Muslim insensitivity?

At Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, 6:30pm last night, 6 Muslims were kicked off an American Airlines plane for standing up and praying, and as of yet, American Airlines is not allowing them on another one of their airplanes.

MSNBC Reports

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed anger at the detentions.

Omar Shahin, one of the 6 men, said

“They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way,”

Ok. Has anyone reading this ever been arrested? Or perhaps thrown in the back of a squad car for anything? Perhaps kicked out of a building for being loud and obnoxious? I have not experienced all three of those, but of the two I have experienced, I would assume being kicked off of an airplane would be close to the same experience, and when you get kicked off or out of something, or locked up, being treated “Respectfully” or in a non “humiliating” manor by The Man is the last thing on his mind. Am I right here or what? The fact that someone would report about someone’s feelings being hurt as their taken away by authorities is bizarre to me… but then again, anything reported that isn’t Christianity seams to be given a little fluffier a treatment.

Also, another problem I have with this. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists have been Muslims. This is where I will support the crap out of “Racial Profiling” or whatever you want to call it. Without naming any races, it's not my fault that 12.8% of the population is responsible for 30.2% of the crime I the United States, but unlike the color of one’s skin, more specifically, the religion one has seams to have a much higher ratio of those who have committed the crime of terrorism. So, because of these blaring facts, (and I am not sorry that the facts are the facts) I would be worried if any Muslims were praying on an airplane… Especially after Sept 11th, the thwarted attempt out of England, and… oh yea, the fact that Muslims Terrorists have mentioned that they will stop at nothing until we are all dead. Perhaps Muslims need to be sensitive to the feelings of those around them and not pull moves that have been witnessed in conjunction with terrorist attacks... like standing and prying in groups on an Airplane.

Where are the news articles about the Muslim insensitivity shown by repeatedly committing acts that scare the US public?

Election Analysis--2008 Elections

Please don't start '08 until '08--Fatigued and will be pissed
I can see already that this request will fall on deaf ears. But I will make it anyway. Please do not start Campaign '08 until, well, 2008. Since 1999 it has been constant discussion about candidates and running for office. It is fatiguing. I am usually interested in this stuff and I am sick of "elections" and "campaigns". On the air I am putting a moratorium on Election 08 discussion until no earlier than November 2007. I have talked to many people who also (foolishly) were hoping that if they vote Democrat (or anti-incumbent) then the campaigning will stop for a few months at least.

People want a break from it. So please, do not campaign for 2008 until, well, 2008. Look at the candidates in 2006 that started their campaigns in 2005. They turned out to be hamstrung and alienating of their base.

Count how many "exploratory committees" started more than 15 months before an election actually saw that person actually be on the ballot for the targeted election.

For that matter, how many election winners were the "leading candidate" more than 12 months before the election.

Starting that early is the kiss of death. And each one that does it for 2008 I hope for an excruciatingly disappointing end for your campaign as well.
Hard Left wing of 'D' won elections for 'D', and control 'D'
The Hard Left wing of the Democrats won the elections for the Democrats this year. They are the vocal and active minority portion of the Democrat party. Yet they have incredible influence within the Party. If most of the media had to decide which wing they would be a part of, the uber-liberal or the moderate to liberal, most of them would choose the uber-liberal. That gives the Hard Left a louder voice and deceptively stronger influence within the Party.

But they do not have the numbers to support their voice. Worse than that, they believe and behave as if they have the numbers within the Party to control the Party.

A clear example of this is the entire Lieberman saga. Voice enough to not endorse Lieberman, but not enough real numbers when it comes time to actually defeat Lieberman. In between the Democrats are torn between catering to what seems to be the strong presence of the Hard Left or catering to the middle Left which could also put them near the moderates.

This dilemma is what will divide the Democrats unity. Unity was easy when simply being the minority party and running obstruction constantly. They never had to resolve the difference to decide what legislation and solutions to pursue.

Now they must author solutions and that will force confrontations within the Party. The 'scorched Earth' mentality in each aspect of discourse from the Hard Left does not leave room for expectations that these confrontations can be done without damaging the Democrats' majorities.

Compounding this coming division is the ideological position of the country. It is not close to the Hard Left and a habit of spinning facts beyond being factual so they can claim to be representative of the mainstream has fooled them into actually believing that. The newly acquired majorities will slap the Hard Left, put the moderate Left in a difficult position and open the door for a quick snapback to Republican majorities in 2008.

That is unless the GOP continues their own incompetence or takes on the Democrats as minority failure seize opportunities
Pawlenty in the White House
The whispers have been going for a long time and they began to pick up momentum again after Election 2006. Tim Pawlenty in the White House…it is possible. Frankly I believe trying to assess the possibility of someone's viability as a Vice Presidential candidate are as solid as assessing the exact score of next year's Super Bowl. But Pawlenty's prospects as a Presidential candidate are worth some light examination.

I believe the chances of Pawlenty's ability to win the nomination for President are dependent on one last thing: his performance during the 2007 session. He has two general options. Go-along to get-along, which would require him to continue his sprint away from the Right, past the middle and into the Left. The other general option is to become the hard conservative.
Go Along to Get Along
In examining this position one must understand the risks of this course of policy and the possibility of Pawlenty taking this course.

Possible...blamed last 2 yrs on slim majority
Is it possible for Pawlenty to run to the Left? Certainly. He started his first term at far Right and by his third year moved to the center. By his fourth year in office Pawlenty was pushing Moderate Left in his fiscal policies. From his comments in the first few days after the election it is clear that Pawlenty's sprint towards the left is not near completion.

Pawlenty blamed his sudden shift on the slim Republican majority in the House coupled with the Democrat majority in the Senate. Essentially Pawlenty was unable to find his bully pulpit, his veto pen or his realm of influence. That was with a divided legislature.

Now that he has to face nearly veto proof Democrat majorities in the Legislature it is hard to believe Pawlenty is capable of finding the will to fight his opposition party at all.

All things considered this option is the most realistic expectation. Pawlenty will yield to the Democrats and spin it as "bi-partisanship". Come early 2008 he will use it as proof that he can "work across the aisle" though the reality will be he is unable to fight for his own beliefs, principle or positions.

Evaporate his support further from fiscals
This portion of the analysis is assuming that one of Pawlenty's eyes is focused on the White House. Assessing the risk of this "Go Along to Get Along" philosophy is necessary. Pawlenty's history shows he mistakenly believes he can win the opposition's support by giving in to their demands repeatedly. Unless he finally learned in 2006 that "giving in" does not win support, he is very likely to believe that "working together" in 2007 will be a resume booster for 2008.

The reality is to the contrary.

By giving in further to the opposition Pawlenty will continue alienating the fiscal conservatives and his support from the wary supporters of 2006 will evaporate as well. Lukewarm support from one's base is a recipe for disaster. Should Pawlenty take this road and still win the nomination I would expect a Dole 96 or Bush 92 showing from Pawlenty. Fiscal conservatives around the country will not be enthusiastic and the ripple effect will be destructive.

Could put as "McCain moderate" in White House hopes
The one thing that may weigh in Pawlenty's favor is the degree of party loyalty. We have seen, especially here in Minnesota, in 2006 a willingness without hesitation of the GOP members to set their principles aside for the sake of party victory...regardless of their candidate's record.

A Pawlenty ticket may evoke some of those tendencies. The success of Pawlenty's White House run after a "Go Along" 2007 session depends heavily on the match-ups. My view is there is too much to overcome if Pawlenty fails to use his veto pen often enough.
Stand hard against legislature (more than first 2 years)
The other road for Pawlenty is to veto, veto and some more veto. Grab hold of the fiscal conservative platform that pushed him into office in 2002.

Possible...
It is possible for Pawlenty to return to his 2002 campaign promises. Possible, though, is not probable. He had a great record in his first two years. But the reason for his performance and staying true to his campaign promises to his base is simple. There was no risk for him. The House would pass a fiscally conservative bill. Pawlenty could push for a bill that was not as conservative, but still appear conservative enough. The Senate would pass a bill that was liberal in spending, though not as much as they would have like. The compromises between the House and Senate would be "justifiably moderate" and still conservative enough to please the Right.

He had a GOP controlled House to run his cover through.

Now his decisions will be all his own, there will be no cover for Pawlenty in 2007. No one will be able to be blamed for being too conservative, there is no "happy medium" or middle ground for him to stake out for his compromises.

Historically this means Pawlenty will try land somewhere left of center.

Strengthen/re-strengthen support from fiscals
Should Pawlenty miraculously find his veto pen and start standing up for the principles he gives lip service to presently then Pawlenty could be in position for a huge push towards the White House.

Many of the frontrunners of 06 have been knocked out for one reason or another. Those that are still standing are moderates, or at least viewed that way (as in John McCain's case). That leaves the conservatives looking for someone to get behind.

Should Pawlenty move back to his conservative side it will energize the conservative, both fiscal and social, the moderates an the undecided independents. The fiscals will feel they finally have a voice again be can become a highly energetic voice.

This road I believe would make him a strong bet to win the White House in 2008. I would not bet on Pawlenty taking this course of action, though.
The Dark Horse possibility: Bachmann
It pains me to say this, but I think the dark house or long shot bet is Michele Bachmann. This is a fairly simple concept so it will be brief.

Michele has become the darling of the Right across the country. There is no question about her ability to stand in the face of fire while in Congress (though she avoids tough questioning like the plague). These two traits and the latitude to take strong stands in Congress with little risk of her stands actually seeing a vote gives her the power to mold herself as THE top conservative.

