Nails in the GOP Coffin: Thoughts on the Iowa Straw Poll Results

Bachmann wins, Pawlenty is out. What do learn from the Iowa straw poll? Whatever political moderation existed in the Republican Party, it rapidly disappearing as the GOP is being remade in the image of Palin and Bachmann.

Bachmann

The headline clearly is that Bachmann received nearly 29% of the vote. No surprise there. Bachmann has narrative that clearly appeals to a demographic of social conservatives and Tea Party members. For months I argued that mobilizing this vocal and active segment of the part would make Bachmann a major force in Iowa. With a divided field she had captured a large bloc of voters and she used this appeal along with her Iowa connection and strategy to do well in that state. Her challenges of course will now be to move beyond Iowa, reach out to others beyond her base in the party across the country. Moreover, as the field of GOP contenders winnows (Pawlenty exists) and expands, will she pick up supporters or lose them? Bachmann is definitely the headline of the party but challenges persist.

The GOP

Look beyond Bachmann. She received 28.6% of the vote, Paul 27.7%–together they accounted for 56% of the straw poll. These are two candidates who represent perhaps the most extreme agendas among the GOP field. Add to them Santorum who polled at 9.8% and one finds that nearly two-thirds of the straw poll went to what would appear to be non-mainstream candidates. Pawlenty, perhaps the most mainstream and establishment candidate who participated in the field, polled barely 14%. This is a party that has moved dramatically to the right of the one that picked Romney as the Iowa straw poll winner and McCain as their nominee in 08. The GOP had redefined itself. It is–as I have argued for months–no longer the party of Ronald Reagan. Sarah Palin successfully remade the party into one captured more firmly by the Tea party and owing much of its ideological allegiance to a blend of Barry Goldwater, Pat Robertson, and Ayn Rand. Paul and Bachmann represent different wings of this new party, but Bachmann is better poised to run within this new party because her rhetoric and narrative are less pedantic and more appealing that Paul’s cerebral musings about the gold standard.

Romney

Romney is in trouble. In theory the frontrunner, but he is the frontrunner in a GOP party that no longer exists. He is part of the old Reagan Republican Party (along with Pawlenty) now fading. As the Party has shifted look to see it be more difficult for him to maintain his lead. Bachmann represents the new center of the new Republican Party. She and Paul may not be the fringe, Romney and Pawlenty are.

Pawlenty

No surprise he is dropping out. He never had a chance. He never had a narrative and he was a Reagan Republican running in a Palin Party. He tried to fake being more conservative than he was, coming off as inauthentic and phony. He made Iowa make or break and he broke. Bachmann helped seal the deal and yet again unended her Minnesota rival. But Pawlenty was doomed even without her–he just lacked appeal as a candidate and he never created a rationale for he presidency. It also does not help to have a non-existent legacy as governor besides bankrupting it.

Perry

Perry changes the equation for Bachmann. They will fight out for many of the same supporters and the challenge will be to see what happens. Perry is Bachmann but with executive experience. But Perry’s support demonstrates again how far to the right the GOP has moved.

But what does it all mean?

Commentators state the challenge is for Bachmann to capture swing or centrist voters within the party. She may not need to do this. First, her bloc approach may be enough to help her for a long time. Second, the moderate GOP voters may be leaving, going the route of while males who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 80s. If the Reagan Revolution redefined the GOP and Democratic Party membership, then the Palin-Bachmann redefinition will do the same. Some will leave the Party, perhaps leaving it a much more conservative one that even before. Within a party of vanishing moderates, Bachmann can win.

The Scream! Thoughts on the Iowa Republican Debate

No question about it–the lunatic fringe has taken over the Republican Party. The August 11, Ames, Iowa Fox debate featured calls for the return to the gold standard, the right to choose light bulbs, criminal prosecution for doctors who perform abortions to save the lives of mothers, obtuse readings of the Tenth Amendment, and petty and personal squabbles attacking one another and the media. All we needed was for someone to assert that the Earth was flat and that it was located at the center of the universe. It was enough to make one what to scream!

The debate lacked substantive and constructive ideas. It was devoid of facts, researched ideas, and any sense of real research across the areas of economics and law. While all the candidates were correct in contending that Obama lacked a economic plan for America, none of them offered anything of substance either based upon research and evidence regarding what works or not. It was all pure ideological pandering to a crowd, with sound bites crafted by speech writers. All seemed to think that the only solution was more tax cutting, giving businesses even more breaks than they have now. It was a collective pep rally for trickle down economics, contending that too high of corporate, capital gains, or other taxes were the cause of the economic slowdown. Cain at least was honest in saying that he was not bothered if the tax cuts to corporations resulted in them paying more dividends and not investing. So much for the veneered justification of supply-side economics as a jobs producer.

Moreover, other candidates had equally dismal and shallow assertions about economics. Paul wants to dismantle the central bank and return the US to the gold standard. Pawlenty thinks we can achieve 5% economic grown for many years if we enact his nonexistent economic plan. Bachmann thinks she can turn the economy around in 90 days. Gingrich blames it all on Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley–repeal them and all will be fine. Huntsman and Romney simply said trust me–I was in business and I know how to create jobs.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the debate was when pressed about a bipartisan deal to cut the deficit and asked if they would sign off on a deal that would have 10:1 spending cuts to tax increases. None supported it.

None of the candidates seemed to have a sense about job creation or about a role for government investment in the economy to build infrastructure. In doing so, they forget even that Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations called for this. Or that this is what Alexander Hamilton called for in creating the national bank and in supporting credit and manufactures. All seemed to endorse Ayd Rand economics, a libertarian free for all market place of the survival of the fittest.

But economics was not the only place where crackpot theories prevailed. Constitutionally, they were all horrible. Bachmann stated that the Constitution does not allow the government to require individuals to purchase anything such as insurance. She was unable to square that with her reading of the Tenth Amendment which gives states broad power to regulate, even traditional topics such as marriage. By her logic, states could not require individuals to purchase auto insurance and perhaps even licenses for practicing medicine or doing anything else. Moreover, despite all her defense of the Tenth Amendment, she would take away the power of states to pass legislation allowing for same-sex marriage. At one point the debate degenerated into a discussion of whether the Tenth Amendment would allow states to enact slavery or polygamy.

In 1984 a challenger to Senator Fritz Hollings demanded the senator a take a drug test and release the results. Hollings replied by stating that he would take such a test if his opponent took an IQ test and made it public. Last night’s debate gave me new appreciation for Hollings’ suggestion. Candidates for the presidency should be better informed about the world of economics, politics, and the law. We talk so much about civics education and literacy tests for citizens. Maybe candidates should be required to pass such a test as a condition for running for office.

Final Thoughts: Bachmann v Pawlenty: Pawlenty’s Sexism

The Bachmann/Pawlenty feud is the media highlight of the debate. Both came off looking petty and small. Pawlenty is correct that Bachmann has no real legislative record, Bachmann is correct that Pawlenty has switched on many issues. Leave it there. But both felt they needed to dig at one another, underscoring the deep animosity the two h ave always had toward one another, not only enhanced by their rival Iowa strategies. Yet Pawlenty came off worse. He was given a second chance to criticize Romney and again soft-peddled it. Thus, he was too weak against Romney and too aggressive and petty against Bachmann. This attack reveals a deeper sexism with Pawlenty.

Recall in 2006 his attacks against DFL Lt. Gubernatorial candidate Judy Dutcher when she blanked on a reporter’s question about E85. At one point DFL Gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch stated about Pawlenty: “Look at how desperate he is, he is attacking a woman.” Hatch took heat for that statement but in retrospect he seems prescient. Pawlenty’s sexism is his inability to confront and challenge men, preferring to pick on others he perceives as weak, such as women. This is the the wimp factor.

Conversely, Bachmann competed for the dumbest answer of the night. When asked to defend her legislative record against Pawlenty's criticisms, she replied: "I introduced the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act so people could all purchase the lightbulb of their choice." I am not sure what is worse, that this is the sum of the legislative record that she is proud of, or that she wants to give individuals more choice to select light bulbs than gay people to marry or women to control their reproductive choices.

The Winners are...?

Who won?

Gingrich had real policy answers even if they are wrong. He was correct to trash the super-committee as a lack of leadership and at least his comments about Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, even if wrong, were real ideas.

Romney wins since no one attacked him and escapes with no bullet holes.

