It was one of the Senate’s stranger friendships; Barry Goldwater and Paul Wellstone. The two were at the opposite extremes of American politics, but they admired each others’ passion and commitment to their principles. They became fairly close friends. Wellstone even attended Goldwater’s funeral.
But that doesn’t mean that Wellstone was ever remotely tempted to vote as a fiscal conservative, or that Goldwater broke ranks with conservatives from his friendship. Admiration only goes so far.
Even in notoriously liberal Minnesota, crowded as its Metro and Arrowhead areas are with invinicble DFL voters, this could be a rough year for the Democratics.
And it’s when times get tough that some people, at least, start reaching, hard, for plans.
Grace Kelly, noted 9/11 truther writing at Minnesota “Progressive” Project, believes she has the answer. She notes that the “Goldwater/Wellstone” phenomenon means that people who are passionate about their principles often have more in common, politically, than mushy moderates who vote more on the basis of pragmatism or, as with so many moderates, last-second gut reaction. She even has a graphic:
So far, so good.
But then comes the unsupportable conclusion:
This model would suggest that persuading strong Republicans who hate Emmer politics, would be a persuasion that would stick until the election and possibly even create more Democrats.
Well, that’s simple. Because while many highly-committed conservatives will get along, at least socially, with many highly-committed liberals because of the same “birds of a feather” phenomenon that made friends of the likes of Goldwater and Wellstone, you will find very, very few “conservatives” who support outrageous tax hikes, featherbedding state employees’ unions, or out-of-control spending.
Break into the strong Republican social networks and wonderful other things would start happening because the opinions are held on false information and false logic.
That’s right.
Because nothing endears one to a social network into which one is trying to “break” like exuding the belief that “everything you believe is wrong” (especially given that history shows conservatism to be pretty much inevitably right about the things that really matter).
An outsider has a hard time changing the group, however an insider could really be impressive. So why are we leaving these groups alone again?
If I had to guess? The DFL is leaving us alone because there is no huge reserve of conservative Republicans who disagree with Emmer’s politics, or who would do anything with any DFL policy (much less the far left ones) other than line their bird cages with ’em.
Hope that helps.
Grace’s analysis is interesting but her conclusions are totally wrong. The “Strong Republicans” are in Emmer’s camp. Moderates are the weak republicans. I don’t say that as a slight to them, merely an observation of their behavior. They’ve picked up with any number of 3rd party candidates in the past few cycles from Tim Penny to now Tom Horner. My guess is that a lot of them even voted for Obama. In order to have proved their strength in the party, they would have had to front a candidate in the endorsement and won against 2 conservatives. They didn’t.
With Emmer, the opposite of what she says may be true. Emmer has the potential to attract some fed up blue collar Democrats, who have issues with their party over Obamacare and Immigration, to name just two issues. It was how the Reagan coalition was built. Not saying it will happen, but it could.
Kelly comes off sounding like a creature from Bizarro World (if you read Superman comics in the 50s and 60s, you know what I mean.)
I can’t make heads or tails out of that graph, and I have a spatial IQ of 128.
It looks like it’s supposed to be a Belgian gas station logo.
So why are we leaving these groups alone again?
Because every time a “strong” dumbocrat opens his/her mouth, they reveal their ignorance of reality. Just look at SiTD’s resident example – DogPrescottPile. There had not been a single argument, not a one, that she had been in the right (no pun intended).
“there is no huge reserve of conservative Republicans who disagree with Emmer’s politics,”
As a strong conservative Republican who formerly supported Seifert over Emmer, I guess I’m about as close as you could come to being in that group.
However, I don’t disagree with Emmer’s politics and can not conceive of how I could ever come to follow Grace Kelly’s road map. Her lunacy knows no bounds.
Emmer’s biggest threat is still from moderates and independents who think that Tom Horner is a legitimate compromise between the DFL and GOP candidates.
Read this again:
This model would suggest that persuading strong Republicans who hate Emmer politics, would be a persuasion that would stick until the election and possibly even create more Democrats.
The bird brain that wrote this syntax tortured bit of papspew is wholly incapable of coming up with any manner of cogent analysis that addresses anything more complicated than opening a can of soup.
Why Mitch even bothered to drag her wretched scrawl over here is a mystery to me…unless he’s just trying to lighten up our Monday with a little levity!
“Emmer’s biggest threat is still from moderates and independents who think that Tom Horner is a legitimate compromise between the DFL and GOP candidates.”
And the DFL candidate’s biggest threat is from conservative Democrats who are disillusioned with the DFL/Obama.
We will see how the numbers of those groups shake out.
And yeah, the graph is totally weird and illustrates precisely nothing.
According to the DFL radio and TV ads, Emmers running mate is T-Paw.
I recieved a phone call last night inviting me to a Emmer listening session in Roseville this week (Wednesday I think). The caller said that Democrats are planning on packing the event to make it very hostile to Emmer.