Republicans, nervous still about a run by Hilary would love this.

Bachmann is a political campaign machine. No one campaigns better, distorts facts about their opponent in a convincing fashion better, or has the long term organization. Noone is better at manipulating a system, a group or a person for their own gain than Bachmann. Only Keyser Soze may be better at meticulous planning of manipulation. I would not be surprised to find out that strategizing has already begun...formulating which issues to bring up in Congress and which one to avoid all to position herself better.

If you are looking for the long shot with a real chance then Bachmann may be it.

This concludes the election analysis that I am publishing through the blog. It represents about 2/3 of the writing and may be available eventually through other sources. Again, remember that these are the thoughts based on the outline I drafted the morning after Election Day 2006.

Back off Viking Fans

I was wearing my 49ers jersey this past weekend. As many know, my favorite NFL teams are the 49ers and the Colts. The 49ers have been my #1 team since Los Angeles lost my hometown Rams before the 1995 season and the Colts my #2 team since they drafted Peyton Manning before the 1998 season. I liked the Vikings before I moved to Minnesota...watched Ahmad Rashad's 'Miracle Catch' in 1980. I moved to Minnesota and still like the Vikings...until I witnessed the bandwagon hopping worse than I have seen anywhere else. Since then I have not been a supporter of the purple.

So when Vikings fans start to ride me for wearing my 49ers jersey (like many have this past week) I feel I have more ground to respond.

This Season
The 49ers (5-5) beat their division leading Seahawks (6-4) yesterday. The Vikings (4-6) lost to the Dolphins (4-6). The 49ers are in their longest winning streak (3 games) since weeks 8-10 in 2002. With the win yesterday the 49ers will have their best record since the 2003 season when. If (and this is a big IF) they split their remaining schedule the 49ers will avoid being under .500 for the first time since 2002. Even more importantly for the sake of the franchise, if they can pull off a .500+ record this season they will end the run of 3 consecutive losing seasons...and avoid matching the franchise's longest run of 4 season (which was from 1977-1980).

The 49ers this week are 1 game ahead of the Vikings. Last season the 49ers were a game ahead of the Vikings for only the first two weeks. To go later than week 2 and find the 49ers ahead of the Vikes you have to go back to 2002.

2005...Week 2 (SF 1-1, Min 0-2)
2002...Entire Season (SF 10-6, Min 6-10)

Clearly the 49ers have been on a downtick. But that seems to have turned around when compared to the team of my antagonists (the Vikings). And keep in mind also that the 49ers beat the Vikings this year!!!

Franchise
All I have to say here is
1. San Francisco vs Minnesota all time head-to-head: 20-19-1
2. Championships...San Francisco is 5-0 in the Super Bowl and the Vikings are 0-4.

So, when I wear my jersey...BACK OFF.

:)

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 5

Of the eight Congressional races only two had something that I believes warrants analysis.
No Surprises
In six of the Congressional races there were no surprises. Two of the Republicans won re-election easily. The three Democrat incumbents also won easily. The open Democrat seat was won easily. I am surprised by the large percentages for both Tammy Lee and Alan Fine in the 5th District. All in all of these 6 districts (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th & 8th) there were no surprises whatsoever.
6th Congressional District
Why so many people (including myself) believed for a fraction of a moment that the 6th was "in play" is perplexing me now. It has been a solidly conservative district with a few pockets of strong Democrat support. Wetterling did not do well in the district in 2004 while she had the benefit of being a still grieving mother. In hindsight there was nothing Wetterling could have done to win the race.

The Democrats fell into an emotional trap when they endorsed Wetterling. Elwin Tinklenberg would have pulled moderates, could have pulled the fiscal conservative/socially liberal block and enough of the disaffected Republicans to win the district. The same block that sent Jim Knoblach to the state House or Jungbauer to the state Senate could easily have found enough in Tinklenberg to push him over the top.

While most of 2006 was marked with terribly run Republican campaigns, the 6th was marked by an incompetent Democrat campaign. There were many untrue labels the Wetterling camp could have tried sticking on Michele Bachmann and they could have stuck. A "liberal tax hike lover" was not among those. The person who thought trying to tie Bachmann to the Mark Foley scandal should have their Democrat membership card revoked. It is not a convincing line of argument to say, "Vote for me, vote for change, vote against the same old corruption in Congress" when your opponent is not a current member of Congress. This is before pointing out how misleading the "facts" that were uttered in those ads were.

The sad part is that regardless of who won the race between Bachmann or Wetterling the winner would have been rewarded for brazenly lying constantly about their opponent. Wetterling was also outmatched. Bachmann is the textbook incarnation of a typical politician...in every sense. She is able to get her machine rolling hard and fast. She is the best in the world of politics at lying to someone even though everyone knows she is lying and still making the person feel like they were not lied to. She is a Charismatic (take that as a negative or a positive). Wetterling, even if she had a competent and truthful campaign that showed a glimmer of understanding her positions had no chance of winning.

The only surprise in the 6th was that people thought it might have been close.
1st Congressional District
Tim Walz came out swinging at Gil Gutknecht about Iraq. Walz also came out firing about Gutknecht being to much like Bush. Gutknecht's reaction was what did him in...he ran away from those positions. If someone really wants to understand how Iraq was used in the elections they only need to look at the Minnesota's 1st District.

This was the most effective use of Iraq. Walz immediately pounded this as the main topic. And it scared Gutknecht off of it enough to leave him without anything to campaign on. Of all the candidates I heard interviewed Walz was the only one to tie every statement and position and response to Iraq. Not Bush, not Bush's policies and not the War on Terror...Iraq. Walz' theme was Iraq.

While other candidates used Iraq as one of many issues they still had other issues. "Change", "Social Programs", "Iraq"...those were from the other candidates. Walz' message was basically "Iraq needs to be changed. Social Programs cannot be addressed until Iraq is changed. Crime cannot be solved until Iraq is changed." Obviously this is exaggerating to demonstrate quickly how different the theme from Walz was compared to other Democrats. But the difference was Walz' campaign was about Iraq.

Gutknecht's efforts to distance himself from Iraq left the voters to wonder, "Hmm, if he is not for it now then it must be wrong. He helped start it so I will have to vote for the other guy." Simplistic, yes, but that is the effect running from one's record has.

I did not think Walz' strategy was going to work and so I was caught off guard by the results.

Coming Next: 2008 Elections

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 4

Attorney General
While looking at this race keep a few things in mind. Jeff Johnson is a very nice person...maybe to a fault. When I first talked to him as Attorney General candidate I wondered if maybe he was too nice to convince the average person he was capable of "going after" the people and companies that needed to be pursued. This fear of the unfortunate "flip side" of a candidate's image I could not get away from.

Understand also that people in this country think that everyone should be sued when one does not get their way in any fashion. If you have access to a law database go through and look at some of the complaints filed (and thrown out) throughout the country. We sue, and sue, and sue and sue. We like to punish if there is a hint of MABYE something that possibly could be perceived as interpreted as wrong.

So when the opponents of current Attorney General spend eight years complaining that he is sue-happy it rings to people. On the surface people hate that but they will remember one of those times they thought "yeah, they needed to be sued" and will find little reason to change the status quo.

The way I see it the complaint of a sue-happy or anti-business Attorney General is an all-or-nothing charge. And there is no way to tell beforehand if the message will be a winning theme or a losing theme.

Some people still try hanging the tobacco lawsuits around the DFL's neck (in a kind of 'guilt by association' line of attack). This is a perfect example of the double edge sword of a "sue happy" or "anti-business" charge. While sometimes people may think the tobacco lawsuits were a horrible precedent there are times when people (many of the same people) will secretly thank the Minnesota Attorney General for beating 'big tobacco'.

Enter Lori Swanson. A strategy from her based on "I can continue Mike Hatch's work" would be risky on so many fronts. Who sees his work being continued as a good thing? Risky toss-up. Who would support a candidate basically running to be their predecessor part II? Not many.

And Jeff Johnson's supporters (myself included) saw Swanson's ties to Hatch as a big negative, an indicator that more of the same anti-business practices would be in place and the continuation of using the Courts to create policy they could not get through the Legislature. To us the harms of Swanson's connection seem to be a truism. And we said so.

That logic we thought was irrefutably sound actually to the average person was not logical. In the end, we are sue happy and the charge that Swanson comes from a sue happy office could be a positive. Worse, by coming from opponents of Swanson it seems to be a personal attack--punishing her for doing her job.

I believe deeply this is what happened. By September I began to realize witness this effect when I talked to people and so I stopped using that line of support for Johnson. That left very little to offer the average person on Johnson's behalf. Johnson need more visibility.

Unfortunately Johnson's campaign was one of the most invisible to people I talked to before the election. Those are the reasons I believe he lost.
State Auditor
This is the one race that leaves me perplexed. Pat Anderson was a good candidate and ran a campaign that never said a negative thing about her opponent. Never. Anderson had a record of competence and with a little digging one would find Anderson not only did her job but went above and beyond. It seems that her office was focused on constantly answering "What else would help the citizens?" and then pursuing that end. And Pat is a good person. Anderson was the rare trifecta for a candidate.

Historically people generally want a fiscal conservative in this office regardless of their leanings. That too should have been in Anderson's favor.

Rebecca Otto was in the center of some partisan controversy regarding campaign laws. Guilty or not, that should have been enough to keep some people from voting for her. Otto also did not seem to project any confidence in her ability to be an effective Auditor much less be able to maintain the high standard Anderson set.

