’s delegates.  And they have done their job.  As to the appeal to authority?  Please.  If I were wired to yell “off what?” every time a party leader says “jump”, I”d be a DFLer.

So to summarize: we need to expunge the RINOs – not instead of beating the DFL, but so that we can do it more effectively.  Elections are the here and now – the party is the future.  Individual elections are games; the party is the rules, our coach, and our team spirit all rolled into one.

The biggest buzz in the Minnesota GOP in the current electoral cycle has been, regrettably, not been the whole “beating the Democrats” thing.

It’s been the whole Ron Paul “Revolution”.

Whatever side of the situation you’re on, let me just say – I’ve been there and done that.

I left the GOP in 1994, out of disgust with the GOP’s support for Bill Clinton’s 1994 “Crime Bill”, which did fairly ghastly things to Americans’ civil liberties. I joined the big-L Libertarian party, and ran for office (The story’s right here).

I came back about ten years ago because I realized that the reason the Libertarian Party could be so ideologically pure on liberty was that they were never going to have to prove anything to anyone; they were never going to have to put their beliefs through the scrum of interaction with other peoples’ ideas, the eternal “tug of war” that politics really is.

And when I came back, I was regarded with suspicion by some of the regulars in my district. It was almost funny, back then; the district conventions would like up with about half the people to stage right whose only apparent issues were abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research, and the other half to stage left who were into everything else – taxes, guns, terrorism, growth, what-have-you. Talking amongst ourselves, some of us thought that some of the Fourth District leadership might be a lot happier if we’d all just shut up.

But we didn’t. –

And so I, and the few other Libertarian Party refugees, jumped into the fray and did our best to pull the district toward our agenda. We didn’t win every battle – but we made our presence felt. And some of us are still involved with the party.

That brings us to this year. Whatever you think of Ron Paul’s politics (my take: gratifyingly pure from a libertarian perspective – which is a perspective that can lend a lot of great points to the larger GOP, but can only exist as an entire political philosophy in a hothouse. You’re more than entitled to your own opinion – indeed, if you’re an SD66 blog writer or feel like leaving a comment, by all means do!), the good news is that he brought a lot of enthusiastic new people to the party – and to SD66.

And while some in the Fourth, the City and the District are upset about some of the things that the influx has brought to the party (a concern about long-term commitment to the party, as opposed to Ron Paul alone), they bring something the Fourth CD and District 66B desperately need; enthusiasm.

So here’s my hope; that the “old line” Republicans in the district will take the influx of Paul supporters and their agenda for what it is; a challenge to put up or shut up; to espouse your own principles (and, if necessary, refine them) as effectively as they do theirs. To bring the same energy to the table that they do. To represent for your own beliefs, whatever they are.

Viewed that way, the Paul influx is a gift.

And I hope, in turn, that the Ron Paul supporters will learn something from those of us who’ve been banging away for this party for years, sometimes decades; that there’s a lot to learn; that while politics starts with passion, it ends – inevitably, since our government governs with the consent of all of the governed, one way or another – with compromise. And that compromise is like that tug of war I keep writing about; the best you can do, always, is pull that compromise as far your way as your reason, your dedication and your passion can pull it.

So let’s get out there and pull. Together.

(Cross-posted at District 66B Republicans)

I tell people I was a liberal until my early twenties. The fact is, it was a slow slide, starting from when I was 15 or so, until 1984 – when I voted for Reagan (and made sure I told nobody about it). When I was 17 in 1980, I wrote the “Federalist” party platform at North Dakota Boys State; it was all full of “redistribution of wealth” and “comprehensive programs”, and probably qualified me as a McGovernite. By 1986, I was a conservative talk show host of sorts.

There were six people I credit with the change:

1. Jimmy Carter: The “Malaise” speech was about the first thing that started souring me on liberalism.
2. Ronald Reagan: I don’t think I need to explain.
3. Alexandr Solzhenitzyn: If One Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago couldn’t convince one of the evil of the left run amok, what could?
4. Fyodor Dostoevskii: Crime and Punishment is the universal excoriation of the moral vacuity underneath socialism.
5. Paul Johnson: Modern Times pretty well gutted the historical record of liberalism’s “achievements” that I’d been given in high school (even in my relatively-commonsense rural district).

   and finally…

6. P.J. O’Rourke: Because after all of the above, I still needed someone to convince me that it was OK to be a conservative and play my music too loud; to assure me that conservatives were the kind of people I really wanted to be.

Oh, yeah – O’Rourke is coming to town:

P.J. O’Rourke, best-selling author and America’s leading political satirist, will be speaking at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday, April 29th at 7pm. The event, titled “Yes, I’m Still a Conservative, Damnit!: An Evening with PJ O’Rourke” is hosted by the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities chapter of Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

The event will be held at Northrop Auditorium (84 Church St. SE) in Minneapolis. The event is free and open to the public, with a special gift to the first 1000 attendees. No tickets will be issued.

With more than one million words under his byline and more citations in the “Penguin Dictionary of Humorous Quotations” than any other living writer, P.J. O’Rourke has established himself as America’s premier political satirist. He is the best-selling author of 12 books, including “Parliament of Whores”, “Give War a Chance”, “Eat the Rich”, “The CEO of the Sofa”, “On Wealth of Nations” and “Peace Kills”. Both Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal have labeled O’Rourke as “the funniest writer in America”.

They left out about 200 other countries, but we’ll give ’em points for effort.

Be there!

The 3rd CD GOP unanimously endorsed Erik Paulson to run against DFL-endorsed liberal Ashwin Madia on Saturday.

This is great; while the media will do their best to portray Madia as a moderate, the fact is that he has had to run far to the left to outflank Terry “Don’t Call Me Karla” Bonoff, leaving the unopposed Paulsen plenty of room in the middle.

The mission for conservatives this next few months is to counter the leftymedia’s attempts to portray Madia as anything but a machine liberal – and to be watching for, and ready to repulse, the inevitable smear attack against Paulson in the Strib (a biennial tradition for the Minneapolis paper). 

Give ’em hell, Erik!