Huntsman has the single best answer of the night. When asked about his support of civil unions he said he stood by his position. But more importantly, when criticized for accepting Obama’s request he become ambassador to China, Huntsman replied: "I’m proud of my service to this country. If you love your country, you serve her. During a time of war, during a time of economic hardship, when asked to serve your country in a sensitive position where you can actually bring a background to help your nation, I’m the kind of person who’s going to stand up and do it, and I’ll take that philosophy to my grave." If we had more answers and people like that our country would not be in the shape it is today.

Bachmann,Pawlenty, and the Government Shutdown: As Minnesota Goes, so Goes the Nation

The parallels between the politics of the Minnesota governmental shutdown and the impasse at the federal level to extend the debt ceiling are compelling. But to understand both, one especially needs to look at the transformation of the Minnesota Republican Party, a party once representing a more moderate stance which is being increasingly remade in the image of Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party. This change offers lessons about the prospects of a deal on the debt ceiling, the rival presidential campaigns of Minnesotans Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, and the nature of American politics and the Republican Party in general.

On the surface the dispute in Minnesota between the Democratic Governor Mark Dayton and the Republican legislature had been over the state budget. Dayton wanted to spend $37 billion and erase the $5 billion deficit with some cuts that do not hurt the poor or education, and with tax increases on the wealthy. The GOP wanted to spend $34 billion and erase the deficit with cuts alone that seem to burden the poor, elderly, education, and local governments. But the budget is a proxy for a deeper disagreement over rival views of the government versus the market. The Republicans see government and taxes as bad, intruding upon the wisdom and functioning of markets. Let markets act and they will generate jobs prosperity, and solve the basic problems of society.

For Dayton, while market solutions and the private sector are the preferred places to produce jobs and make decisions, they recognize markets fail. Markets fail to address needs of equity. They produce inequities in wealth and income distribution, they fail to address core problems of education funding and disparities, they fail to address problems in infrastructure investment.

Yet the Republicans are not consistently anti-government. Many still find it necessary to hire police and enforce basic laws, and apparently to enact laws to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, ban stem-cell research, and outlaw abortion. The real difference between the Republicans and Dayton is over how much government and who it should favor. It is a debate of government versus the market, individual versus society, and secularism versus religion. These debates in Minnesota parallel what is happening at the national level in Congress and with the Republicans and President Obama. The fight over the debt ceiling is merely a proxy for a deeper divide over government.

The debate over 'why government' is ideological. Yet arising simultaneously are other phenomena aggravating the debate over 'why government'–the triumph of ideology over pragmatism and party polarization. Minnesota microcosms the nation. The ideological divide, especially for the Republicans, means all or nothing. By that, if one side is right the other must be wrong and therefore no compromise is possible. As Kurt Zellers, Minnesota's Republican speaker of the house, stated: “Whether it's a half a tax increase, a whole tax increase, or a quarter tax increase ... it's a bad idea.” Thus the equivocation of compromise to capitulation.

But demographics reinforce partisanship. Minnesota is more than a red and blue state–it is polka dotted. The partisan distribution of the state has a clear geographic pattern. The Democrats solidly have the Twin Cities and some of the other urban cores, the Republicans have the rest. The geographic partisanship is hard to correct with redistricting given residential patterns. This means the electoral forces that should drive elected officials to compromise do not exist. Instead, fully partisan areas simply reinforce the current ideological divide. In Minnesota there are only a handful of legislative seats that can really swing, the rest are solidly partisan. This creates little incentive to compromise. The same pattern exists in Congress, with less than a quarter of the seats really swing.

But political parties nationally and in Minnesota are more polarized than a generation or so ago. There is more ideological cohesion in the parties, especially for the Republicans. At one point the Minnesota Republican Party was moderate, selecting individuals such as former governor Arne Carlson and U.S. Senator David Durenburger. They represented a party still connected to the old Rockefeller wing. Neither are now welcome in their old party. They have been eclipsed by two new versions of the Republican Party. Version one, the Reagan remake, produced Tim Pawlenty and it was clearly more skeptical toward taxes and government, yet not uncompromisingly hostile. Arne Carlson raised taxes when needed and Pawlenty did it via user fees.

Yet Minnesota now has a new version of the Republican Party replacing the Reagan brand. Its roots go back to Barry Goldwater and it expresses frustration with the Reaganites who it viewed as too willing to compromise with Democrats. Reaganism lost nerve and principle, and it needed to complete what he started but did not finish. It is a party centrally guided by religious fundamentalism, constitutional originalism, and political purism. This is Tea Party Republicanism–the party of Michelle Bachmann in Minnesota and Sarah Palin nationally.

Pawlenty’s presidential bid is a casualty of this new Republicanism. He is either too moderate for it or he is forced to drive further to the right, aping messages his rival Bachmann already resonates. He is a dinosaur or Johnny-come-lately, a candidate without a clear narrative or constituency. But the other casualty is Minnesota state politics. The inability of Tea Party Republicans to compromise drove Minnesota into a shutdown, and it continues to dog its resolution even after Dayton gave into many of its demands. The Minnesota shutdown is the moment of opportunity for the Republicans–use the leverage to get it all. This too seems to be the mantra for the Republicans at the national level when it comes to the debt ceiling.

The lessons one learns from Minnesota is that the remaking of the Republican Party, reinforced by demographics, has produced a showdown with disastrous effects. This is the same phenomena operating at the national level regarding the debt ceiling. The results from Minnesota offer pessimistic predictions for the country.

And the Winner is. . . Preliminary Thoughts on the New Hampshire GOP Presidential Debate

Who won the debate last night? Bachmann and Romney emerged as winners in very odd ways.

Bachmann won but not really on substance. She won by her announcement that she was officially running for president. Her announcement was brilliant in the sense that she knew it would be the major news or headline item the next day. Yet again with this announcement she proved her ability to capture headlines and to shine the spotlight on her. Thus, Bachmann wins the public relations battle.

Romney was also a winner. The expectation was that the other candidates would go after the frontrunner and smear him with the phrase Obamacare. They failed to do so. Even Tim Pawlenty, who just a couple of days earlier had attacked Romney for creating Obaneycare, shrank for doing it. Because Romney held his own, did not suffer an attacks, and also managed to attack Obama himself, he appeared to escape the debate without scars and therefore won.

Beyond the Bachmann announcement and the failure of the field to attack Romney, there were no surprises in the debate. All of them attacked Obama and all of them more or less said the said thing when pressed on the economy, health care, abortion, and gay rights. What was most striking was how little they really disagreed, with all concurring that any of them would be better presidents than Obama.

But even more striking was how bland all were and how little they had to really offer as president. They were all strong in their criticism of Obama and the government but offered little in terms of real solutions. They all said the problems in the economy and the world were rooted in too much government and taxes, contending that by cutting both the private sector would solve our problems. Government thus crowds out real private sector innovation. Paul was most clear in arguing this. But beyond saying government was bad they offered little in terms of what government could do or why they wanted to be president. Instead, they all seem to be running for a job they want to eliminate.

Tale of Two Pawlentys

Pawlenty was interesting. It was a tale of Two Pawlentys. There was the governor of Minnesota who liked to describe himself as a moderate. Now it is a Pawlenty who took pride in passing pro-life laws, packing the court with pro-life judges, and a candidate against law rights and any type of government action. Who is the real Pawlenty?

Quick note on Bachmann

With her formal declaration that now means her congressional seat is up for grabs. All along it seemed clear that November, 2010 was the last time she would run for the House of Representatives. At that time it looked like redistricting or a run for the senate would be next for her, not the presidency. Nonetheless, Bachmann’s seat is open and that should begin a scramble for it. Moreover, think about her poor constituents. From the day she was sworn in this January Bachmann has been effectively running for president. She will now continue to do that leaving her district without any real representation.

At the debate Bachmann held her own and looked and sounded like the rest of the field. She turned away comments about her extremism and association with the TEA party may hurt her. She did a good job in sounding as bland as the rest.

Also, if Bachmann does not succeed in her presidential bid, running for president does not hurt her marketability or chances to challenge Franken in 2014.

Bachmann, Palin, Overdrive

Bachmann and Palin. The very prospects of both entering the presidential race have created a frenzy. Both are media magnets and savvy in the art of attracting attention. But how do we assess them as presidential candidates within the GOP field and, if either to emerge as a nominee, as a potential candidate against Obama?

I discussed this issue on Fox 9 News recently . Look at the video in addition to my analysis below.