If the DFL is hoping Republican voters will vote for the DFL candidate, they may want to stop running all of those commercials calling for higher taxes and sticking it to the successful.
Aw, just plain crabby – you’ve made my day! Just last night I was chatting with Penigma about who the Mitchketeers hate most, him or me. Looks like I win! Whooo hoooo!
I’d like to think that perhaps the friendship between Wellstone and Goldwater might explain a bit why I enjoy Mitch (and hoep he still enjoys me)! Although I suspect that Wellstone and Goldwater disagreed about pretty much everything, where I only disagree with Mitch about some things – ok, a lot of things, LOL – but certainly not everything (far from it).
“the graph is totally weird and illustrates precisely nothing.”
It’s a political spectrum Möbius strip.
who the Mitchketeers hate most
Don’t flatter yourself, DogPrescottPile. I do not hate you, just pity you for your demonstrable lack of logic, reasoning, moral clarity and ability to think for yourself.
Deegee and teh peevee think they are important enough to warrant enough thought for us to hate?
Pffft..LOL!
I admit deegee’s penchant for infanticide turns my stomach, but that’s an involuntary, biological reaction. You two clowns don’t even warrant enough energy to mock in situ at penisblog.
I was chatting with Penigma about who the Mitchketeers hate most, him or me.
I don’t “hate” anyone. I’m praying for you guys, Dog Gone! There is angels watching over you guys!
I do admit that it gives me pleasure to think that Rick “I’m not a defeatist because we’ve already lost” DFL must get a little heartburn every time he hears Joe Biden say that Iraq is one of Obama’s great achievements.
The caller said that Democrats are planning on packing the event to make it very hostile to Emmer.
Well, that’s Emmer’s meeting with tipped employees to discuss why they make too much money, so the hostile crowd isn’t the DFL’s fault.
“Food Servers: Rally now to limit the number of server jobs!”
— D. Stooge
“Food Servers: Rally now to limit the number of server jobs!”
— D. Stooge
Well, yeah Mitch. Those who favor restraint of trade and eliminating competition through regulation are almost universally Democrats.
Servers are upset that Emmer wants to lower the minimum wage. Maybe Emmer is right, and he can make that pitch to them on Wednesday. i’m just saying that the DFl didn’t have to wrangle up angry folks for this one.
But I’ll make a rebuttal in your style of a fake quote:
“If you’re a blue collar worker, then you shouldn’t make so much money.”
– Tom Emmer
It’s easy to argue when you can make everything up, isn’t it?
Yes, but it’s harder to argue when making things up is all you have, like the DFL.
Look – the simple fact is that removing the tip credit adds five dollars per hour to the cost of what a owner pays, while it has every little affect on the average pay that a server gets (which is between $8 and $10 an hour, depending on whether you believe the State or the MN Restaurant Association. A bar could literally hire three tip earning waitstffers for the price of one at minimum wage.
Does “being able to find a job” matter to these people?
Or do they just like being demigogued?
Servers are upset that Emmer wants to lower the minimum wage. Maybe Emmer is right, and he can make that pitch to them on Wednesday. i’m just saying that the DFl didn’t have to wrangle up angry folks for this one.
Go to Emmer’s web page, DJ. He denies that he wants to lower the minimum wage of servers.
So Emmer said the tip credit is a good idea, but he hasn’t proposed it. OK, then. He apparently is not a conservative, since the real conservatives think there should be no minimum wage.
If it will help servers to have a tax credit, then sell it. And do a better job explaining how paying someone less leads to them not getting paid less.
He apparently is not a conservative, since the real conservatives think there should be no minimum wage.
The geneva convention has rules about torturing logic like this.
And real liberals think minimum wage should be $100k/year.
The price of a minimum wage that is set higher than the market wage is high unemployment among the least skilled, least valued workers. This what liberals prefer to no minimum wage.
DiscordianStooj said:
“do a better job explaining how paying someone less leads to them not getting paid less”
Easy:
a) if you _have_a_job_, but are paid less than you did in the past
b) you are not “getting paid less” than you would if you did not _have_a_job_
Or do you buy the “jobless benefits are the engine of job creation” line? Whose national congressional leadership said that again?
So if i’m making $10 an hour, and my employer lowers that wage to $8 an hour, I’m not actually making less, because I’m lucky to have a job?
What’s that about the Geneva Convention?
And I was mistaken – Emmer actually did propose eliminating the minimum wage in the past.
So if i’m making $10 an hour, and my employer lowers that wage to $8 an hour, I’m not actually making less, because I’m lucky to have a job?
No and yes.
If you’re making $10 an hour, you still make $10 an hour for time you don’t spend in tippable work – prep, folding napkins, whatever.
The tip credit merely allows the employer to say “you, employee, are getting 15 an hour from tips, so I’m allowed to credit two of those dollars toward the wage I pay you.
Emmer actually did propose eliminating the minimum wage in the past.
Good. It’s a job-killer.