Nonetheless Otto defeated Anderson by a hefty margin. While for this race a strong case could be made that Anderson was simply collateral damage in the tide of "change" the voters sought I find that a little too simplistic to leave as the final analysis. A few other factors may have been involved.

After talking with about a dozen people both before and immediately after the elections I discovered most people who voted for Otto (or were planning to vote for the 'other guy'--showing how little they knew about the race) did so because of a misplaced blame.

Many of them were upset about some local aspect. A few of the more common complaints used as reasons to vote against Anderson were "property taxes skyrocketing" or the localities revenue raising after their Local Government Aid was cut. After trying to refocus the blame in more appropriate directions (local officials, legislature, etc) there was simply rationalizing their own positions rooted in a belief that the Auditor should be halting some of the tax hikes.

That is the first big contributor to Anderson's defeat and it seems legitimate to say the overall culture for "change" or even the anti-Republican mood was magnified in this race.

The other compounding problem normally would have affected the Secretary of State's race to a lesser extent. It impacts the Auditor more because the Secretary of State gets additional exposure for simply being the overseer of elections...free face-time. The Auditor does not get that.

The problem: ridiculously low spending limits for the campaign. As high as the figure you are about to read may seem initially, once you think about how expensive a campaign is you will realize it is literally pocket change.

$200,000.

For a statewide race the limit is $200,000. That is enough to send one postcard sized mailing to 30% of the state...and nothing else. Consider the other things that need to be paid for and you understand how strangling this limit is. At least one full-time staff (campaign manager), lawn signs, website costs (and a webmaster), traveling expenses to be able to meet people throughout the state. The list goes on and on.

The limit is ridiculous and the result is an horrifically under informed public. This leaves the voter to essentially flipping a coin in order to decide which of the candidates to select. In an election cycle where both parties are campaigning for change the incumbent Auditor is in a bad position with little hope of saving themselves.

That, and this is, in my analysis, the only race in Minnesota where an "anti-Republican" mood was a major factor in the outcome.

Coming next: Results--Statewide part 5 (almost done)

Movie Review: Happy Feet

Okay, First a disclaimer… If you read this, first, you'll hate the movie. Having gone through a year of film study, and my loathing for Agendas in media that don’t agree with my own, I can sometimes see things, like agendas in a film, where others tell me I'm over-reacting. But this time, it was made pretty clear. Our children were being brainwashed by this movie: Happy Feet. I know, I know… I’m a sick, twisted freak.

Having said that, I saw Happy Feet tonight, which scored Number 1 at the box office this weekend, beating out the premier of Casino Royale, the new James Bond movie (of which I also saw, as you’re no kind of man unless you see the new James Bond movie on opening weekend).

Happy Feet was all cute and special at first: A true kids movie. In a world… where penguins rule the land… one penguin… named Mumbles Happy Feet… can not sing like the other penguins do. Instead, he can dance. Now, this queerness causes Mumbles a lot of drama, because each penguin’s song... well… it’s kind of a mating ritual thing. Bow Chicka, Baow, Waow… You know what I’m say’in.

Well, the penguins are in the middle of a food shortage, as the fish are scarce…

Okay, here it comes… its Human’s fault isn’t it?

As all the fish are scarce, and there are stories of strange creatures that are taking all the fish. Yep. Human’s fault. Now, to make a long intro short, Mumbles ends up setting off to “talk” to the strange creatures (humans) to try to find a way to co-exist. He ends up swimming after a fishing boat, and “propelled by his rage” ends up washing ashore next to some sort of industrialized area, what looks like a oil refinery or something equally as evil… next to a large city. Those damn humans.

Mumbles wakes up in a zoo, caged like some sort of animal (which he’s not… he’s a penguin… wait… never mind) and after going crazy locked up in the zoo, he dances for a little girl, who then brings apparently everyone to see him, and they slap a radio collar on him, and put him back into Antarctica… where he finds his home group of penguins, some guys fly in and see them all dancing… then the Media shares the video with everyone, the whole world is angry that humans are taking the penguin’s food supply… the UN gets involved (yes, the UN) and human fishing is barred from anywhere around Antarctica, and now there is enough fish for all the penguins and the movie ends with a warm fuzzy.

Wait… the UN?

Yes. The frick’en UN.

Happy Feet, is mentioned on the site Boycott Liberalism, as Robin Williams is in it, but I saw it anyway because I have a nephew, and that’s what he wanted to see despite my warning that seeing that movie would help promote liberalism. I know, he’s got a lot to learn.

Now, in movies, I’m pretty good with the whole suspension of disbelief thing. Self aware penguins, swimming to some far away land, the far out possibility that Mumbles would end up at home… but then the UN got involved and bahm! There went the movie for me. I leaned over to my mommy (yes, I still call her my mommy) and mentioned something that had to do with brainwashing, and pointing out how I’m right again about the media and their ever-present agenda.

Oh yea, and the pursuit of "Aliens" (as humans are called) trumps the pursuit of the penguin's religion also. It wouldn't be a true liberal agenda driven movie without a stab at religion.

So, movie go’ers, I would give the first 2/3 of ‘Happy Feet’ 3.5 stars. The last 1/3, brings the average number of stars for the whole movie down to a total of 1/2 star. When you do the math… carry the Liberal Agenda… and that’s a pretty low rating. Bring your kids to Casino Royale instead. America will thank you.

P.S. If that wasn't enough to keep you away... the Star Tribune loved it.

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 3

I have written extensively on my displeasure with Secretary of State Kiffmeyer, I have spent time on the air about her record and I believe that her record was the sole cause for her defeat. I decided to write my thoughts out and realized that there was more contributing to this race...specifically the campaign. It was a poor showing, from it's rhetorically poor efforts at defending Kiffmeyer from Mark Ritchie's claims to a website that was looked the same as her 1998 run (which did not provide nostalgia but 'behind the times'). I almost skipped posting this part of the analysis but decided that reflecting on why the campaigns did not win is the only way to make future campaigns better.
Sec of State
There is just so much to write about on this race to explain why Mary Kiffmeyer lost to Mark Ritchie. In order to keep it as analytical as possible I will simply boil it down to the following: Partisanship, Competence, Bare Minimum and Campaigning.

Partisanship was one of the loud charges against Kiffmeyer. The case was strong against her, but admittedly it was purely subjective. I happen to agree that she put her party's interests above all else in running her office. The more damaging thing for Kiffmeyer regarding this charge was a failure to actually refute it. The only response was a vacuous, "Well, to make those charges is a partisan attack." Sadly, this is faulty logic. Non-partisans easily came to the same conclusion that she was a highly partisan Secretary of State. She shot herself in the foot by failing to intellectually engage the issue.

She is so much of a partisan that I would suggest her next campaign is for MN GOP Chair. Her philosophies in office and her party-centric organizational skills would be best suited there.

Competence is a very well documented issue...or more accurately the lack of it. Kiffmeyer used her office not only for partisan advantage but for grandstanding and tantrums. Shutting down her office to protest budgetary decisions was a sign of incompetence. Wanting to post anti-terror signs in polling stations was a sign of poor judgment. The list goes on and on and was very publicly presented. Again, the real trouble for her campaign was her inability to directly refute or defend herself at all.

The biggest issue with Kiffmeyer's performance was her unwillingness to go "above & beyond". She did only the bare minimum in her office and too often performed her duties when court ordered or when strongly and publicly criticized. While people joke about "good enough for government work" it is a bit unsettling to see this attitude in the office that oversees elections.

Somewhere straddling the "partisanship" and the "competency" issues is the website and more specifically the "pilot program" for precinct by precinct internet reporting of election results. Kiffmeyer oversaw eight years of elections. There were two Presidential years, two mid-term years and four off-cycle years. For most of those the election results were part of a "pilot program" relating to precinct reporting.

How long does a pilot program for reporting results last before it is improved, implemented or abandoned? For Kiffmeyer it was nearly her entire tenure and the results are unknown. For 2006 the "pilot program" notice disappeared. However, the performance was not improved, the results were as difficult to gather, the website was still an exercise of tedium with small benefit…essentially very little had changed in 8 years. All the while Kiffmeyer claimed to be on the cutting edge of the internet reporting of results.

Difficult claim to make when CNN does a better job and faster for the entire country (and has for Kiffmeyer's entire 8 years) than the Secretary of State does for Minnesota.

Campaigning is a strange beast to address for this race. Because of the incredibly low spending limits for this and the Auditor's race the incumbents should have huge advantages. Their signs are already printed, they already have name recognition and get extra air time because of their office. This is truer for the Secretary of State because this office holder gets air time and exposure for election purposes during the campaign.

How this was squandered one has to look at the campaign. The website was nearly exactly the same as it was in 1998 and 2002 with very minor changes. It was a very low-effort and low-quality internet outreach and it gives a terrible impression. Compare that to Mark Ritchie's and it would be easy to believe Ritchie was "up to date" with the times.

The campaign failed to factually refute the charges from her opponents. "Partisanship" and "incompetence" were simply dismissed as "personal attacks" and "partisan claims". There was never an effort to explain how those claims were false. That leaves the voters to decide if they believe the charges which seem to be backed up with facts or the defense that has nothing to support it.

The campaign also did what many of the campaigns in Minnesota did: rely on half-truths or mistruths as the meat & potatoes of their message. Each race has too many examples to worry about, but one that I believe was important for this race was the presentation in Kiffmeyer's ads and interviews that voter turnout went up during her time in office. Most people realized the missing and crucial information in this claim: she had nothing to do with the turnout. Few people knew that neighboring states had bigger growth in turnout rates than Minnesota. All in all claims like these were more transparent than her party would ever realize.