Outsiders within the GOP

The simple way to describe Bachmann and Palin is that both are outsiders within the Republican Party who draw their strengths from very similar sources. Both candidates have clear messages about taxes, limited government, and social conservatism that appeal to the Tea party wing of the GOP. Thus both have something that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and perhaps even Mitt Romney lack—a clearly identified voice or political narrative that definitely appeals to an energetic base of the Republican Party. This linkage of a voice to a constituency is critical because it means that both of these candidates have a capacity to mobilize an identifiable portion of the party. When it comes to Iowa for example, a state all about caucuses and grassroots organizing, the ability to appeal to a specific and highly energetic constituency is very important, especially for Bachmann.

Comparing Bachmann to Palin

Bachmann and Palin share other affinities. Both are terrific at fund-raising. Palin is a major draw on the speaking circuit and since leaving the vice-presidential race she has branded herself and daughter Bristol into a Paris Hilton like commodities that has made her millions. Palin is an industry and can raise money, perhaps even for a presidency. Not as well known as Palin, Bachmann has proven to be a powerful fundraiser–garnering $20 million plus for her Congressional campaign last year and reportedly with more than $2.5 million already for her potential presidential bid. Moreover, each has a propensity to say the outrageous–Bachmann in declaring the constitutional framers as having freed the slaves, Palin in her take no prisoners campaign rhetoric. Both have been recurrently featured on Fox and MSNBC, pandered before conservative and liberal audiences as Nielsen ratings enhancers.

There is no question though that Palin is the better know of the two candidates. Right now she is near the top of the GOP polls and her bus tour is gathering a lot of attention. Were Palin to run she would start off strong, even if she were to skip Iowa.

Bachmann’s is truly an Iowa strategy. From Waterloo, she hopes to mobilize her roots and appeal to a Tea party constituency (and discontent with other GOP candidates). It is not inconceivable that she could get 20% of the caucus attendees, thereby pushing her to the front of presidential contenders. This is possible but for Palin.

Palin and Bachmann draw strength from the same part of the party. Should both enter they potentially split their support and the Tea Party wing. This sets up some interesting dynamics. First, if both run, does their conservatism force the rest of the GOP further to the right or do they concede it to them and battle for whatever one calls the more moderate wing of the party? Even if only one of the two runs, the same question can be asked. But if both run the potential of a split complicates strategies for all of the field in terms of appeal to their base, ignore, move to the right or more centrist.

Their Negatives

But as much as there are strengths are parallels to Palin and Bachmann, both face liabilities. Both are outsiders in the party. Palin likes her rogue persona and Bachmann has constantly upstaged the GOP in terms of stealing the light from Paul Ryan and the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech. Then there is their political rhetoric–nothing moderate here for either. How they can broaden their appeal beyond the Tea Party within the GOP is a mystery, let along to the swing voters in a general election will be difficult.

Palin has two additional problems. She is well known (a plus) but also has astronomical negatives. Carrying over from the 2008 VP bid, over 60% view her as unqualified to be president. She did herself no favors in her self-absorbed response to the representative Giffords shooting. Second, she has little in terms of a presidential infrastructure that can help her in Iowa or other early states and having alienated many in the GOP establishment, she is damaged goods in many ways.

Bachmann too has alienated the GOP establishment but she is not as well known nationally and therefore does not appear to have the same negatives as Palin. People have not made up their mind about her since she is not as well known. Unlike Palin, Bachmann has a chance to define and make her image and create a narrative. Palin is already done. She has no real potential for growth and makeover–perhaps by choice. Her brand and persona are fixed. Finally, Bachmann is working Iowa and seeking to build an infrastructure, Palin really is not.

Final Thoughts

Overall, assessing the two, while Palin is better known Bachmann has more room to grow as a potential GOP presidential candidate. But of course, both many stand in each other’s way, competing for money, voters, and a slice of media coverage. Because of their similarity, don’t look for the Tea Party dream ticket of the two running together. This is a ticket that would appeal to 25% of the general election electorate–giving Obama a major victory.

No doubt we have not heard the last of Bachmann and Palin. “You ain’t seen nothing yet” as BTO once sung.

Acta Est Fabula: Pawlenty’s Presidential Crawl Officially Begins

On Monday Tim Pawlenty made it official–he is running for president. No surprise here. He has been preparing to do this for the last two years more or less. Yet how do his prospects look? Perhaps the best thing going for him is that the GOP field is weak and he has an opening. His momentum, if any, is as a result of a void in Republican support for a presidential candidate.

Pawlenty’s presidential announcement was poor. First think of the visuals. Television is visual and you want to avoid talking heads. Pawlenty chose the Iowa state capitol as a backdrop but when I viewed it all that was visible behind him were trees and grass. No capitol, no flags, no people. It looked like he was standing in the park, speaking to a small group, running for dog catcher. It did not look presidential, it looked more amateurish. There was no interesting visuals or spark to light up the talk. Contrast to Obama or a Bachmann–there would have been crowds around them on camera cheering. Here, the applause sounded like Tiger Woods sinking a shot for par 3.


Now the message and delivery. Pawlenty has been a candidate in search of a narrative or message ever since he commenced his presidential bid. He has sought to define himself as the ”Sam’s Club Republican,” as the tax cutter, and as a social conservative.

He now appears to want to be a prophet, telling the American public the truth. Pawlenty uttered “truth” 16 times, aiming to the be straight-talking Harry Truman of his generation, telling folks not what they want to hear but what they need to hear. At the same time he also sought to copy a well-trod path of running against Washington, D.C., using Obama “change” mantra from 08 which also worked successfully for the GOP in 10. “Truth” for Pawlenty” in 12 is his version of “Change.”

Yet the narrative will not work. Obama’s narrative was positive, forward, and self-defining. Pawlenty’s is not. It was dark and depressing. Pawlenty needed a speech that defined who he was and what America would look like under his presidency. The message was dark and pessimistic–one of cuts and sacrifice. It reminded me of Walter Mondale in 1984 saying he was going to tell the truth when running against Reagan. It did not work. It was also dark like Jimmy Carter’s July 15, 1979, “Crisis of American Character” speech, even if true, it was not inspiring.

Pawlenty lacks a rationale for why he wants to run for president, as evidenced by his Time magazine interview when asked why he wants the office he stated: "I don't know. I wish I had a good answer for you on that." Pawlenty lacks an elevator speech for his presidency, he lacks a clear narrative for running, and he lacks a definition for his campaign. That came out in his Des Moines declaration. He needed an announcement with fireworks but it did not occur. He should have began his declaration with his vision and self-definition and then moved on to the case against Obama. Yet he failed to do that, leading instead with a dark message and bland delivery that failed to give his campaign a jump start.

Finally, poor Pawlenty. Tornadoes obscured his message. What next? Bachmann again upstaging him?

Pawlenty’s big hope is that no other GOP takes fire and he slips in by default.

Right now, Pawlenty may get 7-10% in Iowa, limp through New Hampshire, and then die in South Carolina.

The New Minnesota Normal: Special Sessions and Government Shutdowns

The 2011 regular session of the Minnesota Legislature limps to an end without a budget deal. No news here, it was entirely predictable. Not since 1999–the first year of Jesse Ventura’s term as governor–has a budget session of the Minnesota Legislature ended on time without a special session, partial governmental shutdown, or a controversial ending such as in 2009 when Pawlenty used his unallotment power (subsequently declared illegal by the Minnesota Supreme Court) to balance the budget.

What has emerged is the new normal for Minnesota politics. The new normal is that the completion of the budget does not occur by the constitutionally-mandated deadline in May but instead July 1–the commencement of the new budget year. That seems to be the new deadline. But even then, that date, like October 1, for the federal government, appears more suggestive than drop dead. A threatened partial shut down in 2003 and then a real one in 2007 too eased the stigma of missing July 1, in Minnesota.


Why the New Normal?

The question becomes why? Why has the new normal emerged? Why does it seem impossible to reach budget agreement? One answer is divided government, yet even back to the days when Perpich was governor and the DFL controlled the legislature there were special sessions to address the budget such as in 1985. Under Carlson and then Ventura they became more frequent and then under Pawlenty and now Dayton they have emerged as the new normal. No; divided government is only a partial answer.

There are two causes explaining the rise of the new normal. The first is a growing ideological divide over the nature of government. The second is structural, questioning the efficacy of the current budget process.

Why Government?

The governor and the GOP-led legislature are as far apart today as they were in January regarding all the essentials over the budget. Dayton wants to spend $37 billion and erase the $5 billion deficit with some cuts that do not hurt the poor or education and with tax increases on the wealthy. The GOP wants to spend $34 billion and erase the deficit with cuts alone that seem to burden the poor, elderly, education, and local governments.

