32 thoughts on “Can Margaret Kelliher Bitch-Slap the Teabaggers?

  1. I’m with you, Brian. Although I think it’s not about slamming people — not necessarily beating on Emmer or Siefert, but just calling out what shape this state is in and saying ENOUGH!

    Our schools are faltering, our roads are shattered, our cities and towns are cutting cops, libraries, parks, services — Minnesota is turning into Mississippi and WE’VE HAD ENOUGH!

    She needs to show some passion. Policy won’t do it.

  2. My dear fellow:

    Several local radio stations will gorge once the “best rate” at the TV’s has been limited out.

    You may even see some trickle-down, in that 7p-9p slot at WFMP (W-Frump?).

    (back from wintering in Gstaad).

    1. No one should lobby harder to maintain the status quo in campaign finance than local TV stations. Once past that “best rate” phase (which is pretty much all you ever hear about from the sales departments), the truckloads of unsolicited cash dropped on our (free) license holding broadcasters is the stuff that keeps key managers in their Cabo condos.

  3. 108 says:

    I kind of like her (but won’t vote for her in the general) – in the same way I liked Becky Lourey – but I don’t think she’s got enough ‘feisty (old) broad’ in her to make for a very interesting race.

    She should be able to carry the day and be the general election candidate. If she isn’t, it would be a pathetic example of patheticism for the DFL.

    Are you the only liberal…….?

    Appears so right now. Good for you, showing some balls. You know what Entenza and Dayton are? Atavistic, to use a word. And they’re really creepy.

  4. Momkat says:

    I would have liked RT too but Margaret will do just fine–she came across as an intelligent and competent speaker. I think women will go for her–I am.

    I see B Jr. tracked you down–he must be a fan.

  5. apple guy says:

    Ms. Kelliher is intelligent and competent and probably would be a fine governor.
    R.T. is intelligent and competent, and has the proven executive chops to make a terrific governor. And has the kind of campaign energy that might actually have gotten him elected.
    This is why I’m a reluctant Democrat… the party insiders are just so damn stupid sometimes!

  6. Joe Loveland says:

    I know the headline language is meant to spark conversation, but I don’t think the question the headline poses is the most relevant question Kelliher faces. The most relevant question is more bland: “Can Margaret Kelliher Persuade Swing Voters To Steer Minnesota In A Center Left Direction? (Swing voters = soft Dems, soft GOPs and open-to-Dem Independents)”

    I don’t think Kelliher will be able to win over the swing voters if she spends the campaign screeching at the Tea Partiers. Of course, she needs to be more interesting than Wynia and Coakley, but firebrand isn’t the only successful model, and it won’t work if she tries to impersonate something she’s not. Folks like Sebelius, Gregoire, Napolitano and others have won over swing voters without having to remake themselves into a fiery Rachel Maddow type.

  7. I think Brian is right, particularly given a three-way race (assuming you take Horner seriously). In that scenario you need to give people a reason to vote for you, not just be the sensible candidate.

    1. PM says:

      Agreed. She needs to be able to convince people that she can make the state work again, that with smart leadership she can fix the budget problems, educate the kids, keep us safe, stop bridges from falling, and restore some of the quality of life that makes -30 degrees in the winter worth it, all without punitive taxes (so that we can have good jobs and be able to look forward to a better future).

      Although it might not hurt to make the other side look like a bunch of crazies from time to time.

  8. Newt says:

    Looks the Lori Sturdevant Pro-Vagina Wing of the DFL is out in force today.

    I think the DFL has serious problems. Brian touched on most of them.

    I predict that the Minnesota electorate will be looking for the candidate that appears most adult-like. And I don’t see that coming from Keliher.

    She plays way too heavy on the victim card. Everyone is tired of the special-interests arms race for biggest loser: Teachers, bureaucrats, cops, MnDOT, DNR, latinos, GLBT, county commissioners, team owners, Big Labor, abortionists, the disproportionately underrepresented blah blahs, and on and on….

    Minnesotans are looking for a daddy figure to crack the whip and make some huge spending cut decisions. DFLers aren’t seen by voters as grown ups who make hard choices.

    That’s why we’ve seen 24 consecutive years of GOP governors.

    1. 108 says:

      I dunno, we probably part ways there. I’m quite pro-vagina myself. I operated something of an outreach program in my single days, focusing flax blonde coeds from greater Minnesota and Iowa…

  9. //Minnesotans are looking for a daddy figure to crack the whip and make some huge spending cut decisions.

    “Minnesotans” ?? Or A Minnesotan named “Newt”?? “daddy figure” ??

