Tag Archives: Amy Klobuchar

As Sordid an Example of “Legislating from the Bench” as We’ll Ever See.

Posted on by
How the Federalist Society came to dominate the Supreme Court – Harvard Gazette

Not that there was really any question, you understand. But with this “leak” of the Supreme Court’s imminent abortion ruling we can pretty well dismiss the notion that there is ever a “settled” argument in this great, grand democratic experiment of ours. Given sufficient connivery, bad faith and partisan fervor, nothing is ever truly decided and settled.

Court watchers and other sage heads — like Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick — are at the moment undecided about why and who leaked Sam Alito’s 98-page screed/draft of the court’s upcoming opinion. Was it someone trying to gin up enough public outrage to … do something about it? On a court where there’s a locked-in-stone five votes to decide in favor of anything the Federalist Society/evangelical right has on their to-do list?

Or was the leak from someone sympathetic to overturning Roe? An arch-partisan wet dream that has never polled higher than 30% with Americans since 1973? The thinking being that given Americans’ inability to focus on anything longer than two weeks would mean the howling and protesting — from the majority of citizens — will be exhausted by June when the formal decision is expected to be handed down?

Predictably, FoxNews world is already declaring that the “real scandal” here is … the leak … not Alito’s thinking.

Whatever, there’s little doubt that overturning a “settled law” that has maintained 70% support for 50 years will be the signature decision of John Roberts’ court. This vote will be his legacy. And as I’ve followed the news since last night, Roberts has neither said or signalled anything about how he will vote or whether he’s trying to work the team to modulate the greatest example of “legislating from the bench” in modern American history.

The Roberts angle of this is interesting because from everything I know about the guy he is the classic between-the-forty-yard-lines institutional conservative … getting trampled like so many others of his fading ilk by hyper-partisans with a truly hypocritical regard for constitutional integrity. Like so many old-school, country club Republicans, he’s watching the cumulative effect of so many of his status quo/progressive-resistant decisions coming back to wreak havoc on the dignity of the institutions they claim to so revere.

The abortion argument is so treadworn there’s nothing fresh to be said about it. My personal attitude — shared by many in polling over the decades — is that while I could never consent to it in my relationships, and certainly not as “casual” birth control, the idea that The Government has any standing to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do — even in the case of rape or her health for chrissakes — is about as anti-democratic, anti-libertarian and anti-American experiment as it gets.

What makes the pro-life argument even worse — which is to say even more hypocritical — is that poll after poll and study after study shows that Godly-divined, Christ-sanctioned anti-abortion partisans are nearly as rabidly opposed to social welfare spending — for people like single-mothers — as they are to choice. For them, support for life stops at birth.

Here’s George Carlin’s classic “pro life” rant.

Amy Klobuchar popped up on Rachel Maddow’s show last night making brave sounds about how this means liberals and everyone else in favor of Roe as it stands has to, you know, band together and gird for the fight to change Congress before this authoritarian stampede gets any worse.

To which I say, “Well, good luck with that.” As someone pointed out on Twitter this morning, over two million people have signed a petition to cut Johnny Depp’s ex-wife out of the next “Aquaman” movie because she was so so crazy mean to Johnny.

By contrast, the outrageously sordid tale of Clarence Thomas’s wife cavorting with abject nutjobs and insurrectionists — with his full knowledge — trying to subvert the Constitution by overthrowing an election has faded from public interest with no apparent legal consequences.

Well Okay, So I Guess I’ll Take Warren.

Posted on by

The rule of thumb is that in primaries you vote your heart and in general elections you vote your head. This means I have a problem tomorrow.

Almost at the exact moment I was going to start abusing the keyboard with my deep thoughts for why Pete Buttigieg was going to be my choice on Tuesday he dropped out. Ironically, the bottom line gist of my rant was going to be young Mayor Pete’s “judgment” — based on scholarship and thoughtfulness. And wouldn’t you know judgment, which is to say accepting he had no chance in 2020 and that the Democratic faithful will look more favorably upon him in 2024 or 2028 for stepping aside now, is what he showed in “suspending” his campaign.

So Mayor Pete is yesterday’s news. Now what?

Conventional wisdom says Amy Klobuchar will win her home state. You haven’t forgotten she’s from the Midwest have you? Or that she’s been “in the arena”? Or that she has “the receipts”?

Already at this point — eight months before the real election — every candidate’s operative cliches bang in my ears like a cheap tin drum. But somehow Amy’s cliches seem even more canned than most.