At the heart of the dispute between the Governor and the GOP is a basic difference in their rival views of the government versus the market. The GOP generally seems to see government and taxes as bad, an intruding upon the wisdom and functioning of markets. Let markets act and they will generate jobs prosperity, and solve the basic problems of society.

For Dayton, while market solutions and the private sector are the preferred places to produce jobs and make decisions, they recognize markets fail. Markets fail to address needs of equity. They produce inequities in wealth and income distribution, they fail to address core problems of education funding and disparities, they fail to address problems in infrastructure investment.

No, it does not look like the GOP wants no government. Many still find it necessary to hire police and enforce basic laws, and apparently to enact laws to prevent same-sex couples from marrying and women from terminating pregnancies or give tax breaks to the wealthy. The real difference between the GOP and Dayton and the DFL is over how much government and what government should do in our society. It is a debate between rivaling views-government versus the market, the individual versus society.

The debate over “why government” is ideological. Arising simultaneously are two other phenomena aggravating the debate over why government–the triumph of ideology over pragmatism and party polarization.

Daniel Bell famously wrote in the 1960s a book entitled “The End of Ideology.” There it is described a United States where belief was that we had reached consensus on basic issues of what constitutes the good life and the role of government in society. The issue was not ideology or goals but merely technique of the means to the end. Nearly 50 years later, we now seem to be living not with the end of ideology but with its resurgence.

There are basic ideological divides over means and ends. But more importantly, the ideological divide for some means all or nothing. By that, if one side is right the other must be wrong and therefore no compromise is possible. Thus, the emergence of ideology over pragmatism.

Political parties nationally and in Minnesota seem more polarized than 20, 30, or 40 years ago. There is more ideological cohesion in the parties, especially for the GOP, than in the past. This is a product of special interest politics and caucuses which are dominated by ideological extremists.

Thus, combine politically polarized parties with a take no prisoners ideological divide over the role of government and what do you get?

A Flawed Budget Process

But the polarization is only one problem. The second is the flawed budget process in Minnesota. It is a process built for the horse and buggy days trying to operate in the 21st century. Government is so much more complex, the budget numbers so much larger, the functions more diverse, that it is perhaps impossible to reach consensus and make decisions between the beginning of January and the State Constitution forbids the legislature to meet in regular session after the first Monday following the third Saturday in May in any year. There simply may not be enough time to do the budget by law.

But think also how flawed the current budget process is right now. The old governor makes the initial budget. New governor is elected and needs to update it to reflect his priorities and the fiscal forecast in November. The Legislature comes to work in early January and then it waits until late January or so for the governor to release the budget. Then they all wait until late February for the updated fiscal forecast.

Thus, it is really not until late February or March that the work on the budget commences. And even then, there are separate hearings in the House and Senate, forcing conference committees to act. The budget also is really ten separate bills, with spending distinct from taxation, and no real work gets done until there are agreements on the different spending targets for each of the areas such as HHS, K-12, and so on.

Sound confusing? It is. It is also inefficient. At least two months are wasted at the beginning of every budget cycle waiting for the governor’s budget, the fiscal forecast, and then agreement on budget targets. Now add more wrinkle–budgets are created right after state elections when often many new legislators or constitutional officers are elected. They are green, often learning on the job while creating a new budget. In a distant past when life and budgets were less complicated (and smaller), perhaps it was possible to do all this with a part-time citizen legislature. But those days have passed. A new budget process is needed, with new time lines and ways to move the work along.

Thus, as the session ends the only real question is whether there is a budget by July 1. The bet here is 60/40 odds of a partial shutdown. The reasons are ideological and process-driven, producing the new normal.

The real threat to union-busting: The constitution

Today’s blog is an op-ed of mine in the March 2, 2011 edition of Salon.com.

The real threat to union-busting: The constitution

The Democratic state senators who are hiding out across state lines in Illinois are a major problem for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his effort to push a bill stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights through the state Legislature. So is Wisconsin's state constitution, which severely limits Walker's ability to break the Democrats' resistance. Any action he might take, it seems, could form the basis for a successful challenge before the state Supreme Court.
1. One issue could arise if Walker wins passage of the bill by deputizing the police to round up Democratic senators, if any of them return to the state, and force them to come to Madison. Article V, Section 4 of the state constitution gives the governor the power to "convene the legislature on extraordinary occasions" and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The first power allows the governor to call special sessions in the event of emergencies. But even if the governor calls a special session, it is not clear that he has the authority to force legislators by police escort to show up. Similarly, the power to faithfully execute the laws is significant, but it also requires one to ask what laws are being broken if senators refuse to show up.

But let's pretend their failure to appear at the state Capitol is a crime (even though it isn't in Wisconsin); even then, the senators cannot be arrested and detained, according to Article IV, Section 15, which states: "Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session."

Similar clauses are found in many other state constitutions. Their origins date to the 19th century and their purpose was to prevent opposition forces from using trumped-up legal charges to prevent legislators from voting. Here, Article IV, Section 15 could be invoked to challenge any effort to arrest and detain senators for the purposes of forcing a vote. Of course, as long as the senators are outside of Wisconsin, state police have no jurisdiction to detain or arrest; if the police were to cross lines to apprehend the senators, they would be engaging in kidnapping -- a felony in the state, and also a potential violation of federal kidnapping laws.

But what if senators are derelict because of their failure to show up for their duties -- what is the remedy? Article IV, Section 7 of the constitution commits this issue to the legislative branch to address. Specifically, it states: "Each house ... may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide." In other words, the Wisconsin Constitution explicitly delegates to the Legislature the sole authority to determine how it may enforce attendance. This means that Gov. Walker is barred constitutionally from taking any action. Nor can legislators be impeached, thanks to Article VII. Technically, the state Senate could move to expel absent members according to Article IV, Section 8. But expulsion requires a two-thirds vote of the entire body -- which is unlikely.

Assume now that Walker does compel senators to come to the Capitol and a vote occurs. Would such a vote be constitutional? This is debatable. If the arrest or detention of legislators is illegal under the state constitution, then any vote forced as a result would also be unconstitutional. One could also invoke Article IV, Section 1, which vests the legislative power in the Senate and the Assembly. This clause, along with similar clauses for the executive and judicial branches, creates an inherent separation of powers doctrine. By forcing senators to attend and taking a vote, the Legislature's inherent powers may be violated.

Finally, if the Senate doesn't convene to vote and no budget is adopted, can Walker simply suspend collective bargaining rights and lay off public employees on his own? The answer is no. The governor has broad veto authority under Article V, Section 10, but he cannot use power until a bill is presented to him. Similarly, he cannot act unilaterally to balance the budget if the Legislature does not act. Tim Pawlenty, then the governor of Minnesota, learned this in 2010 when the Supreme Court in his state ruled that his efforts were illegal. The power to pass a budget and allocate money is a legislative function. For Walker to just fire thousands of state employees in the name of balancing the budget without legislative authorization might also be a constitutional violation.

Thus, there may be no constitutional way for Gov. Walker and his Republican allies to enact their collective bargaining ban -- as long as every Democratic senator stays away from Madison.

Pawlenty’s Problem: Why the Former Minnesota Governor’s Presidential Campaign is Faltering

Tim Pawlenty has made it clear he wants to be president. Unfortunately for him, despite repeated trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early caucus-primary states, he remains low in the polls, often hovering below undecided or “don’t know” among the GOP polled about their 2012 presidential preferences. These continued low poll numbers and name recognition become evermore worrisome for Pawlenty with the Iowa caucuses merely one year from now.

But what explains his persistent low poll numbers? There are many reasons. The most recent being him becoming the "other Minnesotan” running for president, being eclipsed by Michelle Bachmann in terms of buzz and excitement.

Yet the core reason for Pawlenty’s lack of success is simple–he lacks a narrative.

I have written often about the importance of a narrative in politics. Political narratives are stories you tell about yourself that define who you are, what your vision of the world is, and what you hope to accomplish if elected to office. The narrative is what defines you as unique. Narratives are selling points for candidates similar to story lines for products being sold (sales pitches) or the arguments made when doing fund raising. This is why I argue that candidates are like selling beer. Budweiser tells a good story about its product, why you should drink it, and what kind of person you are if you consume its product.

Political narratives are powerful rhetorical devices. They move voters and set candidates apart from others. In 2008 Obama had a narrative about change, a story about himself as the embodiment of the American dream. In 1980 Reagan told a story about personal initiative, self-reliance, and government, and in 1960 JFK told of a country facing new challenges in a cold war and Sputnik era. All successful candidates have narratives.