Mark Ritchie is a good person as is Mary Kiffmeyer. I have met them both on several occasions and have no reason to believe otherwise. But Kiffmeyer was a bad candidate, a horrible incumbent and had a shoddy campaign...that, and that alone, is what cost her the race.

Coming next: Results--Statewide part 4

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 2

Wednesday morning after the election I knew nearly everyone would assume the elections in Minnesota were simply the result of a Left Swing or Blue Tide. Each race had its own independent reasons for its outcome. The "Tide" may have exaggerated some of the margins of victory, but it was not a catalyst for most of the outcomes statewide. I would assume the same nationally, but I neither have the time nor the interest to do background research to validate that assumption.

This post analyzes the US Senate race. It will sound like a pile-on, but that is only a result of the campaign strategies that I bring up. I believe the entire campaign was doomed to a blow out early on based on the strategies that were adopted. I pointed them out before and was met with hostility. Examining them again now may help to prevent similar drubbings in the near future.
Lukewarm base
Mark Kennedy's path to US Senate was started in 2005. He announced his intentions early and GOP leadership was all too willing to clear the path for him. Among other hopefuls that were pushed out (and their respective supporters disrespected) were Gil Gutknecht and Rod Grams. Harold Shudlick was treated with even more disrespect. Outwardly he was ignored and behind closed doors event organizers informed Kennedy to speak "as the sitting Congressman" as opposed to speaking as a Senate candidate. This allowed the organizers and Kennedy to publicly put on the rouse that Kennedy had no opposition (even if it was token opposition) while denying the appropriate access to candidates that were not crowned already by the GOP leadership.

From the beginning through the June endorsement this tactic on Kennedy's behalf and with Kennedy's tacit approval led to lukewarm acceptance of Kennedy from an already growingly discontent base. The ripple effects I predicted from this eventually did play out.

Understand the thinking behind "energizing the base" and "Get Out The Vote" (GOTV) efforts. The concept is the energized base will spread the word to "like minded" individuals who are simply not as deeply invested as the base. Then those "like minded" people may get excited and spread the word, volunteer a small amount of effort, wear buttons and put up bumper stickers or lawn signs.

The support will get spread from there to the less enthusiastic "semi-interested" people. By the time the support gets to these people it is not as strong as the previous messengers. The offset is the "semi-interested" people need less to make them give lukewarm support…and these contacts from the "like-minded" people can be enough.

With a base that is lukewarm due to the GOP performance and then even more wary of the process of crowning candidates as the sole and protected "one" there is none of this ripple effect.

GOTV efforts actually are designed to "close the deal" with these "semi-interested" and "like minded" people. They are also to help maintain the energizing of the "base". The GOP in 2006 got lazy regarding their GOTV. Rather than making certain they had lists of people to call that would be effective they changed their focus to pure numbers. "We reached 5 billion people in the last 72 hours…what a great job of Get Out The Vote. We done-did good, yeppers."

The problem is that my phone alone represented about 20-30 of those 'contacts' in the final 72 hours. From lukewarm to hotly annoyed…that was the difference in my support for State Senator as this harassment was on behalf of the MN GOP and the candidate was on thin ice for me as it was. The barrage of calls also pushed my support away from the GOP's Gubernatorial candidate and brought me incredibly close to picking a different candidate for Senate.

The laziness in filtering the GOTV lists created a double whammy and cooled the support for an already lukewarm base.
Incompetent Campaign
Once Kennedy turned his full attention to Amy Klobuchar he ran one of the most ineffective campaigns possible. Out of the official blocks Kennedy began a campaign of character attacks. "Klobuchar is collecting a paycheck while campaigning" and "Klobuchar is not REALLY a prosecutor" were among the first. The rhetorical position these attacks leave a campaign in are devastating…to be the one initiating them is incomprehensible.

In the meantime Kennedy's website listed positions that could reasonably taken as a promise to grow the National scope of government, grow the federal budget, increase the jurisdiction of big government and leave very little for the local government to determine for themselves. Interestingly his website had two other underlying premises (though they may have been too subtle to have an impact on their own). Running away from his Congressional record and pledging to "fix" things if elected as Senator though obviously not "fixing" them while a Congressman.

Whoever in Klobuchar's campaign recognized the rhetorical advantage Kennedy handed over should have their compensation doubled. By Kennedy's initiation of making the campaign about personalities Klobuchar was in the position to control which issues were discussed and at what depth. Any subsequent response from Kennedy would be viewed as desperate grasps no matter how legitimate Kennedy's responses were.

Kennedy's responses were even more disastrous. "What Would Amy Do" became the response. Kennedy ceded control of which issues to discuss, Klobuchar responded by laying out issues at a surface level and Kennedy's defense was to be interrogative about the level of Klobuchar's positions.

The gaffe in strategy appeared as desperation. The public picked up on it and Kennedy began whining about various inconsequential items like media bias. The desperation was moving from perception to reality and by September the only real question was what would Klobuchar's margin of victory be. She coasted from then on and treated Kennedy as a mere gadfly.

Would Kennedy have won with a well-run campaign? Difficult to say, but it would have been one of the races watched beyond 10 PM. Heck, it would have been one that would not have been called within 5 minutes of the polls closing.

Coming next: Results--Statewide part 3

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide Intro

This should have been posted prior to delving into the Minnesota races.

These races need to be discussed individually to understand why they ended in the fashion they did. I will admit that two of them (Auditor and Attorney General) have me perplexed and without any explanation. The rest of them were no surprise…or at least should have been no surprise. If there had been serious objective observation of the campaigns the "writing on the wall" would have been as obvious as spray paint graffiti on the Wailing Wall.

This is not intended to be as I am sure it will appear. In other words, this is not a chance to "kick 'em while they are down." It is a blunt and serious look at why these races turned out the way they did. I do not believe "Democrat tsunami" is correct. Certainly there was a tide of "blue" in Minnesota, but there were reasons for each race (well, most of the races) turning out the way they did independent of the "Blue Tide".

There is also an additional need that goes beyond the "Wednesday Morning After" thoughts that have caused me to go into deeper detail with these (though in some cases from race to race it seems repetitive). The Republicans who are confused about some of these results have confused some things. Their wonderment is explained as, "They should not have lost, they are good people" or "Good people were sacrificed" to spend resources on ill-fated races.

Having good people does not mean you have good candidates (Jeff Johnson or Mary Kiffmeyer), strong incumbents (Tim Pawlenty) or qualified office seekers (Mark Kennedy or Harriet Miers). Conversely, having a good candidate (Michele Bachmann), a strong incumbent (Ted Kennedy) or a qualified office holder does not mean you have a good person. Once in a blue moon a person may be on both sides of this equation (Pat Anderson). And sometimes they just lose anyway.

One common factor was bad campaigning. The majority of campaigns relied too heavily on double standards, half-truths and distortions. They almost universally put personalities far ahead of issues…and even when discussing issues the candidates were actually still making their speeches or answers about personalities.

Another common problem was the unwillingness to address non-lapdog crowds. This, sadly, was common from both major parties and I hope gets rectified immediately by the office holders. Candidates would only do interviews if they knew there would be only "softball questions". Candidates would avoid venues that were not guaranteed to be filled with loyalists and apologists. The voters never got the chance to see the candidates under the lights and outside of stump speech mode. The few that did buck this trend appeared able and willing to actually defend their ideas.

Using only first hand experience I found it telling that Democrats I criticized heavily were willing to come on the show for questioning. Even after I warned them of the reality (there would be more hardball/curveball questions than softballs) they were willing. They wanted to show the other side (in this case, conservatives) their ideas. They wanted to show they were capable of defending their ideas. And that is the beauty of the marketplace of ideas (and the reasoning behind conservative groups on college campuses demanding a share of student funding). Republicans were unwilling to come in for direct and difficult questioning.

Throughout Minnesota most of the races were fairly obvious in their results before Election Day began. The following is to point out what most of us missed. Maybe the good hard look will help conservatives to get candidates in the next cycle that will not repeat the problems in 2006.

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 1

As was the case Nationally the Minnesota Republicans failed as well. It is a little more difficult to lay sweeping blame on them for failing legislatively as the Democrats held the Senate. However, the tide has been turning for some time against the GOP. In 2004 they lost a substantial portion of their majority in the House. Instead of entrenching themselves in their principles they used the one seat majority as an excuse to run away from conservativism.

So, the Minnesota GOP failures are less obvious to the casual observer and for that reason I will break them down to a race-by-race analysis.
Governor
The Governor's race will be considered differently from the other races simply because Tim Pawlenty won. This is unfortunate as Pawlenty's victory came from Mike Hatch's melt down in the waning days of the campaign.

Pawlenty ran an almost ineffective campaign which had as one of its main tenets Hatch's un-gubernatorial personality and temper. Hatch's handlers did a good job of keeping a very unlikable Hatch as far out of the light as possible. They also did a great job of removing Hatch from as much opportunity to display his temper. That is…until the hectic overscheduled and fly-by-the-seat nature of the last week made the job too difficult for Hatch's handlers.

Judi Dutcher's E85 comments were enlightening to the public and maybe a bit offensive to the rural communities that have E85 laws artificially subsidizing them. The reality is Dutcher was the Lieutenant Governor candidate and few people expect anything from this candidate. Even Hatch's response to this was innocuous as far as swaying people. It was a roll-your-eyes moment, but it was not impacting. "I know more about E85 than Pawlenty"…yeah, so what and shut up.