She’s been an effective Senator, at least on the level of constituent service, (provided by her terrorized staff), but there are just too many big, double-edged fights she’s avoided, and avoided IMHO out of calculation for her longer-term career goals. It’s wonderful she’s authored and passed far more bills than Bernie Sanders, (not a difficult thing to do). But on close inspection most of them fall into the category of requiring us to be kind to animals and eat our vegetables. The big fights … in the main arena … where the flak gets thicker and risk gets higher, is not a place she’s spent a lot of time.

The race is clearly moving to a Bernie v. Joe contest. Two nearly octegenarian white guys with the highest name recognition. Jesus.

Both come with barge-loads of baggage and an unconvincing forecast of what happens if they’re elected. Bernie is promising a near-total overhaul of 15-20% of the American economy, along with billions-to-trillions in fresh spending for a wet dream list of social programs, all while waving off the stark, ugly reality of Mitch McConnell and a federal court system every day stocked with more McConnell-knighted Federalist Society judges. Each of whom is committed to suffocating Bernie-ism before he gets directions to the Oval Office rest room.

Joe, meanwhile continues to assure us that since he’s been everywhere and met everyone in his 500 years in D.C. he’ll reach a collegial, cloakroom accomodation with Mitch and … you know … I guess … convince the Mitchs and Ted Cruzes and Lindsey Grahams of the world to give us all a win from time to time. Maybe roll back the 2017 tax cuts, stabilize Obamacare and throw some ching at climate change.

So … the heart being what it is, an emotional thing, prone to lapses of good judgment, I’ll be joining my lovely wife in voting for Elizabeth Warren tomorrow.

Warren has no chance at the nomination. And her “wealth tax”, where she basically takes the change she finds in Mike Bloomberg’s couch cushions to turn the US of A into a 3000-mile wide version of Denmark still makes no mathematical sense, while also dreamily ignoring what we’ll just call The McConnell Reality.

But what she does offer, and this is delicious, is the sharpest remaining contrast to the corrupt, semi-literate, sexist-racist vulgarian that is Donald Trump. Startlingly industrious, studious, diligent, energetic and … female, she more than any of those left standing offers an image of profound change. Also, unlike Amy, Warren is practically Spartacus when it comes to jumping into the high-profile/high risk arenas. The woman’s got fight in her. And damn … I like a gal with fight.

By Wedneasday morning though, it’ll all be Joe and Bernie, and maybe just Bernie. And with that decided, I’ll send a check to the winner, knock doors, paste bumper stickers all over my vehicle and, hell, stand on street corners– right here in Edina — and rant regularly about “a pox on the millionaires and billionaires.”

It won’t be pretty, especially if I’m still in my pajamas with a bad case of bed head. But it’s where we’ll be.

When Amy Got Pissy with Pete

Posted on by

Well, that’s was, um, lively, wasn’t it? My hunch that Mike Bloomberg’s presence would turbo-charge the tenor of the Democratic debates proved true. Obviously, it didn’t take Nostradamus to forsee that a guy who is the living embodiment of everything two fire-breathing progressives despise about American power politics would play the role of prime rib tartare to a pack of hungry wolves.

Elizabeth Warren is the trending meme this morning, and she was clearly up for the fight. Her repeated taunt to Bloomberg that all he had to do — right then and there on live TV — was release every ex-employee from the NDAs they signed, for whatever reason, would have been enough to make him look like the arrogant (albeit smart and arguably visionary) boss he is. But then she shifted to the country’s obscene tax structure … .

So yes, a bit of a revival for Warren. (Her fund-raising spiked during the debate.)

But my eye kept returning to the fight at the other end of the stage. Post debate, former Obama advisor David Axelrod commented that last night’s debate was as bad for our senator, Amy Klobuchar, as the New Hampshire debate was good.

Moving up in politics is exhilarating. When you get to upper tiers, it gets harder.@AmyKlobuchar‘s performance has been as bad tonight as she was good in New Hampshire.— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2020

As they say, the optics (and tone) were not good. In fact, they were bad. Klobuchar was clearly rattled by Mayor Pete. She looked and sounded like someone, who if they were meeting away from witnesses in a dark alley, would have stuck a shiv in him.

Klobuchar and Buttigieg both need the other to go away if they’re going to gain enough traction to slow down Bernie Sanders. I get that. But what I don’t get is how someone making such a loud and persistent point about their “experience in Washington”, their time in “the arena”, their ability to “work together” and all those other homey Midwestern values, (Amy’s from Minnesota, you know) could allow herself to lose any pretense of cool and presidential decorum responding to an entirely predictable line of attack. The one about not knowing the name of the president of Mexico.

She had the right game plan. Make a quick, self-effacing apology. Stuff happens. A matter of a simple brain fart. (Not that Amy would ever use such crude language in public.) But instead of that, as Buttigieg persisted noting her positions on committees overseeing Latin America, (i.e. “experience” in “the arena”), she got visibly, palpably prickly and personal.