Pawlenty’s problem all along has been the missing narrative. The best way to describe this comes from a recent chart that the New York Times constructed (February 4, 2011) that graphically depicted the major GOP contenders along two dimensions–moderate/conservative and inside/outsider. According to the graph, Pawlenty is dead in the center. He is neither insider nor outsider, moderate nor liberal.

For Pawlenty this placement might suggest perfect placement. He is dead center. This may be true, but I think another interpretation is possible. Pawlenty is not the first choice of anyone, he is the second or third (or fourth or lower) choice for most. He is the default candidate behind everyone else. He is not preferred by anyone as their first choice, and he is stuck behind the other first choices of Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and yes, even Bachmann. As Leo Durocher once said: “Coming in second is like kissing your sister.” There is no thrill or excitement here, and that is Pawlenty’s problem.

Pawlenty is a derivative candidate. He has yet to carve out a narrative that distinguishes himself from the other more famous candidates running. He is thus far a boring, bland, GOP governor from somewhere in the upper Midwest; a candidate who never won a majority of the votes as governor.

Pawlenty has tried several narratives for the last couple of years but none seem to work. He is against taxes but so are other candidates. He opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, but so do others. He in so many ways has run for president on the narrative “Me too” when referring to his positions that ape his more famous competitors. Pawlenty has simply failed to carve out a distinct set of political views that distinguish him from the pack.

On top of that, Pawlenty cannot fill in his narrative with his record in office. Maybe he can say no tax increases for eight years, but he left the state with a fiscal mess that is not good. He cannot point to a major turnaround in schools, and he has no other real accomplishments he can point to. A bridge collapsed under his watch and he lost the unallotment case. There is also no evidence of coattails with his victories and instead, he may owe his election to Paul Wellstone’s plane crash in 2002 and the huge turnout for Michelle Bachmann in 2006 that gave him the winning edges.

The personal story of Pawlenty is not really compelling. Yes blue collar roots to governor. At one time he tried the “I am the Sam’s Club Republican.” That did not work either. It is also not working on the book tour. A tour, by the way, following in the path of all other candidates who sort of write a book and go on tour. Again, his tour is derivative of Palin’s right down to the cover design. Finally, few can say that Pawlenty is a compelling or electric speaker compared to a Palin or Bachmann.

Overall, Pawlenty’s problem is the missing narrative. He has tried several and they are not compelling. He has very little time to find one and I doubt it will happen. Iowa is one year away. He needs a good story now and he cannot find one. Without it, he will remain in the center of the GOP chart, no one’s first choice.

Obama, Bachmann, and the End of the GOP

Is the Republican party ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Several events this week suggest that may be the case.

Obama and the State of the Union
The State of the Union speech is a misnomer. One would think a state of the union speech really to be one that discusses, well, the state of the union. Instead, the speeches have become a state of the presidency with Obama this week continuing the fine tradition of using the speech to discuss his presidency and what he wants to do. In this case, the speech was effectively the launching of his 2012 presidential campaign as he tried out his new narrative.

Think about how far Obama has moved since Election Day last year. The GOP were giddy with their victories, viewing them as a referendum on Obama. His approvals were in the mid 40s, the Dems lost the swings in the elections, and it looked for certain that 2011 would begin the end for Obama. But Obama responded. He struck a tax deal with the GOP and they then gave in on everything else. He gave a great Tucson speech, he changed his economic team, brought in more pro Wall Street toadies, and now suddenly he is over 50% in approval ratings again. The state of the presidency speech that he gave the other day was part of the rehabilitation and relaunching of his presidency and so far he is doing well in preparing for 2012.

The speech was flat. He trotted out no new ideas. I described it as JFK meets Ronald Reagan. It was Sputnik meets morning in America. (Although I wonder how many of his supporters know what Sputnik was or what the Sputnik moment metaphor or analogy meant). Obama told a good story about the future and he crafted a nice narrative that hit all the themes he resonated in 2008. He said nothing new but did it in a language that seemed to appeal to many.

Never mind that Obama did not address two critical issues–the continued depressed housing market and foreclosures, and the continued high unemployment rate. Both were ignored. Moreover, what also eluded him was the economic consequence of his tax deal with the GOP–a hemorrhaging budget deficit that will grow to $2 trillion in a few years.

A Divided GOP?
But Obama was lucky. The GOP have so far played it badly in taking over the House. They have voted to repeal the health care reform and they make noise about the deficit, but they have no constructive ideas about how to replace the former and deal with the latter. They remain stuck as the party of "no." It remains a narrative of opposition, but not one of construction. The narrative of change they used in 2010 to gain power has not become a narrative of governance.

Additionally, Obama’s real luck is that the GOP is divided. Wisconsin Representative Ryan gave the official response–it was even more flat than Obama’s. But no one is talking about Ryan–it was Bachmann’s response that captured all the headlines. Yes others will discuss her challenges when it comes to facts about American history or her Tammy Faye Baker makeup, but the real issue is how yet again she upstaged her own party to trumpet herself. If I were the GOP I would be so angry with her, yet they are also dependent on her and her Tea Party followers for support. It is a dysfunctional relationship ready to get worse. How?


Bachmann’s Third Party Bid for President?


If Bachmann runs for president, think about two possibilities. One is she runs as a GOP and does well in garnering support in Iowa. In an early caucus state with a crowded field, victory goes to those who can best organize and bring people out on caucus night. Clinton learned that the hard way in '08 as Obama the community organizer did well. It does not take more than 25% or so to win Iowa. Tea Party activists will come out in 2012 for her and Bachmann could do well.

But what if Bachmann decides to bolt the GOP and run as a third party Tea party candidate? This is not a nutty idea. Given her relationship with the party, her “in it for herself approach,” and the ideological gulf, it could happen. If it does, the GOP is split and Obama is definitely the winner. Remember 1912? Forget Palin as going rogue, it is Bachmann.

But does Bachmann really plan to run for president? One thought is that this is a way to raise a profile and prepare to challenge Franken 2014. Another thought is a run for president, even if it fails, raises her value as a commentator on Fox or more likely CNN. Why CNN? They need her more than Fox to capture conservatives to watch.

Overall, a Bachmann campaign will overshadow the GOP, reinforce Obama’s centrist image, and insure he wins again.

A Pawlenty Deathwatch


AP reports Pawlenty’s PAC is almost broke. This means either he is winding it down as he prepares to create a presidential exploratory committee (as Pawlenty might spin it) or that his lack of money demonstrates a lack of support for him as the “other Minnesota Republican running for president.” Pawlenty will not be part of that crowded Iowa GOP field, at least not at the top of the crowd.

UPDATE
Minnesota's 2012 Presidential Hopefuls in the Spotlight
Click here to see the KARE11 Sunrise segment about Pawlenty and Bachmann's presidential pursuits.

Pawlenty, Palin, Podcasts, and Presidential Politics

Pawlenty
There is a great old line from the television show Hee Haw that went: “If it were not for bad luck I’d have no luck at all.” This describes the last two weeks Tim Pawlenty has had.

Last week just as he was ready to start his book tour (aka presidential campaign) Michele Bachmann declares her interest in running for the presidency. Pawlenty becomes the other Minnesotan running for president and he is displaced in the news cycle by her.

Now this week he is eclipsed by the events in Tucson. Yes, he did a National Press Club appearance but in reality, who will remember. He was the third, fourth, or perhaps the fifth story of the week, well behind the events and collateral damage and stories that unfolded around him. Moreover, when he did get a chance to talk, the questions were about his views on Tucson, not on his narrative and agenda. In short, Pawlenty had little time to message, tell his narrative, and make his case for being a presidential candidate.

However, even without these two events, his chances were slim. Consistently I have stated that he has little chance of being a serious candidate for the presidency. I also said that two years ago when I said he had no prayer as McCain’s VP. Why? Simply, Pawlenty has no buzz and no originality. Pawlenty is a “me too’ candidate. Others talk about tax cuts, social conservatism, or what have you, and Pawlenty does the same. Palin does a book, Pawlenty does a book. Romney touts his skills as a pro-business governor, Pawlenty touts his skills as a pro-business governor. Pawlenty is always behind others, never able to find a message or theme that lets him stand out from others. Instead, he seems to a candidate in search of a message, a voice, an appeal. He stands below undecideds among GOPers.

Pawlenty’s time is running out. Think of this. The Iowa caucuses are in February, 2012–barely 13 months away. If Pawlenty is to be a viable presidential candidate he needs to be a serious candidate by the fall, 2011. This means that by the beginning of the summer he needs to catch fire. That is barely six months. His book tour is a fizzle. He is no longer governor and cannot milk that for media time. He is competing against others for money and attention. It will probably be weeks before Tucson and other major news items fade before he has a window to get attention. But it will be under the shadow of “Will she or won’t she” for both Bachmann and Palin.

