Nature abhors a vacuum. Probably because it always spells it v-a-c-c-u-m, then gets mocked unmercifully about it for days afterwards.
The Minnick-Labrador City Club Debate--a Conspicuous Lack of Enthusiasm
Submitted by Sisyphus on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 5:15pm.
I got nothin'. I attended the luncheon sitting at a table of lobbyists, Republican operatives and media representatives characteristically unrepresentative of the standard audience of urban professionals whose political stripes range from thoughtful Democrats to moderate Republicans spiced with an occasional wingnut. Their new presence rounded out the room. The relatively small crowd of regulars seemed to be belie the fact that this is the closest, most hotly contested race in Idaho. Three layers of chairs in the back, set up for those not paying extra to partake of the luncheon, remained largely unfilled. People were prompt, got their meals, ate, mildly conversed and waited for the debate like it was an emergency parent/teacher conference involving unruly children.
Oh to be sure, the candidates marked their territory on where they differ and where they agree. Labrador delivers his boyish smile as a gift wrap for some of the most extreme policies this side of John Birch, gladly proclaiming it to be mainstream for Idaho. Right out of the chute, Labrador pronounces that Minnick's party destroyed America in the last two years, to no rebuttal whatsoever. Raul proudly continues to support our entry into Iraq, full repeal and starting over on health care reform, support for the Citizen United case, and would make immigration reform his signature issue. He didn't deny wanting to make abortion illegal, including cases of rape or incest, returning to the gold standard, or repealing the seventeenth amendment providing for citizen elected senators. Nobody blanched at these issues. Nobody applauded either.
Because that's not why that audience was there. The very first question pertained to the negativity of the campaign which promptly led to rounds of finger pointing and sniping. Indeed, hours before this debate Minnick released a Willie Horton type ad containing accusations from the US attorney's office against Labrador who secured the deportation of a Mexican national charged with manufacturing meth. And the second question pertained directly to the allegations of that ad. Both questions and their answers received audible reactions from the audience, none of it perceived as good and definitely not approving. Indeed, a later question, submitted by a high school student, received the most raucous applause, and simply asked why the negative attacks, instead of airing reasons to vote FOR the candidate.
Certainly there is a choice between these two candidates which was passionately evident before I even attended. Minnick's pitch was my read, that Labrador was slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. And certainly both campaigns are guilty of the same off putting conduct. But here I am in an area where most of the Democrats in the state are congregated, attending a forum engaging to Democrats, and seeing only a smattering of interested souls, and those were laden with disgust. I was like a Democrat attending a Republican primary debate in Rexburg. Only it was a high school debate and these were the truants. No one was up there representing us which unfortunately accentuates a desire to formalize the relationship.
»
- Sisyphus's blog
- Login or register to post comments
At Least They Both Showed Up
Up here in the 6th District, our two wingnut teabagger candidates for the state legislature (Gresham Bouma & Ike Young) chickened out -- at the eleventh hour, no less -- of their scheduled debates with their opponents on KRFP, our local "noncommercial, nonprofit, listener-supported community" radio station. I haven't heard an explanation/excuse from Young, but Bouma's cop-out was PostcardGate.
I appreciate your report and insights, Sisyphus, although I'm left feeling very uneasy. I know there are varying opinions of Minnick, but I fear Minnick's most significant legacy of his time in office will be that his blatant rejection of "his" party so demoralized Dems that we didn't turn out to vote. While I'm probably at the far end of the spectrum on dissatisfaction with Minnick, I can accept that there was a lot for me to not be pleased about with his job performance while still voting for him this time.
But, his campaign tactics of putting as much distance as he can between himself & the Dem party is offensive to those of us who actually voted for Walt Minnick and not just for "not Crazy Sali." And, don't even get me going on the content of Minnick's ads!
In any case, I'm hearing a lot of political disaffection as a result of Minnick's campaign. As Dems in Idaho, I think most of us are quasi-used to being in the minority, but when "one of us" campaigns in a way that's so blatantly disrespectful and dismissive of the party, I'm concerned that many will just stay home.
I hope I'm wrong.