By stark contrast, Buttigieg standing inches away, remained poised and on message. The cringe factor may not have hit Code Red, but it was definitely in the range of, “If You See Something Say Something.” And Amy looked defensive and angry.

Much was made of her New Hampshire debate performance as a key driver of her recent surge. But William Saletan at Slate had a compelling analysis of a Klobuchar tactic in the closing hours of that primary.

Says Saletan, “In a dramatic exchange, Klobuchar rebuked Buttigieg for belittling the Senate impeachment trial. In the debate and in subsequent TV interviews, she used his impeachment comments to portray him as unserious. It was a clever attack. It was also deceptive.”

He lays out how several times in the days leading up to the vote, Buttigieg in New Hampshire made the comment, “If you’re like me, watching this impeachment process is exhausting. It’s demoralizing. [It] makes me want to change the channel and watch cartoons.” And then quickly adding, “The cynics win if they get us to switch it off. [But] that’s how we win: To refuse to walk away. How they win, how the cynics win: if they get us to switch it off.”

Several reporters on the scenes noted that the audience understood quite well what Buttigieg was saying. “As discouraging as the impeachment process was, you can’t walk away. You have to stay involved.”

But … Amy, as part of a strategy to make Buttigieg look, you know, “inexperienced” and too callow to understand “the arena”, conveniently left off the part about staying involved and fighting through the temptation to throw up your hands and walk away.

Saletan: “Klobuchar, by taking his reference to cartoons out of context, inverted the meaning of his words. In an NBC interview, she described his message as “Let’s turn off the TV or go flip the channel and watch cartoons.” She contrasted this glib remark, as she presented it, with her own solemn responsibilities. ‘I have a job to do. I am in the arena’, she said. After the interview, Klobuchar’s communications director tweeted out her jab about cartoons.“

This sort of stuff is of course standard politics. But that doesn’t make it any less cheesy … and contradictory of “Midwestern values.” Everyone likes a fighter. Excuse me, an “arena”-tested fighter. But what we admire far more is someone who can play and win by making legitimate criticism.

… and not get flustered and pissy when your target needles you for something that plainly happened.

Elizabeth and Amy vs. “The Mayor”

Posted on by

I hear her saying it, but I’m not convinced “experience” makes all that much difference anymore. In last night’s debate, our senator, Amy Klobuchar, sunk her teeth into “Mayor” Pete Buttigieg, arguing in so many words that he hasn’t been around the Washington political circus long enough to be as credible as she is.

Amy, who is “from the Midwest” in case you haven’t heard her say it a couple thousand times, seems to believe this is an effective diminishing attack on the very young “mayor”. (She pushed the “mayor” business often enough to let you know she doesn’t think running a city of 120,000 compares well to representing a state of 5,000,000.)

But really? Experience? After Barack Obama in 2008 and Donald Trump in 2016? In what world is experience still a primary criteria for the White House?

In 2008 John McCain was clearly the more “experienced” candidate. But raw charisma withstanding, astute voters didn’t have a hard time deciding whose fundamental judgment they found more appealing/reassuring. McCain’s long DC experience was pock-marked by dozens of examples of truly suspect judgment on key issues. In his case “experience” translated to “more of the same FUBAR.”

Klobuchar isn’t John McCain. But as hard-working and as tough a competitor as she’s proving to be on the campaign trail, I still have no sense that she has the quality of judgment to play the game as it has been designed and is being played by the likes of Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr, the Federalist Society and their vast network of very wealthy, influential benefactors.

At this point I can’t say for sure if Buttegieg does either. But he continues to display a depth and quality of thinking and judgment that suggests he understands pretty damn well how the country actually operates and what to do — and not do — to get where you have to be to make some changes.

The past few weeks — and again last night — “Mayor” Pete has been taking shots from the progressive wing for his coziness with … well, really rich progressives. This business about his fund-raiser in a California “wine cave” is bad optics in the minds of those applying the kind of sack cloth and ashes standard to progressive politics. But besides the (mild) hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren poking him for snuggling with billionaires, he isn’t the one demonstrating bad judgment by accusing his rivals of something they all have done to one degree or another. (Bernie less than others.)

Despite their obvious tenacity, Warren and Klobuchar, both of whom are currently trailing the inexperienced “mayor” in Iowa, haven’t demonstrated to me at least that they have the fully-thought out perspective on American politics 2020-style. At least not as well thought out as, “a gay dude from Mike Pence’s Indiana,” to quote the “mayor”.

Huffington Post progressives and others seem to see Buttigieg as more somber and studious version of Bill Clinton. Another (white, though not straight male) too comfortable in schmooze mode with the tycoon class, and therefore less likely to ram through in his first 100 days all the major reforms the country needs.