Pawlenty also faces one final problem. He cannot criticize other GOP without burning bridges. With that, the events of Tucson have changed the political dialogue–everyone but Palin understands this. Pawlenty cannot go on the attack without risking backlash.

No, in the end, Pawlenty has had bad luck, but that only ices the dismal chances he has in running for president. He exited the state with it in worse debt that when he arrived. Maybe he did not raise taxes directly, but at what cost? A state in debt, a K-12 system recently ranked by Education Weekly as mediocre, and a crumbling infrastructure. Pawlenty has no real accomplishment to stand on.

Palin
Palin may be correct that blaming her for Tucson is wrong. But it does not matter that she did not pull the trigger herself. No one really believes her crosshairs over Giffords and others were not gun scopes. Her Facebook speech denouncing critics with invective and inflammatory language only reinforced impressions that she has the subtlety of a machine gun. She demonstrated not one iota of reflection that her style of rhetoric was inappropriate, at least this week, and that a vast spectrum of moderate and swing voters do think the caustic dialogue in America created the atmosphere for Tucson. It does not matter whether this is true–this is what the people think. Palin may have endeared herself to her hardcore supporters, but to the voters she needs to woo if she runs in 2012, she failed to reach them and reinforced the image of her as unqualified to be president.

Boehner and Obama
Unlike Palin, both John Boehner and Barack Obama understood the political climate of the day and responded without looking political. Boehner rallied Congress together for a few days and delayed the GOP until next week. Obama gave a masterful speech that caught the sign of the times and the feelings of a nation. He exploited a memorial service in ways that did not look political, contrasting to the Wellstone service back in 2002 that hurt the MN DFL that year, leading to the election of Senator Norm Coleman and Governor Pawlenty. A new rhetoric, at least for now, is what is politically smart. Obama won the respect of many, but especially moderates this week, helping him in his rehabilitation.

How long will the new political environment last? Free speech cannot be held hostage to nuts with guns, but maybe disagreement can stick to heated debate of policy and issues and not personalty. We need not personally attack others to win a battle. Sticks, stones, and names do hurt.

Podcasting about Corporations and American Politics
Last Saturday, I spoke to the Stonearch Discussion Group in Minneapolis about Citizens United and corporate influence in American politics. Here is a podcast of my talk.

The Impact of Citizens United
On Thursday, January 20, from 7 PM – 8:30 PM at Hamline University, East Hall, Room 4, I will be one of several speakers discussing the impact of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v FEC one year after it was decided.

Please join the Hamline University School of Business, Common Cause Minnesota, the League of Women Voters, and Minnesota MoveOn.org for a discussion on the impact of the Citizens United decision and ways that we can attempt to mitigate its impact on our democracy.

Speakers include:
Professor David Schultz (Me)
Rep. Ryan Winkler, the chief author of the disclosure legislation that passed in 2010
Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota
Allie Moen, League of Women Voters

There will be plenty of free parking and good conservation.

Explaining Election 2010 Part III: Recount Mischief and Dayton’s Opportunity

Politics is about power–getting it, exercising it, and holding on to it. This explains the intensity of campaigns and of strategy in governance. This will also suggest some interesting issues as the recount moves forward and once a new governor is selected. Assume power is what politics is about. How should that play in for the recount, GOP control of the legislature, and Dayton, assuming he becomes governor? Here is my pale attempt at Machiavelli–writing about how to get and keep political power.

Recount Politics
Assuming by November 23, the margin between Dayton and Emmer is less than ½ of one–percent, there will be a mandatory recount. It is curious to note that at present the difference between the two candidates is approximately four-tenths of one percent. This past session the legislature voted to reduce the recount margin to 0.25% but it was removed in conference committee. Had it passed and been signed by the governor we might not be talking mandatory recount now.

It made sense to lower the threshold. Reforms in voting technology and in absentee balloting make errors less likely now than in the past. Second, in a state of 5 million people and approximately 3.6 million votes, differences of ½ of one percent are far greater in terms of the number of votes than in a state of 3 million voters. A one-half percent gap is a lot of voters. In this race, making 9,000 or so votes is far harder than a few hundred from even just a couple of years ago. Lacking a mandatory recount, Emmer would have to decide if he wishes to pay for an optional one. The mandatory recount will probably cost more than $100,000–at taxpayer expense. Had Pawlenty signed the bill taxpayers might be saving money.

Assume the recount proceeds. Sometime after December 14, when it ends the loser–and presumably Emmer–will have to make a choice. Do you accept the recount and move on or challenge it. Power politics suggests go for broke and challenge. Some worry the GOP will use the challenge to delay seating Dayton so that they can pass a quick budget, cut taxes, do redistricting, and address social issues while they have control of both branches. Yes, this is tempting. Pawlenty could use this to burnish conservative credentials for a presidential bid, demonstrating what he could do as a GOP president presiding over a GOP Congress.

But there is danger of overreach. Minnesotans are fed up with recounts. An appeal to the courts by Emmer and the GOP may look like a pure power grab and backlash against them. Thus Sutton and Emmer need to weigh backlash against opportunity. Backlash could end a GOP legislative majority in 2012, a year that may be more DFL friendly with Klobuchar and Obama on the ticket.

Dayton’s Opportunity
What should Dayton do? Some DFLers bemoan that he is powerless now that the GOP has legislative control. Not really. Look at how Pawlenty has outfoxed the DFL legislature for the last few years. MN governors have lots of power–vetoes, line item vetoes, executive orders, and other tools of appointment–to exercise. Dayton needs to use them.

The first issue for Dayton is who he plans to appoint to what. DFLers are salivating, finally patronage after 20 years+ of spoils drought. But Dayton and the DFL have an uneasy relationship and he may not necessarily appoint in ways that simply reward a party not always supportive of him. He needs to appoint to reward supporters, cement his coalition, and build for the future to take back DFL control of the legislature in 2012.

First thought: Name Tom Horner to be in your administration. He offered on election night to serve the next governor. Take him up on that and use it as a way to build bridges with Independence Party people. This is an opportunity to reach out to moderates and pull them away from the IP to the DFL. The IP might be a permanent 10%party. Use this as a chance to bring them over and party-build. I hate to say that this is an opportunity for party-raiding but this is the time to do that.

Second thought: Dayton has a four year term. Because of redistricting, all House and Senate terms are two years. Use this time frame to pressure the GOP. They want to hold power. If they overreach in the next two years you can point that out in 2012. Will the GOP risk cuts to K-12 and throw grandma out of the nursing home when they face election? Force the GOP to make the tough budget choices and then use the veto and bully pulpit as Pawlenty did to attack them.

Third thought: Effectively MN has an appointed judiciary with 90% of judges reaching the bench initially by gubernatorial appointment. Dayton will be the first DFLer in 20 years to appoint judges. Use that opportunity wisely.

Conclusion
Crisis is both a challenge and opportunity. Dayton, Emmer, the DFL, and the GOP face crises if they wish to maintain political power. Times like now power is in flux and opportunities portend.

Eyewitness to History: The Minnesota Gubernatorial Debate at Hamline

On Saturday, October 9, Hamline University hosted a gubernatorial debate on campus in conjunction with Fox 9 news. I attended and observed the debate, giving me an opportunity to assess the candidates up close.

The Context

Coming into the debate, my sense is that Dayton had a slight lead of 3-5 points over Emmer, with Horner a distant third at around 12-15% support. The three candidates had some shared goals–avoid gaffes and motivate their bases–but they also had divergent objectives. Dayton has a lead, but his base is less motivated to vote this November. He especially needs to motivate women and the swing voters to turn out. If they do, he wins.

Emmer is behind slightly but his base–angry white males–are highly motivated to vote. Emmer also needs to win some swing voters to his side since I do not believe he can win simply by motivating his base, even if Dayton’s does not fully mobilize to vote.

Horner needed a knockout punch. He may have plateaued by capturing his base and a few swings, but he cannot rise much further unless he can convince voters that one of the other two candidates cannot win in November. Most probably, this means he needs to convince other GOPers that Emmer cannot win, thereby leading to a rush of voters from Emmer to him in fear that Dayton will win.