Just calling them like I see them
As I said there's a real choice here for us. I'm strongly urging all CD-1 Democrats to come out and vote for Minnick. I disagree with some of his tactics, but he's the man in the hot seat, not me. He gets to make those calls for good or ill. Frankly I was surprised at how few people were at the event. But the fight in this campaign isn't over Democratic votes. Its quite another thing to take us for granted. He must walk a very fine line.
This is a really great write-up
I enjoyed it. I supported Minnick fully up until I saw the type of campaign that Foster has decided to run. Dogwhistle politics really do disgust me. A lot.
Further, I don't like the influence that Foster is gaining within the party, and I don't like the way he is using it. It feels like Foster is attempting to control the party from the top-down. This will not do, b/c Democrats need to be able to have a voice within the party. I feel like Foster is wielding his influence in a way that does not allow a large number of Democrats to have a voice within the party. A certain former 43SB lickspittle commenter mentioned to me today that he would like to see the public firing of Mr. Foster. I'm not fully sure I can disagree with that sentiment.
Thought exercise
Can you get elected to office in this state if you run a wholly positive campaign based on the good things you'll do when elected?
I mean, if you don't have an (R) behind your name, or you're running unopposed?
(This is not intended as an endorsement for either candidates' tactics or positions, in which I find almost nothing to like.)
Thanks for the question
When my dad taught me to fight, his recommendation was to never let the other guy get up. And he learned that the hard way.
My observations above have me musing mostly on the audience. For whatever reason there wasn't a crowd of enthusiastic Democratic supporters cheering Minnick on. Certainly he has been running against Democrats, seems embarrassed by us, and won't defend us when attacked. But I think there's the additional difficulty in defending/supporting a candidate when he airs certain ads. Certainly when I mention the race my points are about Labrador's political extremism, and nothing that's been in any ad so far.
Let's keep the dialogue going.
Dialogue
Are Minnick/Foster good or bad for the Idaho Democratic Party? Why?
I've kind of been thinking that they are bad for the Idaho Democratic Party, and any benefits incurred by their reelection might be outweighed by their detrimental effects to the party.
I have my own views on this
but I also have a personal rule, don't speak ill of fellow Democrats, especially in heat of a campaign lest we unwittingly become part of it. I expect next week this will be the dominant topic.
Having said that, I'm on record for taking it kind a personal when our congressman panders to tea baggers and seems embarrassed by Democrats such that he actively runs against them. But I'm also mindful of the fact that this district went 61% for McCain and 69% for Bush. That'd be the intersection of Ideology Avenue and Reality Street right there. And the fact this year is that Reality Street is now four lanes wide.
That's fair
I usually follow that rule, but not dogmatically. In this one case, my own personal cost-benefit analysis dictates that I make a little noise about my dissatisfaction with Minnick/Foster.
My dissatisfaction has less to do with Walt's voting patterns or policy positions (though, I do disagree with both), and more to do with the direction that Minnick/Foster are leading the IDP, specifically.
Building numbers
As mixed as I feel about Minnick, I still think that he's pulling in votes is more important than any damage he does to the Idaho Democratic Party. The fact that he can hard-core right wingers to vote for a Democrat is an essential first step toward moderating the Idaho Repubs. For every teabagger who votes for him, there are more old-line moderate registered Repubs who may be more willing to vote for the man, not the party.
Once that starts to happen, I believe we will see some of the moderates become willing to jump the fence and run as Democrats for local and state offices. That is the single most important thing we need to build a viable and sustainable Democratic base.
Is Minnick an indecent Democrat? Probably. But if he brings in some votes that wouldn't happen for Allred or Olsen, the good outweighs the bad in my mind. If having Walt on the ticket plays an important part in a win for Allred, that's even better.
I can stand another 2 years of Walt's hanky-panky, but it's much harder for me to accept another 20 years of complete Repub state dominance. Idaho is severely rotting at the stump from it's lack of the necessary give and take of good politics, and good politics makes good governance.
We need bigger numbers on our side, indifferent, bad, good, excellent, or however they come. Once we have the field well planted, we can weed out the blue dogs if we need to, but I hope it never comes to that. I hope we never get into the purity fights the Repubs are so embroiled in now.
And I hope we can righteously claim and hold the Big Tent that they so effectively built and then abandoned.