They could be right. But what that ignores is that Clinton, for all his slickness, canoodling and all the dry tinder he laid at the feet of the rabid dogs of talk radio Republicans, produced indisputable improvements for women, the middle-class, science and international relations. (I’m open to the debate over welfare reform.)

Point being, as a “middle-laner” rightfully skeptical of promising voters all sorts of dreamy and wonderful things that have zero-to-no chance of so much as a hearing in a Republican Senate, Buttigieg is showing better judgment — certainly of the real world realities of 2020 America — than Bernie and Warren.

As for fellow “middle-laner” Klobuchar’s accusation that the “mayor” doesn’t have sufficient experience, those of us here in Minnesota, (which is in “the midwest” as you might know), are well aware that after 13 years as a solid, workman-like Senator, Klobuchar’s judgment has not produced the reputation of being an acknowledged leader on any of the biggest issues of our era.

The difference between listening to Buttigieg and Klobuchar talk about the country’s foundational problems is this: with Buttigieg you’re listening to someone who has impressively cross-referenced the demographics, the science and the raw vagaries of human nature and is making unique, well-considered and strategic distinctions between noble aspiration and pragmatism.

There’s an inspirational factor there.

While with Klobuchar, the sense is of someone with plenty of battle-tested experience, but whose judgment is regularly deferring to standard political positioning and protection.

Against Trump the “Alpha Factor” Matters More Than Ever.

Posted on by
Yeah, it’s a new mugshot. Trump has aged me twenty years in three.

It’s a simple fact of human psychology that people see leadership in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with integrity, good judgment and basic decency. History is littered with characters who possessed none of those virtues yet were elevated to positions of power and influence because … well because … they create a special tingle in their audience.

As much as Democrats want to jockey for position by going Deeper Into the Weeds Than Thou over sub-sections of Obamacare, the lamentable but indisputably true fact of almost every kind of existence, especially politics, is that you have to make the people see and feel something special in you. Voters, no matter how wonky and nerdy and policy-driven, want you to project back on them an image of “alpha” … whether male or female.

As the years go by I’m more and more convinced that brain chemistry and brain structure is one of the most credible explanations for the tribal division between liberals and conservatives the world over. There’s nothing racial or ethnic about it. But there is an evolutionary aspect, I truly believe.

That said, liberals, (which does not describe every Democratic voter), do react very differently to the “strong man” concept of leadership than conservatives. In my humble opinion we lefties do inject our choice of leaders with a disproportionate factor of wonky bona fides than typical conservatives. How exactly does he/she plan to get us to universal health care? How “criminal” should it be to enter the U.S. illegally?

But it is the rare, wonky liberal who doesn’t still react, instinctively, like a man-ape on the African savannah, to the feel of a “leader.” I give you, Barack Obama, as opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Obama had it all. Everything about him projected that rare but essential quality of, “I got this.” Call it “The Cool Factor”. Call it “charisma”. He had and has it. Hillary didn’t. She projected “competent management”, which is great if you’re going to run Buffalo Wild Wings, but not enough if you’re trying to stir positive-to-rapturous emotions in 130 million potential voters.

Which brings us to a key dilemma in our current environment. While there is no question whatsoever that 42% of the public feels a once-in-a-hundred-years alpha male leader quality pulsing off Donald Trump, there’s no one yet among the Democrats emitting a similar quality to possible Democratic voters.

It goes without saying the specific qualities attracting conservatives to Trump and liberals to … whoever … are dramatically, qualitatively different. Therein lies your deep tribal divide.

But one component is, again without question IMHO, the factor of confidence, which is fundamental to establishing dominance. Confidence instills the same in those seeking to be led well. It imbues a calm that allows our still primitive emotions to relax so our brains can sort out the various options to problem-solving. And it soothes us.

Specifically, this is another problem with Joe Biden. There’s a “vigor” factor involved in “confidence” and humans’ choice of leaders. Very little about Joe projects vigor or, “I got this.”

It’s also the quality still missing from my pet fascination, Pete Buttigieg.

(Very) smart. Thoughtful. Expressive of good judgment. A calm and imperturbable demeanor. Yes. All that is there and eminently valuable. But “alpha male”? Mmmmm, not yet. In the parlance of show biz, Mayor Pete needs to make himself “bigger.” But liberals can’t do bigger like Trump does bigger. Strutting around like an absurd, obese Mussolini courts immediate, richly deserved mockery. The liberal alpha also has to express authenticity to acquire the ineffable magic of “alpha.” That’s tougher. You’re not allowed to fake it.

As for the women, Kamala Harris may have it. But like Buttegieg, it ain’t there yet. Unfortunately for Minnesota, that “alpha magic” is something Amy Klobuchar lacks entirely. With her, we’re back to selling “competent management.” And there’s no inspiration that comes with that.

