Disclaimer: I will take full blame for nominating Al Franken, because I did, because he's a good man, and because he was far and away the best choice.
If Franken wins, it's looking like it might be by way of a lawsuit. Many if not most will consider that an illegitimate win. Just about everyone can agree that neither candidate has a mandate, so both sides will hate the other basically no matter what. But with Coleman, we'll get a weak incumbent senator, in the minority, not making much trouble.
Franken has the potential to draw all kinds of unwanted attention to the Democrats. Any off-color comment he makes will be used in GOP mailers for fund raising. Just like Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco are now seen as the home of the most severe kind of liberalism, so, too, will Al Franken and the Evil Twin Cities (maybe the Cities won't get indicted, but he will become a poster child). I didn't think about these political ramifications when I was nominating him, because I don't like to make up my mind about who to vote for that way -- I'm just viewing this from as cold-blooded and objective a point of view as I can.
If he's painted this way simply because of his celebrity, the GOP might just getting away with running someone on a par with Michelle Bachmann in six years. Given the reputation he will have--whether earned or manufactured by the Republicans--that challenger might seem middle-of-the-road.
If Coleman gives as stunning a performance as he did for his first term, he'll be creamed in 2014. Franken came with a lot of baggage, and I think it sunk him. A Democrat should have won that race. Tim Walz would be a good choice to run next time. I hear rumor that he wants to run for governor, which could forfeit the First to the Republicans. Walz should spend these next few years making a name for himself before launching a statewide campaign.
So that could be the choice: win now and probably lose later, while giving the right something to chew on for six years OR lose now and win later with a good senator who we'll be able to hang onto for a while...
Also, I promised a review of Quantum of Solace, but I don't want to do it anymore. I'll do it in sentence fragments.
Not as good as the first. Still awesome. Daniel Craig = Best Bond Yet. The Red Head? Smokin'. Countdown to next installment: ????????????
M
3 comments:
Is it politics or policy that we should be interested in ?
Politics provides the opportunity to look at the 2012 Presidential race (ignoring the Pawlenty/Bachmann/Kline –v- Klobuchar Senate race) and the 2014 Senate race.
Policy has us asking how much more can ask our grandchildren’s grandchildren to pay for today expenses ?
In this instance, politics and policy actually intersect.
IF Coleman serves the next six years, his choices on policy will have a lot to do with his re-election chances in 2014. Coleman has been a dismal failure during his first term and yet neither Barkley nor Franken could get the voters to see that. Coleman failed to “bring” his Republicans forward on any issue … including ones that were critical to Minnesota like the Farm Bill. His stance on foreign issues was a full embrace of the John Bolton Neo-Con philosophy. He didn’t join the Gang of 10 Energy Solution until it was too late.
Coleman would now be operating in a Senate that has a strong Democrat tilt … will he be beholden to his Re-election/Recount-IOUs that force him to oppose major changes in health care. Will he hold to his stance on maintaining the Bush tax cuts and join the filibuster to prevent any changes? Will he accept PAYGO as a requirement for new spending and actually force corporations and the wealthy to pay they fair share of the government’s expenses? Will he seek out a VP slot in 2012?
It’s the policy that makes it important that Coleman not win … but that fate has already been decided by the voters … we just don’t know who and how many votes will be counted.
You mention that Congressman Walz would be a good candidate in 2014 … actually, former U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger, who endorsed Coleman, stated yesterday that the DFL had not offered their strongest challenger and suggested First District Congressman Tim Walz would have been better than Franken. Personally, although Walz would have creamed Coleman in the debates, Congresswoman Betty McCollum would have produced a Klobuchar-Kennedy landslide margin. Why she decided to stay in the House is a mystery. With Minnesota losing one House seat after the 2010 census, she would have done better to have moved up when there was an opening against a weak Republican incumbent.
The DFL blew it by not offering a candidate that could garner universal support from the DFL membership and appeal to a majority of the Independent voters.
Yes, Franken does have the potential to be a cause for concern IF he takes the TV talk show route … but that is unavoidable in today’s cable news world. Franken will be a reliable vote on progressive issues, but we really don’t know if he has a “statement” issue. Franken may have an easier time in re-election mode after voters know what he is capable of doing.
Regarding Walz’s future, I hope he rejects any idea of running for Governor. There is a whole different mindset and set of issues with running a state then being advocate for issues as he has so expertly done during his first term.
it will be easy to make spoofs based on Quantum of Solace... every where he goes he breaks glass and he can't get a gallon of milk from the store without it turning into a chase scene
to minnesota central: my thoughts were focused pretty much entirely on the politics, not the policy.. which sort of makes me hypocritical because i hate it when the media refuses to talk about policy and instead does process stories.
i've become part of the problem!
anyway, mccollum would have been great, you're absolutely right. i'd have been proud to have two female senators representing me, since the senate is too much a boys club.
Post a Comment