It was Hatch's reaction to continued questioning that may have swayed enough of the voters out-state to cause him to lose. Perhaps it came out of frustration that the media was actually giving him tough questions that broke the camel's back. In the end, calling a reporter a "Republican whore" for simply asking questions about the E85 ordeal was out of line. That is what cost Hatch this race.

Pawlenty did not win it. Hatch lost it.

There is also likely to be some discussion about how many votes Peter Hutchinson pulled from Hatch. Was it enough to also have caused Hatch to lose? Honestly there are two answers to this. First, if the Republicans and Democrats have not yet figured out the costs of ignoring third party candidates then they deserve to have their support drawn away by the third parties. Second, I believe that Hutchinson pulled an equal number from both sides, if not pulling mostly from Pawlenty.

The dynamics in a nutshell were that Pawlenty was abandoned by fiscal conservatives and Hutchinson was the most fiscal conservative of the three main candidates. Hutchinson was not as socially conservative as Pawlenty, but more so than Hatch. This likely appealed to the moderates and to the libertarian leaning Republicans. Democrats were also solidly united at defeating Pawlenty more than the Republicans were united in returning him to office.

Pawlenty's failures to his base are easy enough to point out, but his disillusioned base has done a good job of pointing those out for the past 2 years (myself included). The added kick to Pawlenty's support were the "fee vs tax" ordeal, Twins stadium circumventing a citizen vote, being effectively (though erroneously) blamed for the impact of Local Government Aid cuts and being blamed for the government shutdown. These pushed away too many independent and moderate voters.
Legislature
How did the Republicans expect to hold their base through 2006 after their performance in 2005 and 2006? To begin with they did very little to get in the way of huge growth in the state budget. Fiscal conservatives were looking to the state House for this front to be held. The usurpation of voter initiative with regards to a Twins stadium while using the line, "the voters should decide their laws" to push for a Defense of Marriage Amendment was strangely missed from the "flip-flop" criticism.

Worse was the government shutdown aftermath. Leading up to and even during the government shutdown Republicans were pointing out how little they noticed the absence of government. All the while they were bending over backwards to get a deal done. By bending over backwards that means giving more than they received and installing a "fee" that acted like a "tax" but they insisted was really a "fee".

While saying on the one had the government shut down was a good thing the Republicans on the other hand did all they could to minimize the impact and damage from it. The signal to the state: the Republicans were giving lip service to the shutdown-is-good. Really they thought it was bad and they were not being forthright about it. How can the public put any confidence in them after that?

The MN GOP has been in a tailspin for quite some time. The problems are many. Two of them I think are worthy of mention more this election than in previous ones.

First of all there is very little standard in running a Basic Political Organization Unit. The party should be running the administration from the top while leaving the decisions of platform, agenda and candidate endorsements at the BPOU level. If just a handful of BPOU's end up with poor or non-existent leadership then the party's entire Senate district's slate of candidates will fail. This leads into the other problem in the MN GOP that must be fixed.

While I have been very critical of the Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer for her poor performance in office, I do embrace her great advice about coattails. Contrary to popular belief, coattails go up the ticket not the other way around. In 2006 the MN GOP focused almost exclusively on 3 races: Governor, 6th Congressional District and US Senate. They neglected the local legislative races and the other 3 statewide races. Coattails go up the ticket.

The GOP got that backwards and they were unable to energize their base. The base turned out, but their support was for a principle of "change" instead of party loyalty.

Coming next: Results--Statewide part 2

Election Analysis--Results--Nationally

GOP Failed
There are two ways to look at the 2006 Elections nationally. The Republicans are now trying to put the silver lining on that the losses were not as heavy as they typically are historically in the 6th year of a Presidency. So, that means the GOP held its own.

Actually the GOP did not hold its own. They failed in Congress and they failed in the elections. Going into the elections their projections were losses of the House…barely…and keeping the Senate. These losses were what the GOP field troops were trying to stave off and failed. The GOP also failed in their honest assessments about how bad things were going to be. This may indicate an inability to look at the causes to the 2006 massacre.

If the silver lining were a valid point of salvation then there should have been celebration by the Republican Party for holding the lines. That was not the case. The more accurate picture is the Party is looking for a reason to avoid facing the failures of itself from 1994 to 2006.

The other way to look at the elections is that the GOP was hammered and it was worse than people expected. It was bad with no prospect of a silver lining. Think about it. Nearly every "in play" seat with a GOP incumbent was lost. No "in play" seat with a Democrat incumbent was lost. The majorities were lost in both chambers…contrary to what most people believed. And the GOP has nowhere to turn but within to discover why.

Recovering alcoholics generally talk about hitting rock bottom. That is the point where there is nothing left to blame, no excuses left to turn to and the point where it cannot get worse. The GOP hit that point…almost. They are still out blaming the voter and the conservatives that did not support the GOP in whole. They are still looking for silver linings rather than a serious look internally.

The real answer...the GOP took their base for granted, failed to push the agenda they promised their base and gave the base no reason to support the GOP.
Conservativism won
Ballots and Issues
Look around the country and examine the Issues that were forced into discussion. Conservativism won everywhere except Minnesota and California. Abortion: the ban in South Dakota lost by 9% and that was without including an exemption in the ban for "rape and incest". Include that exception and the ban will pass. Once passed it will be on a collision course with Roe v Wade.

Minimum wage was passed state by state. Not a victory for those states but it is a victory for local government. The states are making those decisions and not the Federal Government.

English as an official language…passed. Gay marriage bans…all but 1 passed and that one barely failed. Beyond that it is believed that one would have passed if it had the exception allowing for civil unions.
Running from conservativism loses
Many of the campaigns nationally for Republicans ran away from two major things. One was all things Bush and the other was all things conservative. Those candidates lost. The reasoning is simple.

The Republican candidates were running to the middle or the Left but the voters on the Left already had their choice made for the Democrats. The people on the Right were divided…some felt an need to sacrifice their principles to save the party while others refused to vote for the Republicans that were not conservative. The moderates were also split in the anti-status quo and the pro-Democrat philosophies.

With solid Democrat blocks and divided conservative blocks the Republican candidates who were running away from conservativism had no chance of winning. In some cases the Republicans were not only running from conservativism but their own voting record. That is an impossible campaign to win.
Not a Pavlov block--must constantly earn their vote
The Democrats have blocks of voters they count on. Blacks, teacher's unions, etc. all vote overwhelmingly for Democrats even when the Democrats ignore the blocks. Republicans have blocks they count on as well, but these blocks expect results. Fiscal conservatives are one example of these blocks.

In 1992 these conservative blocks let the Republican Party know that it cannot take the conservatives for granted. The response was a 1994 overtaking of Congress with Republican candidates that promised conservative ideals and Congressional reform. 2006 the conservatives again let the Republican Party know that conservatives do not blindly follow party lines.

Coming next: Results--Statewide part 1

Election Analysis--DEM Strategy--Same Thing, Different Results

This election provided the Democrats an advantage for their repeated tune of "here is a problem, we have no solutions, but at least we did not create the problem." They had two major themes which they have continued since 2000. First, "we are better than the other guys" and the other is "we will fix the problems; we will have a plan if we win." The Democrats have used these themes for years and have justifiably been heavily criticized for them. They should come as no surprise, however, because these are the same themes that are used at the local level and succeed. "Pass this levy and then we will figure out what we will spend it on."

The phrase "Perfect Storm" was used frequently by a few people prior to the election. A great example of that in hindsight is the set of circumstances that allowed the Democrat themes to finally seem to the public as the best option.
We're better than the other guys
This may sound like a repeat from the GOP strategy. That is only because I talked about it before the Democrats. The reality is the Democrats have been using it for many election cycles and the Republicans this cycle recognized they had nothing else to run with.

Issues beat this philosophy easily, but in 2006 neither party really offered issues. The Democrats "Iraq sucks" and "Bush sucks" mantras really were not issues as much as the 1st step in the "We're better than the other guy" platform. Step two was "the other guy is too closely tied to Bush" and therefore the "other guys" sucks also. So this strategy generally cannot succeed.

That is, unless the party in power avoids issues as well. That was the case in 2006. When faced with two people saying "we may be bad but they are worse" the logical choice is to revert to the record of the incumbent and see if the record is worthy of reward.

In 2006 there were Republicans saying, "we're bad, but they are worse" and trying to avoid their record. Then there were the Democrats saying, "we may be bad, but they are worse and they have the record to prove it." Really this choice is a no-brainer and winner is only a winner by default. After all, how can you call a losing strategy a "winner" when it is matched against the same losing strategy?
Vote for us based on what we say we'll do, essentially for change
The Democrat strategy for 2006 was essentially a hybrid of the GOP 2006 strategy and a replication of their strategy since 2000. Fortunately for the Democrats this year their campaigns devoid of details were pitted against a Republican theme also devoid of details. The reason in the past this strategy failed was the Republicans had plans and details of their solutions. The person with the solutions gets the ear of people before the person with just the complaints.

But in 2006 both sides were pointing out the problems and neither side had solutions. This shifts the advantage to the challengers. It is logical. How can the person in power claim to have problems, offer no solutions, have performed no solutions and expect to be returned to power?