We tend to forget that the “alpha-ness” of Barack Obama wasn’t fully formed until he began winning. After that point we saw and heard much more of him. Winning, which is to say actually demonstrating dominance, is a critical feedback loop firing human neurons. “He has done it!”, we think, and swoon. “He will always do it!”

This week’s Democratic debates certainly didn’t do anything to establish anyone’s “alpha-ness”. But let’s thin the herd and spend more than 30 seconds per topic with these people. A couple of them may have the instinct to convey, “I got this.”

(P.S. I’m a big fan of Ezra Klein’s podcast. Via his Vox network. Here are links to two recent shows.

One with Pete Buttegieg, which includes a very interesting conversation about structural reform, all the real world obstacles to it, but the need for it to be framed and regularly reaffirmed for voters.

And another with U of Delaware prof and author Danna Young. Klein is clearly struggling with the “biological” explanation for tribalism, but here again he and his guest pull right up to the line trying to explain it. )

Handicapping the Democrats 18 Months Out

Posted on by

[Correction included]. Even if his name is not mentioned directly, every Democratic candidate entering the 2020 race is being measured and labeled on how much of a response they are to Donald Trump, or “Trumpism”. Which is to say, what degree of repudiation are they offering? Total? A bit here and there? Whatever they can get from “across the aisle”?

As of this morning Bernie Sanders, now 77 years old and grumpy as ever, is back in the hunt. Say what you will about The Bern, he isn’t shy about calling it as he (and most of us see it). Trump is a career low-life and criminal (laundering money for Russian gangsters to sustain his “brand” being the least of it), and establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are guilty as sin for greasing the skids for every absurd-to-vile thing Trump has promoted.

Personally, I don’t feel the need to throw myself on any bandwagon (or funeral pyre) this early in the circus performance. But I am telling myself to keep the radar up for what people like Yuval Harari think of as a fundamental breakdown of traditional politics. In other words, we could be seeing a large-scale disruption on the left in response to the disruption of the chaos and criminality of Trump and enabling Republicans on the right.

Put another way, it may be a feeling among comparatively well-informed and rational people who believe “the old way” is too timid and under-powered for the threats against decency and logic presented by Trumpism.

I can’t say how real it all is at the moment. But to mangle Gertrude Stein, there’s definitely some kind of there … there.

The wag-nerds on Nate Silver’s 538 podcast have broken down the Democratic field (as of last week) into a small handful of “lanes”. For example, our gal, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand are described as running in “the beer lane”, trumpeting mostly unexciting, traditional values that have satisfied collegial Democrats for decades. By contrast, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, are described as contenders in “the wine lane”, riling up the passions of mostly well-educated (and female) voters. That crowd can also be described as upscale, (in terms of smarts if not money) and extraordinarily upset with the numbskull, mysogynistic antics of the right as any specific policy position.

But then, by way of fine-parsing, 538 suggests a possible candidate like Beto O’Rourke, defies both of those appeals by splitting the difference with a “craft beer lane”. You know, lots of traditional stuff — blue jeans, rock’ n roll, drive through hamburgers, rural Texas, pickup trucks — all whipped together with a thick, rich hipster sauce of “stop the [bleeping] madness!”

As I say, I have no specific favorite in the hunt here 18 months or whatever before the next election. But I’ll do a bit of my own lane handicapping anyway.

In the “Forget About It” lane. Tulsi Gabbard. Too much conspicuous opportunism. Do four years of serious reading and get back to us.

The “Been There, Done That” lane. Joe Biden and Bernie. The Bud Light crowd loves you in Scranton, Joe. I get that. But the game has changed since you were in your prime, and that was 20 years ago. And Bernie: love ya too, man. But 77 is way past the “serve by” date in modern politics. Your job this time around is to keep goosing the actual contenders to keep the fire and faith.

The “A Little Too Cool for School” lane. Cory Booker. Kind of like what I say about people who want to be cops; the fact they want it so bad is the main reason to disqualify them. No human, much less any successful politician from New Jersey, can possibly be as immaculate as Booker purports to be.

The “No, Just No” lane. Kirsten Gillibrand. The creepy bane of the #MeToo movement. Way too many of the obnoxious “beliefs” she needed to play upstate have done a miraculously 180 since elevating to the Senate. Also, for so many reasons too obvious to mention: Michael Bloomberg.

