Sturdevant As Samoan Lawyer
By Mitch Berg
Back in the late seventies/early eighties, my little sister – like a lot of early-teens – pined for the disco stars of the era. And I think that, in her thirteen-year-old way, she might at one point have asked “how cool would it be if Andy Gibb joined the Bee Gees?” [1]
In yesterday’s Strib editorial, Lori Sturdevant dreamed of a one-party state:
In my daydream, Mike Hatch and Dean Johnson stood alongside Tim Penny and Peter Hutchinson (and in some versions, the Green Party’s Ken Pentel). They were surrounded by a bevy of Minnesota’s progressive glitterati.
Interesting phrase, “progressive glitterati”. We will have to come back to that.
Amid gentle joshes and handshakes all around, they announced the merger of their parties, with a new platform blending the best of the old, and a new name. (Did I hear somebody suggest the Minnesota Democratic Party?) The ghost of Hubert Humphrey, the last wizard to pull off a major party merger in Minnesota, hovered about, beaming.
If I were my younger, cruder self, the response would write itself. Fortunately, I’m older, wiser, and more rhetorically sober. Just so you know.
But onward and upward. Sturdevant isn’t merely dreaming. She wants to get those damn smart-alecky Ventura Independence Party heretics to rejoin the mother party!
The DFL candidate for governor missed the brass ring by fewer than 22,000 votes, out of more than 2 million cast. Hutchinson got about 141,000 votes. Had he not been in the race, some of those 141,000 would have gone to GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Some might have stayed home. But it’s hard not to believe that enough of them would have gone to Hatch to put him in the governor’s office.
And apostasy, to a committed DFL flak (or “progressive glitterata”) like Sturdevant, has consequences:
I can also scratch Hutchinson and Penny, the previous bearer of the IP’s gubernatorial standard. Not even Tuesday’s drubbing has them interested in merging with anybody. They think the Independence Party has only just begun to grow.
Hutchinson talked Tuesday night like somebody starting a long campaign, not ending one with 6.4 percent of the vote. “Minnesotans did not send us here just to start this race. They sent us here to finish it,” he said. “As a party, as a people, it is our duty to do that.”
It’s fair to question whether he’s thinking straight about who, in a democracy, gets to do the political finishing.
“Who, in a democracy, gets to do the political finishing”?
One wonders who Sturdevant actually does think “gets” to do the “political finishing”. “Progressive glitterati”, or voters and people who want to run for office based on their own ideas, ideals and passions.
It’s a valid question, given that Sturdevant’s concern for “democracy” seems to be entirely filtered through the institution of the DFL:
He’s right about this much: They’ll have money. Hutchinson squeaked past the 5 percent bar in state law that bestows major-party status and access to public funds in the next campaign.But will the IP have a distinct and salable reason to exist in 2008 or 2010? Voters evidently had trouble finding one this time. Hutchinson had his own slant on the issues, but it was a slant in the DFL’s direction.
Penny says the Independence Party’s raison d’être is twofold: 1) It stands for honest budgeting, as opposed to DFLers who promise too much, then underfund the big things, and Republicans who keep trying to have something for nothing. 2) It wants government disconnected from special interests.
In my daydream, the DFL took up those causes to the IP’s satisfaction. Actually, House Speaker-designate Margaret Anderson Kelliher is moving that way. Her commitment to do the big things right on a fiscally prudent budget signals an end to DFL overpromising.
Um, no, it “signals” the DFL is trying to get people to shut up about its many shortcomings as a governing party, and get the foot soldiers – like Sturdevant – in line.
She already has government reform on her agenda. Bringing the state’s campaign finance system into the Internet era, with disclosure rules that preclude anonymous end-of-campaign ad bombs, belongs on her list.
Further restrictiosn on free (if arguably objectionable) speech! Such a “reform!”
But one begins to wonder whether there can be any satisfying a crowd that views its 6.4 percent of the vote as a mandate to press on. It increasingly looks as if they would rather stand apart and hope that the lightning of 1998 will strike again than participate in governing this state now.
