Prior to busting out of town for some desert road trip nirvana, I dropped by a “Pint With (Richard) Painter” event at Lake Monster Brewing in St. Paul. Besides responding favorably to the (former Republican’s) indignation over the gushing Trump sewer, I was curious to see what kind of crowd he was drawing in his long-shot fight to defeat appointed incumbent Tina Smith.
Expecting the usual sad collection of white-haired ideologues and sweated-up activists, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself among 150-200 people representative of a fairly broad age and gender spectrum — although no black folks that I could see.
The brewery venue was noisy and Painter — George W. Bush’s ex-ethics attorney — was ill-served by a cheesy sound system. Restlessness set in fast as he opened with a detailed explanation of the PolyMet land swap up north and Smith’s carefully calibrated position on that issue. Catching only every third word, those of us on the fringes sipped our beverages and waited for the good stuff.
The crowd got what it very clearly wanted to hear when Painter segued to Trump and the appropriate response to the most corrupt and disgraceful administration of our lifetime. A roar went up when he said, “we’ve got to get aggressive with this”. Another, even louder roar went up when he mentioned “Al Franken” and what the ex-Senator would probably have been saying and doing in the summer of 2018. In fact the applause for Franken was prolonged.
I met Painter last spring when we were both part of symposium up at Itasca Community College. (Painter was the keynote speaker. I was a presenter on “Fake News.”) Our rooms were on the same floor of a local hotel and I cornered him on the elevator. I asked him what he thought of my scenario that the key to driving Trump from office is not the “pee tape”, but rather an indisputable mortal threat to his money, the essence of his “brand” and ego, and if he could imagine a situation where Rod Rosenstein, armed with Mueller’s report, came to Trump with the message that he and his entire family of grifters could either be prosecuted down to the last nickel of their looted treasuries or he could resign. His choice.
Painter laughed. “I’d be okay with that.”
Combined with what he’s said as a talking head on cable news and the speech he gave in Grand Rapids — which was indignant and cathartically “unmodulated” by the standards of your average professional liberal — that’s everything I know about Painter. And it’s enough for me to vote for him over Smith in the August 14 primary.
Like many in the crowd at Lake Monster Brewing (nice joint BTW) “the Al Franken thing” will never sit well with me. The voters of Minnesota were Franken’s employers. We were the ones to decide whether his transgressions in the #MeToo moment required removing him from office, not a cabal of naked opportunists like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. (And thank you Amy Klobuchar for your courageous collegial resistance to that purge.)
Tina Smith personally had no role that I know of in pushing Franken out the door. But Smith is without question a poster child for the, as I say, professional liberal class that did. These are a strata of bureaucratized, corporatized characters whose success in public life is directly related to their ability to take a belt sander to any word, phrase or facial expression that betrays honest human emotion. Emotion, like for example, visceral outrage and indignation at unprecedented corruption and god knows what else. (See Trump-Putin private meeting Helsinki).
The irony for me is that I argued to my Republican neighbors here in Edina that their best reason to vote for Hillary Clinton was “competent management.” (I.e. “She’ll protect your portfolio”). Smith, the former Planned Parenthood exec and insider’s insider policy wonk would be perfectly fine in normal times. As in: be your numbingly bland self lady, just vote my issues.
But we aren’t there right now, and won’t be until everything Trump is bio-washed and detoxified from the gears of government. And that requires (constant) heat and pressure from high-level elected officials.
Do you see Tina Smith possessing any ability to apply those qualities?
While out cruising the empty highways of west Texas I heard of the flap between the DFL and Painter, and laughed out loud at the charge that because Painter would not profess fealty to the party sigil he must be treated as a toxic antigen.
Talk about professional liberal protocol.
I strongly suspect that the “fealty to party” thing is another endangered virtue in this unprecedented era. I don’t know about you, but in this moment I’ll vote for anyone committed to terminating this Trump “crap” (as Painter often calls it) sooner rather than later.
Smith has piled up something like 15 times the money Painter is running on, and has demonstrated no willingness whatsoever to face him in a one-on-one debate. (If Ms. Smith is too worried to lock up with Richard Painter, a well-educated lawyer and experienced bureaucrat, why would anyone think she’s up to the task of gutting right-wing nut-jobbery here or in D.C.?)
The betting line says Smith wins the primary easily. But she’ll do it without my vote.
I appreciate the irony you pointed out to your Edina friends back then ( oh so long ago), but I think that you missed another irony–what you like about Painter (his willingness to be unfiltered and direct) and dislike about Smith (too corporate and cautious) is EXACTLY what Trump supporters like about Trump–he “calls it like he sees it”, he is not PC, he (literally) calls a spade a spade (or a Mexican a rapist, etc., etc.).