The “If This Was 1956, Then Maybe” lane. Klobuchar. Being a darling of George Will, Republican colleagues and the Wall Street Journal editorial page doesn’t make my pissed-off little heart go pitter-patter. When you can’t quite say you’re in full favor of a medicare access for all on Obamacare I get an even worse case of morbid eye-roll. [*]

The “I Like What Yer Sayin’, Dude. But Yer Style Needs Some Work” lane. Sherrod Brown. Otherwise known as The Most Rumpled Man in the Senate. Unlike Amy delivering Minnesota’s 10 whopping electoral votes, Brown pulling in Ohio would be serious numbers in 2020. Wonk liberals know the guy and like what they hear. But it’s very hard to imagine any dispassionate independent spending 90 seconds listening to him.

The “You’re Checking My Boxes, Now Sell It” lane. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke. Harris has the feel of the front-runner, based on a near perfectly staged roll-out, and she’s got an interesting mix of prosecutorial dagger and pop-culture crede. Warren, while on the cusp of aging-out at 69, has demonstrated the mix of righteous indignation and legislative bona fides that play like sweet music to liberal ears. And O’Rourke has demonstrated a level of energy and charisma above and beyond anyone else out there.

But he’s got to, A: Decide, and B: Convince a whole lot of women like my friend at a dinner party the other night who announced to the crowd, “I’m never voting for another man!”

[*] The early version of this post suggested Klobuchar wasn’t on board with at least a public option into Obamacare, which she is. My mistake. (To many minds “public option” and “medicare access for all” are very nearly the same thing. But she’s being very careful here.)

 

 

 

 

So Apparently Amy “The Mean Boss” is Not a Story in Minnesota

Posted on by

As I begin writing this it 10 :27 on Friday morning, and we’re getting an object lesson in what is and isn’t news … in hometown Minnesota.

At this moment none of the major news organizations in the Twin Cities have said anything about The Huffington Post story on Amy Klobuchar (i.e. Amy’s a bad boss) other than pieces by Esme Murphy at WCCO-TV and Bob Collins at MPR, the latter generally sympathetic to the dilemma of female candidates having to be more “likable” than the usual brow-beating, desk-pounding male tyrants.

Now there are several possible reasons why the “local media” (to lump them all together) sees no value in so much as a bottom-of-page 22 two-paragraph item. Let me list them:

1: No local reporter or editor is yet aware of this story/accusation. They are not regularly following The Huffington Post, The Boston Globe, Esquire, Bloomberg, PoliticalWire, The Daily Beast, Slate, Talking Points Memo, New York magazine  and … well, you get the idea. If this explanation is true and the local press corps lives in some kind of Minnesota-Only hibernaculum, well that does not speak well of them, does it?

2: No local reporter or editor sees any news value in this story. “It’s just crazy ranting on Twitter!” “The sourcing is anonymous.” “Huffington Post is bullshit.” All those arguments can be made, but how many times have the same reporters and editors — who require Twitter as much as oxygen — dropped in a story purely on the grounds that “it is out there”? Or, if The Huffington Post’s sourcing — which included several loyal Klobuchar staffers obviously concerned enough to rally to their boss’s defense and attach their names vouching for her management style — is good enough for Bloomberg, The Boston Globe, Esquire and New York magazine (and dozens of others) why isn’t it good enough for The Star Tribune, MPR or the Pioneer Press? All of them have/are running featherweight promotional stories touting her likely presidential announcement this Sunday.

3: Every local reporter, editor and publisher would be in deep do-do with not just Klobuchar, but her deep, wide and influential support base in Minnesota if they touch this story. So much as whisper that people “out there” are talking about Amy the Bad Boss, (which quite a few have described as “an open secret”), and good luck the next time you try to access the Senator’s office, or have a cozy drink with that influential kingmaker/benefactor who has always been such a valuable source of insider DFL gossip.

4: Speaking of “everyone already knows this” … . Any political reporter with two ears and a note pad has heard tales of Klobuchar’s “management style” going way back in her career … and is now dismissing it as … normal. As just the same sort of thing you hear about every political office. You know, near psychotic levels of second-guessing, in-fighting, mis-judgments, blame-placing and paranoia. Same old same old. She may be marginally worse than Al Franken or Norm Coleman or Rod Grams or Paul Wellstone (?!), but not enough to count for anything, not even a tiny item casually mentioning that a significant chunk of the national press has taken note of this and is undoubtably asking more questions, some of them possibly uncomfortable.

As I’ve said before, whether Klobuchar is the harridan anonymous sources claim is not something that concerns me much, on a wholly selfish level. As long she does most of want I want done, she can lock her staff up in public stocks, hang them in gibbets and/or demand they clip her toe-nails. I don’t care.

But as nasty as politics is on a good day, presidential politics are like the Russians overrunning Berlin in 1945.

Closer to the political dilemma for Klobuchar, “mean bosses”, like sex with interns, is something everyone believes they understand and has an opinion about. If this becomes an identifying characteristic of Klobuchar the candidate it’ll be very difficult to overcome.