Change was the resonating theme. Conservatives wanted change from the status quo, fixed nothing Republicans. Liberals wanted change from the renegade cowboys of evil conservativism. So strongly did this message resonate that some conservatives decided it was easier to fight Democrats head on was better than trying to point out the Republicans trying to earn liberal credentials, proving the case and then fight them.

Corruption? A sub-theme supporting "change". Iraq? A sub-theme for "change". Change was the driving force behind the 2006 elections and it was obvious since 2005. All across the spectrum people wanted change. This is why the Democrats were able to get away with having no plans for change, just the clarion call for change.

Coming next: Results--Nationally

80,000 hits

A bout with the flu kept me from posting this when it should have been posted, but the 80,000th hit happened this past Sunday night.

Thank you to all of those who are here reading and putting up with the sporadic posting. That will be rectified soon, I hope. However, we are still deciding if we should move the majority of blog postings to the Show's website as show prep. We (ThePete & I) are also still building what we hope will be the new Race to the Right website to roll out for 2007...and that may affect this blog in one way or another.

It has been an interesting journey thus far. I hope we can continue it for a long time to come.

Election Analysis--Issues--GOP Strategy part 2

Note: this is a continuation of my election analysis. The majority of it was written Wednesday morning after the elections. With very few exceptions these are the thoughts and analysis as originally conceived that morning.

A bout with the flu has delayed my posting these and also prevented me from my venue for writing, which is on the bus to and from work.
Terror is everything
The GOP tried to make War on Terror the issue of campaign. Why not? It worked 2 years ago and REALLY worked in 2000. The problem is not that Terror is not an important issue. The problem is the electorate has a short memory and a short attention span. Really, the fact that there have been no attacks lately, I think, has hurt the GOP.

How?

Because it has allowed the populace to become complacent and disinterested. By not being in the front of people's minds the Terror issue was too difficult to "nationalize"

Yes, this has gone on longer than WWII. Yes, it is extremely important to our very existence. But it has been allowed to slip in its priorities in the minds of the average person. Proof of that is seeing how things like Brittany Spears divorce capture headlines DURING the election reporting.

They say hindsight is 20/20 but conservatives knew it at the time the War on Terror started. America has a short attention span and is highly impatient. Liberals knew that too and have been banking their return to power on the attention span finally moving Terror out of the front of the public's mind.

Conservative candidates should not have run from Terror and Iraq. They should have been spending the past several years connecting the dots. Instead they made the issue of Terror a series of talking points thus politicizing an issue. And it seems that my working theory on politicizing important issues gets another topic to support it. Essentially, once an important issue is seized by one party as politically advantageous the issue loses its place of importance by the perception of the public.

Issues used
Running from Issues
Mark Kennedy's campaign was the classical example for us. Kennedy's record in Congress was a smaller government, local-control, hard conservative. Democrats routinely turned these records into the false charge of being Bush's minion. Kennedy feared that charge for some reason and ran as far from it is possible.

It does not make sense why he feared the charged if he believed he was doing the right thing before. It is better to lose for who you are than to win for who you are not. This is transparent to the voters and led him to the worst scenario: he lost for who he was not.

He is not the only one, but he was the most clear example in front of the voters.

In Kennedy's case this type of strategy gives the base some signals of problems to come. "Is he just saying what he has to just to win?" "Will he abandon us like the current set of incumbents?" Running towards the opposition does not gain ground either as they already have their choice. In other words, becoming a Nationalist will not win over Democrats since they already have their Nationalist candidate. So stay close to you Federalist base.

Republicans also had a problem with running on the issues. How could they run on a platform of solving issues when they have not solved any since gaining power? "We will end the nanny-state" rings hollow when one of the last laws they passed were expanding the nanny-state (online gambling ban). "We will fix the porous borders" has no merit when the last effort proposed by the Republicans offered the wall for 1/3 of the border.

Being in the position of having no issues put the Republicans in the unenviable and self-defeating position of running away from their own issues. It also rendered their position on Terror without merit as they had spent years explaining how everything was tied to fighting terrorism, yet did little to actually fix "everything".

Running from their record, running from their issues…this was one of the few options that were left to the Republicans. (A "See, I Told You So" moment--I was trying to let the conservatives know in November 2005 that the following few months were the last chance they had to seize their issues back and have a record to run on. I was told I was paranoid.)

Race about "personalities" and "liberal vs conservative"
The final option the Republicans had in their campaigns was to make their race about personalities. "They are (gasp) liberals" and similarly thoughtful comments. Frankly, these are disgusting campaigns and most of the non-politicos I talked to were as disdainful towards these campaigns as I was.

A race about personalities is a big gamble. When you take on these kinds of themes you are betting heavily that (1) the personality trait you are attacking is viewed as a negative and not treated by the public with positivity or ambivalence, (2) there are solid, obvious and justifiable links from "evidence" to the charge of the attacked trait, and (3) that you are not perceived with a negative trait for engaging in the personality attacks.

The "flip-flop" tag is the best example. In 2004 "flip-flop" was used as the main charge against Kerry's personality. The success was that Kerry literally would flip-flop from one day to the next and then back to the first. These were so obvious that explanations by the attackers were not needed…and the public agreed that this was not acceptable.

Since then the "flip-flop" has been distorted to the point that the public disregards the charge and views the charge as hostile, negative and irrelevant. For 2006 a flip-flop was any nuanced change in position found over the past 20 years, any change in position regardless of explanation or justification, any support for a major theme while not supporting certain subordinate details…the list continues and also provides an impossible burden to avoid by anyone.

Using "flip-flop" as an attack on someone no longer has the support from the public and puts the attacker in a worse light than before. In some cases it also creates a sympathy for the attacked.

And this is the major danger of engaging in campaigns about personalities.

Coming next: DEM Strategy--Same Thing, Different Results part 1

MLS Playoffs 2006 Recap

I know nothing about soccer and have no real interest beyond reporting the results. If someone who follow the MLS wishes to author recaps and stories in the future then let me know.
Western Conference Semi-Final Series
#4 vs #1
Colorado Rapids (11-13-8) vs FC Dallas (16-12-4).

#3 vs #2
Chivas USA (10-9-13) vs Houston Dynamo (11-8-13).

Eastern Conference Semi-Final Series
#4 vs #1
New York Red Bulls (9-11-12) vs United DC (15-7-10).

#3 vs #2
Chicago Fire (13-11-8) vs New England Revolution (12-8-12).

Western Conference Championship
#4 vs #3
Colorado advanced to the Conference Championship by scoring more goals (Game 1: 1-2; Game 2: 3-2 and 5-4 in Penalty Kicks). Houston advanced by scoring more goals (Game 1: 1-2; Game 2: 2-0).

Eastern Conference Championship
#2 vs
New England advanced to the Conference Championship by scoring more goals (Game 1: 0-1; Game 2: 2-1 and 4-2 in Penalty Kicks). DC advanced by scoring more goals (Game 1: 1-0; Game 2: 1-1).

MLS Cup 2006
vs
New England wins their Conference match 1-0. Houston wins their Conference Championship match 3-1.

MLS Cup 2006 Winner

Houston wins the MLS Cup by beating New England 1-1 and 4-3 in penalty kicks.

Election Analysis--Issues--GOP Strategy part 1

Back between late 2005 and early 2006 I noticed the themes that were beginning to percolate from the GOP. After a few months the election themes came out in full view. "Vote/support us because, as bad as we have been we are still better than the other guys" and "we need change in Washington, so vote for us so we can make change happen." The first is a bad strategy, even if it is true, because it is a campaign about the opposition, not about you or your positions. The second is a great strategy…if you are in the minority.
We're better than the other guys
In the local blogosphere a banner picture quickly made the rounds. Basically, "Yes, we failed on cutting the budget. Yes we failed on illegal immigration. Yes, we failed on many things. But if you don't help us win election you will get: Speaker Pelosi". This is not a strategy of issues. This is a strategy of fear. The strange part of this strategy is the target of the fear: their own base. "Scare our people out of rational analysis."

Deeper trouble than the target of this "fear mongering" theme is the subject of the theme. A well run campaign is one about oneself and, though somewhat utopian I see, a campaign about actual Issues. This theme is about the opposition and their platform. As responsible voters (and I know, that is not all voters--it does not include the uninformed or the partisans) we want to hear you talk about you.

By saying, "I'm going to be better than the alternative" forces the voters to look harder at the alternative. It gives the alternative a chance to give whatever positions on whatever issues they want to give. Control of the Issues belongs now to the opposition.

What is worse about this strategy is the loss of legitimate claim to refute. Look at the order of the discourse.
1. "We're better than the alternative"
2. Alternative chooses topics and how they package their positions
3. "Those are not really their positions" OR "Well, here is my position on that"

At this point the public is feeling, "You gave up your chance to give us your position." Worse is the assumption that follows: "You're only saying that is your position as a defense. We can't believe that's your position."

The damage from this strategy is even deeper. The discourse continues:

4. Alternative determines which issues to discuss
5. "That is not important. THIS issue is important"

"Really?" is the Electorate's response. "If it is THAT important then why didn't you tell us that to begin with?
"Why should you vote for us? If you don't, you will get Speaker Pelosi."

Who thought this was a good strategy? Why? What was the premise? How did that thought process go?

"Hmm, What are we going to run on? Small government! Nope, we didn't deliver that. Border security? Nope, passed that off 'til next year. What will our theme be?

"Well, we have to win or 'they' will be in power. What will 'they' do? Well, raise spending, increase government, poor support of Iraq. Oh, wait, we've raised spending, grown government and are starting to get weak on Iraq.

"I have got it! They're just worse than us. That's it."