I’m awake now. I don’t see a reunion of Minnesota progressives on the horizon. And without one, there likely won’t be an inauguration of a progressive governor to cover, either.
So there you have it, all you V IPers; stop your petty objections about financial responsibility! Why, the Speaker-Designate has made a non-binding pre-campaign promise to maybe uphold one of your (most trivlal-yet-authoritarian) campaign ideas!
With brains like this measuring the drapes in their new offices, who needs reform?
[1] The assumption is purely for satiric purposes. While my sister loved disco music, I don’t know that she ever asked my rhetorical question. As opposed to Lori Sturdevant, whose pre-teeny mooniness is on public display in the linked column.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Jbauer writes: There are a great many (in fact nearly all) Democrats who support the appropriate use of military power, and who are deeply concerned about the welfare of the troops.
I write: What a complete and utter load of crap. You are such a high-minded weasel, jbauer. So above-the-fray and “reasonable” while at the same time maligning anything and everything Conservatives stand for or vote for.
BTW, in Sturdevants column there was this: But one begins to wonder whether there can be any satisfying a crowd that views its 6.4 percent of the vote as a mandate to press on.
Well, a smaller percentage than that calls for gay marriage, etc. and that is supposed to be a mandate for all the rest of us to roll over and let them have their way.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
First Colleen said, “anything and everything Conservatives stand for or vote for…” Then she said “a smaller percentage than that calls for gay marriage, etc. and that is supposed to be a mandate for all the rest of us to roll over and let them have their way.”
I think those posts conveniently show the current “bi-polar” condition of the conservative movement, saying they stand for one thing, but doing another. They call for limited government, but have proved differently with their stances on gay marriage and the terry shiavo case.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
don’t you have something better to do than attempt to obfuscate with this drivel
A better question, since you’ve been posting a ton of comments, might be “don’t you have something better to do?” I mean, if my writing is such drivel, why does it occupy so much of your precious time?
Go hang out on some leftyblog, where you agree with the drivel, if it’s such a burden upon you!
November 13th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
For many, light rail transit is much more about image than a viable solution.
If advertising reduces the taxpayer burden, I want the trains looking like a freakin’ NASCAR car inside and out.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
JBauer,
When I encounter “drivel”, I customarily politely excuse myself from the conversation and move on. That’s why I leave comments on so few leftyblogs.
Just saying.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
That’s unfortunate – ideas never challenged fester like bacteria in a petri dish rotting the minds of all within a ideological set. Of course, like any pestilent boil, it eventually ruptures and releases sicking and weakening all of society.
When one encounters such things in their early stages, it is truly better for all concerned to shine the cleansing light of reason upon it. Or, if you can’t do that, at least highlight that there’s another possible way to look at it.
Of course, I prefer more reasoned challenges to the boxing-ring score-a-point sort of stuff that happens a lot around here, but I think its still worth reading – both to provide a reflecting pond on which to consider my own ideas and to understand what other people out there are thinking and saying.
I apologize for the overt metaphors – my brain is tired and it sometimes gets a little flowery when it reaches that state.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Phaedrus,
I welcome discussion and argument – hence, I have a comment section.
But when someone’s sole reason to be here is to insult me, I have to wonder – is their life perhaps lacking in some other area? Could life be any richer, maybe, for them?
It’s out of concern, really.
I’m all for challenging ideas. It’s how I became a conservative, after all.
November 14th, 2006 at 5:36 am
As for my life, I’m sure having your own blog to vent your spleen has nothing to do with complaining.
My blog is my business!
I reiterate; if this blog so undertaxes you intellectually, why put yourself through it? You are so obviously a superior being!
No, really!
November 14th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Well hopefully Colleen has found the Republican playbook for the 2008 election, we didn’t screw up iraq, the MSM did!