As for our local press, I’m yet again reminded of a chat I had with old pal David Carr a couple years after he landed at the New York Times. I was ranting about some study showing how little the general public knew about the financial stress on newspapers and how the whole business was being eaten away by private equity vipers … and Carr interrupted.

“Brian,” he said in the avuncular, vaguely patronizing tone he adopted in his later years, “no one cares about newspapers. I can write a column about some paper and all I get is crickets. No one cares.”

This “Nothing to See Here, Folks” Klobuchar episode may have something to do with that.

 

Amy Klobuchar for Attorney General 2020

Posted on by

Take it from George Will, Amy Klobuchar is what Democrats need now. As reverse barometers go, George is at least a couple ticks up from Alex Jones. But still … .

I have no great special insight into the honorable senior senator from Minnesota beyond living in the county for which she was chief prosecutor for a while, the state she represents and spending a couple days a few years back kicking around the Iron Range for a magazine profile on her. And, shocking full disclosure here, I’ve voted for her twice and would again if she gets the Democrats’ nod for President … against any Republican.

That said, I’ve always had my issues with her. Call them quibbles, if you like. Not the least of which is that I am not at all certain her (very) old school Humphrey/Mondale “Let’s All Reach Across the Aisle and Have a Bake Sale Together” approach is exactly the most appropriate or effective message right now. And that comes attached to the other quibble that Ms. Klobuchar has made a reputation for herself of never sticking her head up too high in the crossfire of our culture trench warfare.

Well-cossetted conservative institutionalists like Mr. Will see that behavior as a demonstration of wisdom. But — funny thing — I see the same behavior and think, “Expedient calculation.”

To his credit, Mr. Will, (with whom I’ve had lunch a couple times on his book tours) has been virulently anti-Trump from the get-go and is the rare conservative intellectual who can both spell correctly and regularly produce 15 paragraphs of coherent thinking.

The problem is that his thinking is invariably focused on reproducing more of the white, male, bow-tied status quo that has A: Generally ruled the country since Dwight Eisenhower, and B: Allowed his Republican party to devolve into a clown show led by charlatans and fools like Rush Limbaugh (the true intellectual leader of modern conservatism) and Donald Trump. Put another way, Will very much prefers a Democratic opponent the Republican party knows how to define and campaign against. As in: all tradition and nothing revolutionary.

There’s no question that Klobuchar is smart and hard-working. She’s also very good at retail politics, whether chatting up locals at diners in Bemidji or small town bankers and business owners in Grand Rapids. She’s got game. (And unlike, say, Mark Dayton, she seems to genuinely enjoy human interaction.)

But I’d feel (a lot) more enthusiastic about her if only once I’d her express heartfelt indignation over the on-going Trumpist travesty — which began welling up in earnest with the Tea Party revolt back in ’09 and ’10. (There’s also the little nagging question in the back of my head when I read that Klobuchar has the worst rate of staff turnover of any of the 100 US Senators. What is that all about?)

Reading Will’s column — picked up by the Strib — it’s readily apparent who among the possible Democratic field he fears most.

As George begins his column lauding Klobuchar, “Surely the silliest aspirant for the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nomination is already known: ‘Beto’, aka Robert Francis, O’Rourke is a skateboarding man-child whose fascination with himself caused him to livestream a recent dental appointment for — open-wide, please — teeth cleaning.

“O’Rourke’s journal about his post-election recuperation-through-road-trip-to-nowhere-in-particular is so without wit or interesting observations that it merits Truman Capote’s description of “On the Road” author Jack Kerouac’s work: That’s not writing, that’s typing.

“When Democrats are done flirting with such insipidity, their wandering attentions can flit to a contrastingly serious candidacy, coming soon from Minnesota.”

Characters like O’Rourke and the (fresh and invigorating) flavor-of-the-moment, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (i.e. “AOC”) have to deeply unsettle traditional thinkers like George Will. Why? Because they are working off a far different playbook they can’t be quantified as easily as someone like Klobuchar who reliably hopscotches within the chalk lines of the traditional game. Ms. Klobuchar is never a threat to rile — as Ned Beatty said in “Network” — “the primal forces of nature.”

Never mind the polar vortex. Hell itself would have to freeze over before Amy Klobuchar ever got in the face of a Howard Schultz, Michael Bloomberg or Silicon Valley tycoon with calls for a return to a 70% tax rate on billionaires.

The Democrats have an interesting array of talent queuing up for the Big Job. But I look at some of them not as Presidents — someone with populist charisma delivering a persistent, uncluttered message affirming the primacy of empirical reason in science, social services and foreign affairs — but as cabinet officers restoring lawfulness to the various agencies.