The problem with this theme is, well there is no problem…there are problemS with this slogan. It is running a campaign based on fear mongering. It is designed simply to scare your base into compliance. It is an ad hominem attack. It is a claim that offers no merit and provides no real distinction from the opponent…afterall, "worse than us" is a purely subjective description. Those are the surface problems.

Dig deeper and you will see this theme is self-destructive as well. It move the center of discussion on the opponent. You are now spending more time talking about your opponent than your positions. You also will not be given the opportunity to "frame the issues" The quick response from the opponent is, "What is so bad about wanting (insert feel-good policy in general terms)?" Now you are left on the defensive. Not only do you have to defend the implication that you are against that general plan (against feeding children, etc.) Now you also have to begin to articulate how you position is different, but the real question becomes, "if this is so important to you why did you not say so FIRST. In the meantime the opposition gets a free pass for uttering a vaguery.

This was the theme from the GOP starting this spring and I explained how that theme is a losing strategy all around.
We will bring change to Washington
The person who decided this was a good theme for the GOP both nationally and in Minnesota should be disowned from the GOP. This theme came out around November of 2005…while the GOP held the entire Legislative and Executive branches nationally. It came out while the Minnesota held a majority in half of the legislative branch and the executive could have used his Veto stamp with no hope of overrides.

Re-elect us so we can make changes. You mean the changes we were promised in 1994. I'm still waiting for small government or shrinking budgets. I'm looking for that shift from national control to state control. Why was illegal immigration so important in 1996…and then not again until 2006? Even with that we got from the Republican House, Senate and White House a fence on 1/3 of the border and nothing to remove the incentive for illegals to come here. Nanny-state…grew in power as well as scope. Tax cuts…temporary. Oh, yes, the Democrats will not even have to 'face the music' for raising them. The Republicans gave them a "care package" in making the cuts "sunset".

The timing of the "re-elect us so we can make changes" theme was self-defeating. This theme came out before the final session of the election cycle. In other words, there was still time to actually make changes, fulfill supporter's expectations and follow through with their campaign positions. Instead, both in Minnesota and nationally, the GOP played dead and began beating the drum of "fixing" things if elected.

Case in point: immigration.

Nearly a year after the theme started (back in 2005) the GOP in Congress closed the session with a half-hearted legislation, but they said they would complete the job when the next session begins in January. In other words, at that time the message was, "if you want illegal immigration fixed you have to re-elect us." Nevermind the fact that it could have been addressed in that very day.

It is very difficult to convince people that you intend to make changes or even do what you originally campaigned on in the future when you failed to do so in the past and are failing to do so in the present.
"Sir, you hired me to fix your water heater last year. My contract is up next week and I'm asking for your renewal of my contract. I know, I have not yet fixed your water heater. But rehire me and I will fix your water heater. I did not do it yesterday because it is too important to do this month. Next month I can do it.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it. Sounds like something that only a true idiot could buy. What is scary about that is I am not a smart person and I recognized this angle from the GOP last October…over 13 months before the election. I described how foolish this theme is. Only a few allies in the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers agreed…quietly. The rest denied it was happening, and besides, it is better than the alternative. I wrote that the GOP in Minnesota and in Congress had better get everything done that the base sent them to office to do…or they will have nothing to run on and they will lose.

By February those that quietly agreed decided to play the role of the wallflower cheerleader wannabe that fellates the star quarterback but the star never knows who the wallflower is. They swallowed their own beliefs, their own principles and their own independent thinking all for the sake of defending those who spat on them already. They denied ever stating they believed the GOP's chosen themes were losing ones. They jumped onto the doomed wagon and whipped the horses to pull the wagon faster towards the cliff. Some even deleted from their websites the evidence that they 'dared' to criticize the GOP. Online they trashed ME for calling the strategy for what it is…and pointing out their hypocrisy for suddenly embracing it. "Tony, if you are not with us on this strategy then you are a liberal…and we are of the mindset to destroy the lives of those against us." And they did try to do so.

Now they are coming around and admitting their stupidity…though they blame the party for the theme and avoid blaming themselves for perpetuating the failed theme. They admit the failure of the campaign slogan and how inept the candidates were by holding true to that slogan. But they will not admit their role in tossing out their own beliefs, being the GOP's performing monkey, personally attacking and denigrating me and those who continued to say the GOP was on the wrong course.

The ironic justice is that one of those very people is now speaking up…kind of…and is of the opinion that he will be the next target of the GOP's destruction machine. Ironic because he claimed no such thing happens and specifically attacked me for providing the evidence of this destruction machine. Andy, you get what you deserve in that regard…hopefully you feel the brunt over the coming months of all you tried to hide since June, and all that you denied to contradict me since March.

The reality is this was a losing tactic and everyone knew it. But the GOP was hoping to literally intimidate people into compliance with the hope that the façade of unity would convince non-Republicans to support the "unified behind a cause" Republicans. The problem was there was no unity…and it showed. The problem was the strong armed tactics were not able to be kept secret…and it showed an ugly truth. The problem was there was no cause…so what was there to join. The problem was a lack of credibility…how can someone believe your support of something when you are known to have done a 180 in your opinion of that something…and never be able to explain what the turning moment was?

All of this combined with the business as usual corruption and the protect-our-own defending of those corrupt politicians led the public to realize that, not only did you fail to do what you claim you believe while in power, but you made it worse. Yes, the Left and the Right wanted change. There is only one person that can deliver "change" and it is not the person currently in power. It is the newcomer or challenger.

Coming next: Issues--GOP Strategy, A Tough Sell part 2

You got what you wanted

A blogger I read and respect had a bit of a rant about Tuesday's elections. Part of that rant included wagging her finger at the voters, specifically the conservatives voters and those pointing out the fact that there was no reason to vote FOR the GOP.

This morning, those who called for conservatives to lay down the pen when it came to their representatives are the ones to blame for the losses, and you can tell the guilt by the spin. What they do, they now do with our blessing. Because we thought it best to act like a bunch of whiny three year olds, denied our sugar-coated cereal, and throwing a public temper tantrum, complete with fist pounding.

Congratulations. You threw the bums out. Even when some of them weren't bums.

Congratulations. You cleaned house. Now it can get really dirty.

Congratulations. You got what you wanted.

Emily, I love you blog. I usually agree with what you write and when I disagree I can at least understand and appreciate your position.

This time you are dead wrong.

"Congratulations. You got what you wanted" you say.

Not really. This time last year there were 4 GOP candidates for my Congressional Race (MN-6). I wanted Mark Kennedy instead to stay put. He didn't. I wanted him to run for Senate on his House record. He didn't. I wanted to run on issues...he ran on making semantical games about his opponent the issue.

To replace him were four conservatives (well, one moderate-conservative, but you get the point), but only three people who I felt good about as a person. (Did you ever shake hands with someone and feel like you just touched the devil? When I shook the 4th's hand I would get that feeling EVERY TIME for the past 2 years.) That 4th person won. I wanted someone I could vote for. I didn't get that.

Yes, I skipped 2 races (actually voted "Present" in the Write-in). Have no fear, both of the GOP candidates won anyway. I voted for the IP candidate for MN Governor because the Republican has done NOTHING for fiscal conservatives in the past 2 years, stated the "era of small government is over" and, imho, did not deserve to be returned to office with the help of my fiscal conservative vote. He earned it as much as I expected his Democrat challenger to have earned my vote. I wanted the fiscal conservative I was promised 4 years ago.

I wanted the GOP held House & Senate to FIX the pourous borders, illegal immigration and push for small government. Instead we have an expensive fence going up for 1/3 of the border, amnesty to reward illegals and a federal government telling me how to live (e.g. internet gambling is bad for me...to include online investing).

I wanted an Secretary of State in MN to do her job. The GOP incumbent has been a miserable partisan failure, and a liar to boot.

Given the batch of GOP candidates on my ballot the choices were not even what I wanted. I wanted none of them to win...so I did not get what I wanted. My responsibility when voting is ONLY regarding the races on my ballot. If you want to blame anyone blame the general Republican theme this election (which I pointed out in April both on the air and on my blog and predicted would lead to a massacre). Their themes: "Vote for us, cuz the other guys are worse" and "Vote for us to make the changes we need." How anyone thought either of those could win for a party that at the time controled both sides of Congress and the White House nationally (and the House & Governor's mansion in MN) is beyond me. THAT is the person needing scorn from those on the right licking their wounds. That finger wagging is in the wrong direction pointing at those of us who WANTED better candidates and simply made do with the absolute crap in front of us.

In the end, it is not too hard of a choice when you have an incumbent with a record for not getting the job done and a challenger who has no record.

The general feeling amongst the GOP was that voters had a responsibility to make their choices based on the national picture. Sorry, but that is just stuipid. If I were voting for Speaker of the House then it would be on my ballot. If it is supposed to be a vote based on which party should control Congress then my ballot would not say:

6th Congressional District
John Binkowski (Independent)
Michele Bachmann (Republican)
Patty Wetterling (Democrat)
Write-In

And for the record, I did write in Jay Esmay. If what you think the voters SHOULD have voted on or kept into consideration was a national vote on Congressional Control then the ballot should look like this:

National Control of Congress
Republican
Democrat
Other

My ballot did not have that, so that is not what should have been in consideration. My job as a voter was to weigh the character, the adherence to their own principles, their record, their positions, the person...weight those about the candidates against each other and select the best one. This year in many of the races the GOP candidate just could not pass that test.