And from 1996:
“And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. “I admit it,” he told a reporter. “The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
November 14th, 2006 at 10:41 am
I welcome discussion and argument – hence, I have a comment section.
Actually, I was specifically thinking about not responding to drivel on lefty sites – allowing discussions (especially poorly though tout discussions) to proceed without any challenges or calls for sensible thought.
I know that my own sense of awareness and depth of thought improves far more when I have someone ask “are you sure?” or say “No! that’s not right – check this out” than when everyone’s saying “yeah.”.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
You MIGHT be surprised to find that there are lots of differing opinions on why the election went the way it did when it comes to Republican and/or conservative discussions on the subject. If you can plausibly argue that the war in Iraq has been portrayed as anything but negative by the media, please do.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I know that my own sense of awareness and depth of thought improves far more when I have someone ask “are you sure?” or say “No! that’s not right – check this out” than when everyone’s saying “yeah.”.
I agree. The process is close to my heart; a number of conservatives challenging the perceptions I grew up with 20-odd years ago made me a conservative in the first place.
it’s not that I don’t seek out differences of point of view – I do. I just find so few discussions out there that are palatable in terms of tone.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
So tell me Colleen, what good exactly has come out of this war other than Saddam being deposed and tried?
November 14th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
It is interesting that the more “heated” the tone of a discussion the more people seem to join in.
Its like if one wants a bunch of people to talk about what they write (and tear it apart to show the weak points), they have to write it with two fists and a shotgun. Or at least a half-a-loaf of sacrasm.
Conversely, when one writes politely, all that is heard is the echo of crickets and a couple well wishers saying “nicely said”.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
what good exactly has come out of this war other than Saddam being deposed and tried
A terrorist safe haven eliminated. A gulag system dismantled. Money that was going to suicide bombers in Gaza cut off.Thousands of Al Quaeda dead. Kurdisstan freed from decades of genocidal rule. Most of Iraq – like 2/3 of the country – doing modestly well (the vast majority of the violence, as always, is in the Sunni triangle; most of the ethnic-Shiite part of the country is faring OK). Iran and Saudi Arabia put on notice that the US is watching them very closely (or was, until the Democrats got into power).
I’ll think of more.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:48 am
2/3 of the country doing modestly well? are you serious mitch? Unemployment is hovering at 60%, the country is in a civil war, basic services such as electricity are not consistent, 100s of innocent citizens dying daily, after several years there is essentially no rebuilding.
And all those benefits at what cost? To date roughly $342,517,000,000, hundreds of thousands dead, at least tens of thousands injured and no end in sight as we have a President who still hasn’t articulated what “victory” is or when we can pull out.
and this is statement is ridiculous at best, “Iran and Saudi Arabia put on notice that the US is watching them very closely (or was, until the Democrats got into power).”
First off, the Democrats aren’t in control of the legislature. Furthmore, we are spread so thin we have no deterrents for either N. Korea or Iran.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
2/3 of the country doing modestly well? are you serious mitch?
Are you paying attention, Fulcrum? No situation is either as black or as white as
Unemployment is hovering at 60%, the country is in a civil war, basic services such as electricity are not consistent, 100s of innocent citizens dying daily, after several years there is essentially no rebuilding.
The vast majority of the violence, again, remains in the Sunni Triangle. The majority Kurd areas are doing famously well. The Shiite majority areas are recovering from decades of oppression – that doesn’t happen overnight – but the violence, while a problem, is relatively low-grade.
Rebuilding is a mess? Sure. Disengaging won’t help that one little bit.
First off, the Democrats aren’t in control of the legislature.
Ah. So last Tuesday was just a big nightmare, and I’m going to wake up soon?
Furthmore, we are spread so thin we have no deterrents for either N. Korea or Iran.
Yet another reason the Dems need to be kept from control. In 1988, the US Army had 20 regular divisions. Today it’s around 12 – George HW Bush and Clinton disbanded the rest. Likewise the Navy and the Air Force.