In that context: Amy Klobuchar for Attorney General 2020.

 

Dear Lord, Spare Us Another “Pure” and “Principled” Third Party Alternative

Posted on by

That Coffee Shop Billionaire for President thing isn’t going too well, is it? It seems the “extremists” on the far left aren’t too keen on yet another hopeless vanity candidacy like, you know, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein.

On “60 Minutes” Sunday night Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced his interest in an independent run for president. By Monday, at a book event in New York City, a guy in the audience was yelling “egotistical billionaire a**hole”” at him. And that was about the nicest thing anyone had to say.

Schultz of course has no chance of winning. Only spoiling.

As vain and deluded billionaires go he’s a bland stiff, with no appetite for the kind of buffoonish, hyperbolic demagoguery that got Donald Trump elected, (thanks to the Russians and the electoral college.) But, as we’ve seen twice in the past two decades, vanity candidates have peeled away just enough votes from “flawed” Democrats (I’m still waiting for the first “pure” candidate) to hand the country over to two wholly incompetent characters — George W. and Trump.

In case you’ve forgotten, those squandered Nader-Stein votes have saddled us with a multi-trillion dollar war we didn’t need to fight, staggering levels of new debt, a ransacking of environmental and consumer protection regulations and a cratering of our reputation as a country that while pretty damned screwed in many respects, was at least more reliable about science and democratic allies than, you know Turkey or Honduras.

The psychology of chronic “righteous” voters, people who routinely pull the trigger for characters like Nader and Stein is less interesting than it is dismaying. The irony, in my experience, is that such people rationalize their vote in terms of “principle”. Namely, that nothing will change unless people like them — unusually moral and uniquely informed — don’t “vote their conscience.”

And obviously, through one lens, they’re right. They voted for Nader and Stein and we got lots of change. In addition to all that spendy war and economic mayhem stuff, were the “principled” Nader votes of 2000 switched over to dull, ponderous, compromised-by-Clinton Al Gore we would have had 19 years more years to do something about climate change. (Maybe we could have invested the trillions that weren’t borrowed from the Chinese to chase Saddam Hussein around Iraq.)

The 2020 campaign has begun and there are already more Democrats waving their hands than I can count. Most, like the messianic Mr. Schultz have no chance. But the top tier of current and likely Democrats is interesting.

Elizabeth Warren is, IMHO, too old, but a valuable factor in pushing the debate. Kamala Harris is getting gushy reviews for her launch, and she has my attention. Never mind if she once canoodled with Willie Brown. She impresses me as someone with the skill set for this moment — a moment where not just Trump but the entire ethos of the “movement conservative Republican party” has to be not merely defeated, but obliterated. As in: lopped off at the knees, bayoneted, burned, buried and covered with salt. The whole crowd, from Trump to Stephen Miller to the Freedom Caucus to Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews is that bad.

I don’t get that same essential vanquish-the-barbarians vibe from Julian Castro, the honorable congress lady from Hawaii, Kirsten (#YouToo Al Franken) Gillibrand — or waiting in the wings — Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Corey Booker or Joe Biden.

Here’s the thing. Democrats have to put up a populist candidate.

Translated: Someone who understands what the dimwits who thought Trump was a better option than Hillary Clinton are thinking and (extremely important factor here) can talk their language. An educated variation on what Trump does with his MAGA rallies and with his racist moron whispering. The Democrats’ days of tossing up a wonky career bureaucrat who sounds like he/she has never smoked a joint, gone to a rock concert, eaten fast food because it tastes good or had an impure thought are over.

“The people” want someone who not just “shares their values” but has plainly “experienced their values”, including the ones they enjoy the most.

Invested liberals, like me and maybe you, don’t need TeenBeat populist charisma in our elected leaders. But the sad, undeniable fact is that in our celebrity-saturated culture, where millions of voters pay little-to-no attention to who is actually, truly doing something for them, people vote based on the “feel” they get from candidates. The feeling that he/she is “just like me”, as so many sad goobers said about cartoonish frauds like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

Maybe Beto O’Rourke has the full toolbox of talents. All we know about him at the moment is that he ran as an unapologetic progressive in (bleeping) Texas, that he poured incredible energy into it without a serious screw up, talked at the retail level like a guy who once played in a goofy rock band and ascended to the level of a pop idol by the time he lost by 3% … in (bleeping) Texas.

That’s what the Democrats need, in someone else, if not him.

Nevertheless, being a hopeless skeptic, I have little faith that the “righteously principled” who saw Nader and Jill “Here I am in Russia dining with Putin and Michael Flynn” Stein as the best option for our times are scanning the horizon for the next “pure” independent who will bring us all real change … again.

 

 

I’ll Take Richard Painter in the Primary

Posted on by

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.