But to insist that a voter must instead vote according to which party will become Speaker of the House is as intellectually valid as walking into the booth and flipping a coin. It is as responsible as voting for a party and then drawing a name from the phone book after the election to see which person would represent the winning party.

And for those who during the entire election cycle villified people intending to vote 3rd party or skipping various races I want you to answer these questions. In my State Senate race there was an ethically challenge Republican incumbent that could find a happy home in the Green party outside of his 'pro-business' claim and there was a Democrat challenger who, after a 30 minute conversation, I could tell was more of partisan sell-out than even the KvM authors.

Many, many, many of those who pilloried the 'skip the race' or 3rd-party voters work from the premise that the choices are ONLY the 'R' or the 'D'. To not actively pick one means you support the other. To understand the problem with it answer this think of who they think I should have voted for in the aforementioned race. Who should I have voted for in my State Senate race?

Really, I could not in good conscience pull the lever for either and there were no other candidates. I checked "Write-in" and wrote "Voting Present". So, according to those 'you're supporting the other side since you did not vote for our side' folks, it could be asserted that I 'supported' or 'helped' or 'voted' both sides. What about the other 49 that cast a "Write-in" vote? Who did they help? What about the 1,018 (3.0%) people that skipped the race entirely...who did they help?

And is it the fault us 1,068 people that did not cast either a "R" or a "D" vote that the DFL majority in the Senate grew by 12 DFL seats? If so, which ONE candidate did we 1068 voters help...and why that one, but not the other. How are we 1068 voters in this State Senate district responsible for the expansion of the Democrat majority?

So, all of you blaming the voters...you're wrong and lazy. Find the real blame, but it is not the voters.

All of you blaming the GOP or conservatives for not supporting the candidates...you're wrong and blind. The slate of good, competent politicians was thin and the slate of good, competent people was even thinner.

All of you who blasted non-voters, 3rd-party voters and 'skip the race' voters before the election...shut up now. Funny how the most vicious of those people are the ones now jumping on board with the very things I was saying last year.

Oh, and, Andy...you conspiracy freak. Interesting little thought.

No, I know that overnight there was probably a massive research into my background. They will stop at nothing in this. Just like I got savaged by Jeffers folks for defending Pawlenty, I will now get savaged by the Carey folks.

Remember everyone, Ron Carey was supposed to be the guy to give the party back to the base, and stop making all the decisions at the top. Here we have some proof that ALL the decisions were made at the top, and in fact they are telling the base to F off.

I will be lucky to survive their assault on my character, but I feel that I must move on.

Let me offer to you the same thing you said to me during the summer. There is no way in the world that kind of thing would happen. You are making things up, imagining these things. You are saying anything just to bring down people for your own Quixotic reasons. The GOP does not do background searchs on their critics. And they do not intimidate or threaten critics. You have it wrong...even if you have witnessed it, you are wrong. All of the evil things you may have witnessed behind he scenes did not happen.

I'm just giving you the advice that you gave to me...even though I know those things from first hand experience.

And I am doing it more gently than you and your pals did to us non-conformists this past year.

Election Analysis--Issues--Iraq

Not Really About Iraq
The same thing everyone says this election was about is Iraq. I disagree. That is the easy, lazy assessment. Think more generalized. If the elections were about Iraq then why the bloodbath in races that have nothing to do with such policies? Mark Ritchie never mentioned Iraq or President Bush. Rebecca Otto and Mike Hatch and Lori Swanson (so far as I am aware) and I am willing to bet that most of the state level races across the country did not mention Iraq. Yet the bloodbath occurred at that level as well.

Yes, Iraq may be "important" to people and maybe even enough to make them vote one way or another. But, that is true for nearly the entire population regardless of their views. But what was the real goal in the voting behavior? Not ending our role in Iraq. Many people do not believe 'quitting' Iraq is an answer. Changing our plan, yes, but that is not what made people pull the lever.

Mark Kennedy made his race about Klobuchar…and then a pathetic effort to say, "I think there were mistakes made…" What is that position acknowledging? They all picked up on "change" is needed in each of the races. Not "change" in Iraq, Terror policy or foreign policy. Those were not the universal theme. Change from the "status quo" was the theme.

Oddly enough it was the Left's and Center's desire for "change" from the 8 - 12 years of status quo. It was also the Right's disappointment that the last 8 - 12 years continued the status quo they wanted to end in 1994.

Locally the theme was change. Change the Governor because of the social ruin being created. Change the Secretary of State because of partisanship and/or incompetence. Change the House because of the Twins bill or government shutdown. Change.

There were a few races where the War on Terror and Iraq were the central focus of the challengers, but that was also disguised as "being too close too Bush". Klobuchar made that charge but Kennedy was already running away from his Congressional record. That race was never about Iraq centrally. Tim Walz' main push was Iraq and he did win. Coleen Rowley was all about anti-Iraq. She got creamed.

No, despite what Hugo Chavez and the Socialists in British Parliament and the lazy analysts across the nation think, the message the bridges the elections was "Change from the status quo"…and it was the request from both sides of the spectrum.
Terror
Don't believe what we don't see
Do not believe that the seeming feel of "unimportance" of Iraq or the War on Terror described above means these are actually not crucial issues in the world. Do not believe that the way many of the GOP candidates ran from their previously "at all costs" support means the War on Terror is not important.

Do believe that the nation does not really believe what it really cannot see. Partially blame the natural biases of the media. Partially blame the Democrats who have been diminishing the War's priority since December 2001. Partially blame American Society for being so screwed up in their priorities that they study the profiles of the American Idol finalists while doing very little to learn more about what happens in Iraq, with Terrorism, in the Middle East, etc.

But also to blame is (brace yourself) the Bush Administration's effectiveness in fighting Terror. There is no question that we would have seen at least one more major attack if we continued after 9/11 as we did before it. Only an idiot would think otherwise. However, Bush has been so effective (more than I seem to give him credit for) that there is no terrorist threat to really see. This creates two problems for him.

First, it leaves the impression with the people that all of these "tools to fight terror" the President is asking for may be too much…overkill. He's doing fine without them.

Second, the populace does not see the threat anymore because we have not been attacked again. Osama is nothing but hot air, the killing is "over there" and we must be either winning or have won. It is safe now to focus on important things like (fill in the domestic issue of choice). It is safe now to have celebrity divorces be a top headline during election night returns.

The first hint of this reality locally was last year, Fall of 2005, when Race to the Right held the first MOB Council. We talked about the 4 candidates for GOP endorsement for the 6th Congressional Race. Jay Esmay called in saying Iraq is THE most important issue. Mitch Berg responded with the explanation that Jay still needed to be "local" in his issues. What are his "local" issues and how is Iraq "locally" important. The public just did not buy anymore the reality of Iraq & Terror's importance…the MOB Council recognized it then. (Sadly, most of them abandoned that realization to the peril of their candidates.)

The bottom line is the people cannot believe a threat they do not see. Bush has kept the threat distant (in miles) while he and the GOP failed for years to articulate well that the threat is still here and real…keeping it important though it is still distant.

Short attention span
Adding to the complications of the public not seeing the threat so believing it is not important is the public's short attention span.

We get our news from "shorts". In the old days shorts were used to get you up to date until you got the whole story later (later that evening, that weekend, etc). The content of the shorts and teasers in the old days had the same amount of substance as our newscasts and stories hold today.

We don't have the patience to wait at McDonald's drive-thru when the ask us to pull forward for an extra 120 seconds.

Longer than WWII
It should come as no surprise to realized that our patience has run out with Iraq and Terror as they surpassed the length of World War II. "We should be done by now. We're not, so something must be wrong."

That is the general thinking. I know, it is absolutely wrong in its facts, assumptions and conclusions, but that IS the general thinking. Addressing those errors is the topic of another post, though, and not relevant in analyzing Election '06.

Short attention span.

I tried telling various campaigns, bloggers and insiders that facts vs fiction are not going to make a difference in campaigns. You MUST understand the perception and address it. The perception was "we should be done". Take that perception and, instead of fighting against those who believe that, embrace it as a possible assumption…convince the public why YOU are still the best person to fix that issue. Don't change YOUR assumptions, premises or positions. But connect to theirs.

People think the economy is horrible. The best strategy in a campaign is to tell them why you are the best candidate, your policies are the best even in, or especially if the economy is horrible.

Short attention span.

We must have won
There have been no attacks. We must have won. Sometimes being too effective puts you out of a job. (Which is why poverty pimps do not fight for poverty ending solutions.) The War on Terror is a double-edged sword. Fight it well and people will think we do not need you anymore since we do not need to fight the War anymore. Fight it poorly and you will be not needed since you cannot protect us in the War.

At some point one edge or the other will catch up to you. With a nation's citizenry having short attention spans and poor education (contributing to their lack of interest in real issues) quickens the catch up.

Not dealt with (e.g. border)--Can't be big deal
Finally, how can you convince people that your top issue should be their top issue when you fail to address that top issue in the manner the people want you to?

Obviously the GOP was unable to answer that question properly. Otherwise they would have given a full effort and a complete solution to illegal immigration and border control.

There is not much that is necessary to point out beyond that. There are many, many examples that most are aware of.

Essentially, the GOP was more focused on retention of power. Hence pushing the issue off. Hence dragging out providing solutions. The subliminal message from the GOP, unintentionally, was, "Terror is not as important to me as I say. That is why we are not fixing anything now. That is why we are addressing things in a reactive fashion."

Coming next: Issues--GOP Strategy, A Tough Sell