I too want Trump out, but not at the expense of making politics over in the image of Trump. Electing Democratic versions of Trump would not seem like a victory to me. Frankly, I’d rather go back to “politics as usual” (circa 2008).
Pete: I wouldn’t bother to mention Painter if he were just another rabble-rousing blowhard. The guy obviously has a very traditional bureaucratic pedigree and seems at least as well informed on standard issues — sulfide mining, etc. — as any other credible candidate. My issue with many facets of the Trump era (media among them) is the way what’s happening is normalized by clutching to normal responses. This is not normal and should never be allowed to be considered normal. Major institutions like daily newspapers are extremely reluctant to adjust their traditional editorial tone and depth of focus, mainly out fear of the effect it may have on audience and ad revenue. Whether fair or not, I see politicians like Tina Smith as very much like hyper-cautious, tradition-bound daily papers. Like them, “leaders” like Smith are in a whistling-past-the-graveyard mode hoping that politics as usual with an emphasis on consensus-building will eventually carry the day. I doubt that. The point isn’t to shriek and scream epithets at people, it’s to rally the informed and indignant to express themselves and drive even more people to the polls. How’s your thirst these days?
I could certainly use a couple of beers!
I FULLY agree with you. II have paid attn to Painter since he “became a talking head.” I have talked with him personally. I think he is best candidate for any office since Wellstone and Franken. I am sick of Democrats in office. We have an emergency. We can’t wait to stop fascist Trump.
-thanks
RIGHT ON! I second that! Cautious. Corporate=-sponsored Dems like Tina Smith (& Hillary Clinton) HELPED MAKE TRUMP POSSIBLE. It’s OVERDUE to have Democrats that SUPPORT our RIGHT TO ORGANIZE UNIONS (instead of treating unions like an ATM & GOTV Volunteers), we need Democrats who TAKE A STAND—NOT wring their hands–while taking Corporate Cash–as Tina Smith has ($1M). Her first proority (source: Star Tribune Jan. 2018) was TRUMP’S REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE TAX (which FUNDS the ACA/’Obamacare”)—Smith has $4M+ M in Medical Device Stocks. Tina “Polymet”Smith PUSHED FOR a cheap land deal for FROEIGN mining Corp; POLYMET for sulfide mine by Lake Superior. Richard painter TAKES NO PAC MONEY & has BACKBONE. Hear in-depth interview with Painter on AUG. 3 edition of CATALYST at kfai (dot) org (Tina Smith EVADED my interview request since May).
You wrote, “The voters of Minnesota were Franken’s employers. We were the ones to decide whether his transgressions in the #MeToo moment required removing him from office.”
This is well said, and my regard for the Democrats took a nosedive with this episode. (I’ve been a Democrat leaning Independent.) It seemed a clumsy and obvious matter of virtue signalling.
I know little of Painter, but now you have me intrigued and I’ll read up on him.
I’m glad Painter criticizes Trump and duly note that he uses the non-sanded word “crap.” But he also remained an active Republican through the conservative Nixon, Reagan and Bush eras, which contributed in no small part to the trickle-down economic policies that has led to the worst income inequality since 1928. I am grateful to the small group of Republicans who now criticize Trump — Christine Todd Whitman, George Will, Jeff Flake, Steve Schmidt, John Kasich, Romney, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Steele, Richard Painter, etc. But that doesn’t mean I’m forgetting all the conservative policies they supported over the past several decades and am ready to trust them to advocate for my progressive values. When Painter stayed in that party through all of those Republican regimes, that tells me something about his core values, and they’re just not my core values. For me, it’s not about fealty the the DFL endorsement, an antiquated process I also hate. For me, it’s about whether I think I could trust a Senator Painter to advocate for progressive policies, beyond prosecuting Trump, such as pushing progressive tax policies and expanded government services. Based on the political choices he has made through his career, I don’t feel like I can.
I’m a PROGRESSIVE/LEFT person who’s NEVER voted for a republican for any office. Actually, Richard Painter has worked for BOTH Republican & Democratic candidates. I strongly suggest you LOOK AT HIS POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES. You can hear my in-depth interview with him on the AUG. 3 editon of CATALYST at kfai (dot) org I think you’ll be quite surprised.
As I’ve said elsewhere: “It’s not that I despise Tina Smith. My complaint is that nothing she says or has done suggests to me that she is prepared to be a part of, much less lead, the kind of exorcism of Trumpist bigotry and corruption that has overtaken her colleagues “across the aisle.” The Strib’s endorsement can easily be read as endorsement of itself since both paper and Smith are deeply committed and a bit nostalgic for a standard of moral governance almost completely lacking outside their institutional walls. Different times require different strategies to maintain honor and decency.”