My analysis assumes at this point several things. First it assumes both Dayton and Emmer are holding their bases and that Dayton is doing better at capturing the swings than Emmer and Horner. In making this argument I am at odds with Larry Jacobs and what his MPR poll states. On Almanac I made these claims and Larry said his poll suggests that there are large defections from the bases of both Dayton and Horner, that swings are more in play for Horner than I think, and that in general the GOP is worried about holding on to its voters. He cites as evidence of the latter the Horner press conference with over a dozen former GOP state legislators endorsing him and the reaction that Tony Sutton had to this press conference.

With all due respect to Larry, I have already made clear why his poll is really flawed. Steve Schier has made parallel claims. I am unpersuaded that the poll accurately captures what the electorate and party alignment is in Minnesota and that means that the lead of Dayton’s is inflated in his poll. Larry’s poll is at odds with almost every other poll and it comes in conflict with recent Rasmussen polls showing both Dayton and Emmer holding 80% of their bases.

Finally, in many ways I do not think that the current GOP cares about other former legislators endorsing Horner. They represent an older GOP party replaced by a new more conservative one. Yes, they do not want to see them vote for Horner, but that is no longer their base. Sutton criticized their actions, but that is not a sign of panic.

About the only thing I agree with Larry and his poll is that it is difficult to determine who the likely voter is. Stacy Hecht well stated this problem on Almanac, with the other three of us (Schier, Jacobs, and me) concurring.

The Debate

This was the 23rd debate. In too many ways the candidates looked like they were going through the motions. Each had predictable answers to predictable questions, and each responded to one another the way you expected.

Each campaign had its groupies there and they applauded on cue. Fox 9 wanted a more contentious debate and encouraged candidates to cut off one another. They wanted theater. The candidates did not oblige, again seeming to prefer the predictable to the novel.

Dayton:

He seemed flat. He did not answer the questions directly and his style was weak. He did little to excite his base. He could have done more to link Emmer to Pawlenty and Palin to excite his base, but he did not. He also did not criticize the others very much and he did not do much to reach out to female voters or swings. Dayton did discuss education which is important to his base but the passion was not there.

His finest moment? Discussing why we need bullying legislation, he spoke of equality and same sex marriage. He also quoted James Madison on why government is needed here–men are not angels.” The nerd in me liked this.

Emmer:

He seemed on autopilot. The answer to everything was cut taxes, less government, and create more jobs. A variation of this was his constant protest that he was the only candidate who has put forth a balanced budget. No one but his base believes this. His answer to a student question about what he planned to do about the high cost of going to school? Schools needs to restructure and if we had more and better jobs then student debt would not be a problem! Hmm, tell that to anyone with huge students debts. Even a high salary does little to address the burden of high debt load.

His defining moment? He came out against new legislation to crack down on bullying motivated by anti-gay bias. He said we had too much government already and that it was up to parents teaching respect and giving teachers more authority to do what they need to do but cannot because of fear of lawsuits. Clearly Emmer was speaking to the base.

Horner:

He was clear with answers and specifics. As a communications specialist he knows how to frame answers. He did a good job distinguishing himself and pointing out he was not a DFLer or GOPer.

His finest moments? Two stand out. First, he gave specifics to what he would cut to balance the budget. He noted JOBZ and ethanol subsidies as two cuts. Also, when responding to Emmer, who said no to new anti-bullying laws because it was a private issue, Horner said when others get hurt it is a public matter.

And the Winner Is?

On style and substance (that is how he looked and in answering the questions) Horner won. However, he did not knock anyone out. Emmer was second, Dayton third. Emmer managed to say what his angry base wanted to hear, Dayton did not do much to excite the passion of his supporters.

Horner’s clock is still ticking but he needs major movement soon. Dayton needs to refocus in the last few weeks and appeal to suburban females to vote for him. Pitch commercials to them. He also has started linking Emmer to Pawlenty and needs to do more of that.

Emmer has his base excited but needs to pick up some moderates. Also, everyone is expecting him to do a meltdown like Hatch did in 2006. Maybe Horner, Dayton, or a third party add will do that. Emmer also has a Pawlenty problem in another way. Pawlenty is unpopular and does nothing for him but as governor he could assist in policy or other ways. However, Pawlenty is off on his Don Quixote-esque pursuit of the presidency and seems uninterested either in Emmer or Minnesota. However, that is another story for another blog.

All Things Gubernatorial

Two gubernatorial stories dominate Minnesota news now. The first is an MPR/Humphrey School poll declaring the race for governor in Minnesota is deadlocked between Dayton and Emmer, while the other story is Governor Pawlenty’s executive order forbidding state agencies from accepting or applying for any discretionary federal health care funds connected to the recently adopted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Poll and the Governor’s Race
The poll of 750 Minnesotans with a margin of error of +/- 5.3% found Emmer and Dayton deadlocked at 34%, with Horner at 13%, another 19% undecided. Standing on its own, the poll suggests a tight race, reporting results similar to what was reported in other surveys a couple of months ago. Yet more recent polls suggested a clear lead for Dayton over Emmer, especially in light of Emmer’s bad campaign, missteps on tips, and other similar issues. Has the race really tightened up again?

There are several reasons to say yes. Emmer was out of the news with no real primary opponent. Additionally, recent debates may have helped him, and the national anger towards Obama may be helping him. Yet this most recent poll raises more questions than they answer.
First, the margin of error of +/- must be kept in mind. The race may not be that close but the polling may mask it. Second, there are serious reasons to question the poll’s accuracy. It reports that among those surveyed, 46% identify as GOP, 41% as DFL, and 13% as Independence Party, leaving only 0% as unaffiliated. I seriously doubt this is an accurate reflection of the party alignment of Minnesota voters.

To start, to say there are no unaffiliated voters in MN is crazy. Other polls have put that number at least in the teens. Second, other estimates, even this year, have given the DFL about 35% of the affiliation and GOP around 30%. This is about my guess of where it is located. I find it unlikely, even in this anti-Obama, and Democratic party year, that GOP affiliation has surpassed the DFL and that it is 46%. My sense is that this poll has way overestimated the GOP strength in the state, thereby questioning the validity of the poll here.

Finally, what the poll also does not tell me is who the undecideds are and where they are leaning. Consistently I have argued that suburban women control the battleground in the state. This poll tells us nothing about the swing voters. Other recent polls have suggested Dayton with clear leads among women and moderates compared to Emmer.

Overall, while I suspect the governor’s race is close, this poll is not very good and there are reasons to question it.

Pawlenty and Federal Health Care Dollars
No surprise. Pawlenty foregoes federal health care money to help out the state. Critics will say it is political expediency to bolster his credentials for a likely presidential run, defenders say he is standing on principle.

Let us assume it is principle. First, principle did not prevent him from accepting money in the past, but then again, that was before he was as serious as he now appears to be in wanting to run for president. Second, there is panic. Pawlenty’s presidential run is going nowhere. He has no momentum and time is running short for him to gain it. Just a few months. Expect Pawlenty to do other dramatic things before he leaves office as final efforts to jolt his presidential bid. Look to see some way to use other executive orders to layoff workers or trim back the state.

But still, let us assume principle and personal conviction that the governor honestly believes the federal law is an impermissible intrusion. The parallel I see here is back to when NY Governor Mario Cuomo, a Roman Catholic, gave a 1984 speech at Notre Dame, seeking to explain how he reconciled his faith with his duties as governor. As a Catholic he noted a Church opposed to abortion, but as governor he had to recognize that not everyone held the same views as him on this issue. He eventually sought to reconcile faith and office by arguing that he had to represent the diversity of views in NY and serve the people first.

There is a parallel here with Pawlenty. He may have personal convictions about the federal law, but his first duty is to the people of the state of Minnesota. He is governor first, presidential candidate and person of personal conviction second. He needs to first honor his commitments to the state, doing what is best for it. Given the health care needs of the state, its budget woes, and other concerns, his personal convictions and public ambitions should take a backseat.

If the issue is taking the money conflicts with his presidential bid, then Pawlenty has a conflict of interest between his official duties to the state and his personal interests. If the issue is one of personal conviction, then he is letting his own personal views dictate public policy and what may be in the best interests of the state. Third, look at the grant that he forbid his health commissioner from pursuing–one to address teen pregnancy. Would not one have thought that an anti-abortion politician would want to acquire funds for this purpose? This makes about as much sense as making Bristol Palin the poster child against teen pregnancy!

Three Ring Politics

Three Ring Circus was a classic ABC School House Rock video that first aired in 1979 and it described the three branches of the national government. With the end of the Minnesota legislative session and Pawlenty’s new appointments to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Three Ring Circus is a good title for commenting on state of Minnesota politics today.

