Minnesota's been ground zero this cycle for millions of dollars in attacks on pro-middle class candidates. Senate candidate Al Franken's been attacked by multiple outside groups, as have Elwyn Tinklenberg (MN-06) and Ashwin Madia (MN-03). Those candidates have stood up for their support of America's working families and by their endorsement of the Employee Free Choice Act, much to their credit.
But today we learn of a new low in the Minnesota election attacks on pro-middle class candidates. The difference here: it's a viscious, unfounded, stereotypical attack paid for by a Congressional candidate's campaign - the first of its kind on this issue nationwide.
MN-04 Republican candidate Ed Matthews sent the above mailer to homes in the district.
I have been watching this Bush Dog campaign with both a sense of amusement and some fear. I happen to be one who takes a generally anti-primary attitude believing that except in extreme cases running a primary against a sitting member of Congress is simply bad for any host of reasons. I am going to however take the leap with you and say Bush Dogs are generally very bad and a lot need to go. Lets go further and let's say that just as there are Democrats and Republicans, there are also Progressives and Conservatives. We at Openleft chose to ignore the party distinction and focus simply on the distinction between Progressive and Conservatives. We also assume that The Bush Dogs are all Conservatives. So Conservatives hold 241 seats to Progressives 194. Therefore for Progressive to have a majority in Congress, Progressive needs to pick up 24 seats. This is obviously very simplified but lets start here. You are the Progressive Strategist, where would you put your resources? Here is the list of seats.
There is a clear disconnect between how we in the blogosphere view the most recent FISA vote and how the people who voted against us on this issue view it. I think that the completely over the top rhetoric, by inherently implying that those who didn't vote our way are pro-police state. http://www.openleft.... is not helpful. I think is time to explore the potential thinking of one Member of Congress whose vote might be surprising and should be instructive of how this debate is not merely the simple back and forth of self-outs and is in many ways a cultural vote and one that is very important to understand.
By all accounts, Tim Walz is a good guy. He was a solider for his country and a public school teacher. In fact the story of how he got into his race, that his students were banned from a Bush rally shows he is not an administration toady, nor do I think he chose to uproot his life, only come to Washington and be afraid of his shadow. Nor is his district a Republican stronghold, George Bush only cared it by about 10,000 votes. So why did Tim Walz vote the wrong way. It is actually a simple equation, my security > than their liberties. It is that which can easily explain why this vote was cast. Just think about it from a different perspective. Activists such as ourselves care a greatly deal about civil liberties because we see such liberties as essential to what we do. When they are put at risk, we see it as ourselves being at risk. This view however is simply not one that the average American holds. For the people in Tim Walz district, freedoms are those things they can see and do. Can they still go to the movies? Can they see their friends? In short does their life change? A bill that shreds the constitution, as some called this bill, which will mostly likely have no effect on them, or quite likely anyone they know, is not likely to elicit much consternation. When the threat of government overreach is counterweighted against the risk of a fiery death at the hands of terrorists, the side they come down is not surprising. American's have generally a relatively uncritical look at both the police and the military, the two institutions they are most likely to see as fighting terrorism. This is particular true of White Christian Americans, and in a district like Tim Walz's that means roughly all the voters. It is culturally telling that on many such "bad" votes, New Dems who are Jewish are often those who end up not voting the correct way, However in this case not a single Jewish Democrat in the House voted for this bill. I believe this because Jews culturally fear state power because of historical and cultural traditions. Likewise, only one African American voted for this bill again, because of the same type historical-cultural fear of state action. But for most Americans and certainly most swing-district [ read white Christian] voters the fear of getting killed by a terrorist is far greater than the fear of them or someone they know or love being thrown in jail or having their lives otherwise negatively effected, by an overzealous Government. It is for that reason and reason alone that the civil libertarians lost. It does not give me pause in supporting Tim Walz in the future. It is exceptionally important to sometimes see outside of your own activists frames. Without doing that it impossible to win the people where they are, not just where you would like them to be.
STATE BLOGS