I feel ya
I just have trouble where you make the logical jump that says this:
b/c teabaggers vote for Walt, this will somehow influence old-line moderate registered Republicans to vote for other Democrats in the future.
_______________________________
So, I have trouble with that logical jump, and we (as a party) are making that jump while incurring the negative damages of (1) alienation of our own party's base, (2) tacking so far to the right that we might as well be Republicans, (3) Getting so far down into the muck that we are running Willie Horton ads and engaging in dogwhistle poliics, (4) and, imho, letting our party get straight hi-jacked by Minnick/Foster.
I'd be able to maybe (this is a big maybe) look past all that if I could make the same logical jump that I perceive you to have made. However, like I said, I have trouble making that logical jump. I was willing to accept (1) and (2) without complaining (I truly am a political realist, even if I don't sound much like one right at this moment), but (3) is just too much for me, and (4) doesn't help too much, either.
_________________________________
If we want bigger numbers on our side, we should take a long hard look at our current policy of trying to out-right the right-wingers, and consider switching to a policy of pushing progressive High Moral Frames, instead. There's more than one way to skin a proverbial cat. Though, I've never been too sure why anyone would want to skin a cat. . .
Haggis, Powsowdie, black pudding
I bet it traces back to the mother-ship of european-borne WTF: Irish / Scottish 'Cuisine'.
It's the 'man, not the party' thing
Hi Reggie...
I understand your points, and they're good ones. Around these parts, there is always a lot of talk about how folks vote for the man not the party, but usually, the results show it to be the other way around. When pressed, some of them who say it will admit to not practicing it.
While I mean no offense to my Mormon friends whatsoever, the above very often applies to them. Knowing the religion as I do, I see it as a natural outcome, as in S.E. Idaho, we have mostly LDS in politics here. Like Bostonians vote for Catholics, the voters here do the same. And conservatism has long been a part of what makes up the LDS church.
But this year is the first time in years when I've seen this change. Rex Rammell's open courting of only the LDS men brought the official church neutrality to a head and Rex disgusted a lot of folks who believed he was trying to play the church card. They don't like any appearance of doing this.
At the same time, Keith Allred and some state district races have presented attractive alternatives to the extremists. I can't remember when the last time so many local Repubs have come out to openly support a Democrat for Governor.
This opportunity if nothing else may be a habit breaker. If it proves to be, and future elections show that the 'man, not the party' is actually becoming a fact and not a slogan, we will be in better shape to gain numbers.
I agree it's a very tricky thing that may not come about. And I agree that our Democratic principles should not be allowed to corrode in the hopes of winning elections over what we believe in. I am less concerned with a Minnick-Foster hijacking; I believe that Walt would be in much more trouble now if his opposition wasn't so connected to the loonies, and Walt won the first time by simply acting more sane than Crazy Bill Sali. If the 1st District Repubs are chastened again this time around, next time may be much different.
If Allred wins, I really think we will see more and better Democrats who will be willing to enter district races. We have some real quality folks running this time with Sullivan, Olsen, McGimpsey, and Ralph Mossman, who is attempting to break Tom Loertscher's 26 year hold on the Dist. 31 Representative seat. Tom is extremely conservative and hasn't faced any competition for years while representing a district that includes part of Idaho Falls and extends all the way down to Preston.
Mossman's fight is straight uphill, but 31 needs someone who represents a huge area, not just a small part of it. I hope he pulls it off.
These are the Democrats of our future in Idaho, and we need more of them. None except Walt have out-righted the right wingers- they don't need to, and we are a long way from having to resort to the dog-whistle tactics of the right as a party.
There is a general distaste for negative politics, but I think that nothing pitched at us must go un-answered, and I remember John Evan's win, which was as dirty as could be on both sides. Who remembers Evan's opposition these days?
I'm a realist too. I don't think several of the folks I mentioned will win, despite my fondest hopes for them, but if we need to pull a Willie Horton on a Repub, I'm in for it. The noble reluctance to refrain has lost us a lot of ground over the past 20 years.
I still see a win is a win. We need more numbers to win, and we must do what we must to get them. As Democrats, we must be able to accept the less pure more readily than the current Repub party do get it done.
And if I was living in the 1st District, I would drag my weary disappointed ass into the booth, hold my nose, and punch one in for Minnick this time. I'd worry about firing him later.