The Final Budget Deal

It stunk and they lied! That is the long and the short of it. The budget deal did just about everything wrong that could be done. First, think about Galen Robinson and those who challenged the governor’s power to unallot. They won in the courts (along with a amicus brief from the DFL House) and then the DFL essentially ratified the governor’s unallotment. I do not know if the parties to the Supreme Court case got their nutrition funds cut by this vote but the governor lost legally but won politically. Last Friday on Almanac Representative Kohls debated Representative Winkler (a former student of mine) and the former made a good point in declaring that while the DFL contended that the governor illegally unallotted, they had no game plan if they won. He was correct.

Smart budgeting and planning suggested that from the time the Governor lost in Ramsey County Court both Pawlenty and the DFL should have planned for the possibility that the Supreme Court would rule against the governor and they would have to deal with an extra $3 billion short fall. I can see the governor being in denial (as he has been for years on many issues) but the DFL should have been prepared for this and they were not. Don’t wish for something, you might get it. They (the DFL) got the ruling but did they really want to win in court? I doubt it. A victory forced them to make tough choices and they took the path of least resistence...ratify the unallotment.

The second major problem with the budget deal was to defer $2 billion of K-12 spending into the future. Both Pawlenty and Kelliher then declared there were no cuts to education. Not true! Either the money will not be repaid or school districts will have to borrow short term or cut something while they wait for the money to arrive. K-12 was hurt bad.

The third problem was that deferring spending to the future only makes the future budget problems worse. For the next budget cycle we start with a structural deficit of $5-6 billion. This budget deal does nothing to make it any better.

In effect, what happened here was identical to what happened in 2002. Then gubernatorial candidates and then legislators Pawlenty and Roger Moe did not want to deal with the budget problems and just pushed them to past the election. We have been dealing with that mistake every since. Now Pawlenty wants to push the budget doomsday off to the next governor while he runs for president, and Kelliher and most of the legislature took the easy route to delay the day of reckoning until after the election. Everyone wanted to get out of town to run for office.

Federal Health Law and the Governor’s Race

The other dumb move, especially for the DFL, was to agree to a proposal allowing until January 15, 2011, for the governor to decide about shifting many individuals insured by the State to Medicaid. The financials to do this make sense and MN should have done this. But Tom Emmer and the GOP want to run against Obamacare and creeping socialized medicine in 2010. Pawlenty wants to run for president criticizing it, and Kelliher wants to say if elected she will opt in.

The reality is that this is a ugly year for Washington, D.C., and incumbents as the Tuesday primaries in KY and PA demonstrated. Even if the federal law is a good one (a big if) I think the GOP won on this issue in MN because they can make it the issue for November. It is a great wedge issue (creeping socialism, big government, taxes, state rights) they may help the Republicans.

I can see why Kelliher agreed to this. Neither her nor the DFL won anything else and this was a face saver. She can at least say she got a small potential victory. However, between the bad budget deal, ratifying the unallotment, and screwing K-12, it is hard to see how she or the legislature won this session. They also got a smaller than desired bonding bill. Overall, Pawlenty, despite losing big time in court, he comes out politically ahead.

The New Minnesota Supreme Court

Pawlenty has now packed the Minnesota Supreme Court with four solid conservatives. All four are bright and capable but Lori and Gildea and David Stras are clearly conservative and the governor has left a clear imprint on the ideological direction of the court. Expect to see more 4-3 votes on some issues such as criminal due process. Also expect to see the Supreme Court retreated from using our State Constitution as an independent tool to reach decisions that depart from federal precedent. Stras, in his unallotment brief, wanted to treat Minnesota’s Constitution no different from the federal when it came to separation of powers. Watch to see if he takes a similar lockstep approach with other issues.

I feel sorry for Gildea and Stras. Both are capable but tainted by the governor’s decision to appoint them in light of their role in the unallotment decision. It looks lack court packing and favoritism by the governor. He could not win legally so he decided to load the court and reward those who favored his position. Neither Gildea nor Stras have done anything wrong, it is Pawlenty who acted in a way they simply ignored the appearance of impropriety here.

Overall, is Minnesota better off politically by the events of the last week? I doubt it. It is a three ring circus.

I Told You So: The Unallotment Decision Was Predictable

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s unallotment decision was predictable. As I argued in a June 16, 2009 MinnPost op-ed, several constitutional and statutory arguments suggested that if Governor Pawlenty used unallotment to balance the budget as he promised, a court would find his action illegal.
The governor did what he promised and the Court found it illegal. In a 4-3 ruling, with Chief Justice Magnuson writing the majority opinion and casting the deciding vote, he crafted a classic opinion that actually is the model of judicial restraint. In reaching its decision, Magnuson noted that the Court could have ruled on either statutory or constitutional grounds but that since it could handle the matter by statute, it would not address the constitutional issues.
Then the court read the statute, sought its best to interpret it, found it vague, and then deferred to traditional rules of statutory interpretation to argue that it could not have been the intent of the legislature when it drafted the unallotment law to give the governor broad authority to use this power to balance the budget. A balanced budget instead was a prerequisite to using this power when there were unanticipated shortfalls. Those grounds did not exist here, the governor loses on statutory grounds. But both Justices Page and Paul Anderson in separate concurrences suggested that the governor might also have acted unconstitutionally and that the entire unallotment statute may be void.
But the unallotment decision is also narrow in the sense that it legally only affected the Minnesota Supplemental Aid–Special Diet Program; a mere few million out of the $2.7 billion unallotted. The decision does contain language suggesting all of the unallotment is void, but it technically will take additional lawsuits to overturn the governor’s actions.
Two questions remain: What's next given the opinion and who are the winners and losers as a result of the case?
What is next is that the governor and the legislature should consider the entire $2.7 billion unallotment illegal and assume that they need to fix it before session ends in few weeks. They should have planned for this decision but no one did. Now with just weeks to go there is no plan in place. Look to see either the legislature ratify the unallotment or suggest other cuts. They might try to raise taxes but there is no way the governor will support that. Unless the legislature backs down, look to see a suicide special session this year. The only thing that might change this is if the Republicans fear electoral reprisal from voters if they support cuts and they vote with Democrats out of raw political survival. The chances of this are slim.
Winners and losers? Of course the plaintiffs and Galen Robinson of Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance are the major winners. They get their money for the diet program. They also brought the case when the DFL chickened out last year and decided not to go to court. But if the legislature ratifies the unallotment, their actions may be for naught.
The second winner is Chief Justice Magnuson. A former law partner of the governor who appointed him to the bench, Magnuson has spent nearly his entire time fighting the governor’s budget cuts to the judiciary. Unlike the other three Pawlenty appointees to the Supreme Court who supported the governor (possibly with dreams of getting named chief justice), Magnuson’s announcement before the case that he was stepping down from the Court liberated him to follow what the law told him to do. The final decision was 4-3, with the Chief Justice casting the deciding vote (as I predicted it would be). His decision will be remembered as a courageous one, marked with independence and integrity.
Now the losers. Pawlenty of course lost legally and politically. His macho use of unallotment last year was a presidential campaign signal about how he would act decisively with Congress to balance the budget without taxes. Now that the action is illegal, it is harder to see this as helping his already moribund presidential momentum. But Pawlenty’s official statement reacting to the Court decision demonstrated a lack of grace. He condemned the decision and said he disagreed with the Court but would comply. He could not accept that he did anything wrong.
The second loser is Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and the DFL. She and they opted not to challenge the unallotment last year and now look foolish. Now with the Speaker the DFL convention-endorsed candidate for governor, she is faced with numerous problems. The last thing she wanted politically was for the Court to do what it did. Whatever she does with the budget she will get the blame. As Speaker she is the face of the legislature and will be tagged with the final results. The last two years the governor has outflanked her politically. It is unlikely before this decision Pawlenty and the Republicans were going to make life easy for her, now it will be even worse as they seek to embarrass and politically damage her.
The third loser is Tom Emmer, the Republican gubernatorial candidate. He filed a brief in this case supporting the governor that was effectively rejected, and if he is elected governor, he will have one less tool at his budget disposal.
Finally, other losers include law professors David Stras and Michael Paulsen of the University of Minnesota and St. Thomas law schools. They filed a brief in this case drawing upon federal constitutional principles to defend the governor. They might know the U.S. Constitution but they did not understand Minnesota constitutional law. Then there was Patrick Robben, the governor’s legal counsel. His performance at the oral arguments in the case was awful; answering questioning more supportive of the other side than of the governor. He did nothing to help his boss int this case.
But the biggest loser in all this are the citizens of Minnesota. The State’s budget is a mess due to the political ambitions of its elected officials.