  10. Uh, it would seem that the Rob Levine / “Minnesotan” archetypes prefer the dull bland mommy figure – a la Klobey, McCollum.

    But dang, they get so darn shook up when mommy talks straight and tough, like Michelle Bachmann.

    1. PM says:

      Aren’t you worried, longer term, that this type of immigration issue will backfire on republicans? Doesn’t this drive hispanic Americans into the arms of the democrats in droves? they are the fastest growing ethnic group in the US,. by a large margin…..

  11. Newt says:

    60% of American Hispanics in AZ – legal US residents – favor the new law.

    What’s amusing about the faux outcry is that the new law only provides for AZ’s enforcement of the existing federal immigration law.

    So there’s nothing new, other than the enforcement mechanism.

    1. Mike Kennedy says:

      An Arizona deputy has been shot by a suspected illegal.

      The debate in Arizona is about to end. The national debate on illegal immigration is going to take a severe turn in favor of stricter laws like Arizona.

      1. PM says:


        suspected drug dealer. could be illegal, but drug dealer is the important issue here.

      2. Mike Kennedy says:

        Nah, if he is illegal, it will set off a storm of protests in favor of the AZ law and bolster the support from AZ citizens who already favor it. My liberal parents live there. They voted for Obama and never for a Republican. They vehemently oppose Obama on this issue. They’re not alone.

    2. PM says:

      Apparently, Republican Latinos in AZ and across the US are sufficiently upset with the AZ law that they are considering leaving the Republican Party–this from the Wall Street journal, today (5/3/10). I think that this legislation was not good long term politics for the GOP.

      Conservative Latinos Rethink Party Ties

      Adam Bustos, a third-generation Mexican-American, has voted Republican since Ronald Reagan ran for president. But he has been reconsidering his party affiliation since Arizona State Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation’s toughest immigration law last month.

      “I’ve been thinking I might leave the party,” said Mr. Bustos, a 58-year-old Arizona native. “A lot of my Latino Republican friends have been talking about it after this law.”

      The new Arizona law requires police to question people whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally. Supporters say the law is necessary to combat rampant illegal border crossings. Opponents say it can’t be enforced without violating civil liberties.

      Many Hispanic-Americans say they feel stung by a law they allege invites racial profiling, incites hatred and discriminates against all Latinos.

      The law in Arizona was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a GOP governor. Republican lawmakers in Texas, Utah and several other states have said they would consider introducing laws similar to the one passed in Arizona.

      Conservative Hispanic voters, in particular, say they feel betrayed by Republican Party leaders who have supported the law.

      About 30% of Arizona’s population is Hispanic, the fourth-highest proportion nationally, behind New Mexico, California and Texas. Latinos account for 17% of the state’s eligible voters, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They represent a small percentage of registered Republicans in Arizona.

      Anger over the Arizona law has emerged in such states as Nevada, home to a swelling population of Latino voters, as well as in Texas, which has a well-established and sizeable Latino Republican constituency.

      “When the Arizona law was passed, it quickly became the single most important issue to all Latinos in Arizona and nationwide,” said Matt Barreto, a political science professor at the University of Washington who studies Latino voting patterns.

      “Either party that pushes the issue too hard risks moving centrist voters in the other direction,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist and director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

      Massey Villarreal, a Houston businessman and past national chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, an independent group with chapters nationwide, said, “It’s insulting to have Republican leaders across the country applauding this racist law. I’m sure this is going to hurt the Republican Party.”

      Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group in the U.S. After spending the first part of this decade loosening their historical ties to the Democratic Party, Latinos have been returning to the Democratic fold over such issues as the economy and immigration.

      President George W. Bush clinched 40% of the Latino vote in 2004 with a message that struck a chord with a group that is generally family-oriented, religious and socially conservative. In 2008, President Barack Obama won two-thirds of the constituency’s vote in an election that confirmed Latinos’ emerging political clout.

      Some Democrats in Congress have tried to cement that support by pushing for legislation that would overhaul immigration policy and create a path to citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

      But Latino conservative voters are split over the idea of offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.

      Rodolfo de la Garza, a political scientist at Columbia University, said Republicans with an eye on midterm elections have overlooked the long-term negative impact of supporting an immigration law “that paints all Latinos with the same brush.” He cautions that the Republican Party may feel the effect of these decisions at the polls for years to come, as was the case in California after that state attempted to enact a similar law in 1994.

      But even some of the most conservative Latinos were jolted by the Arizona law. Deedee Blase, a Mexican-American resident of Phoenix who served in the Air Force, said she favored tighter border security and a conservative political and economic agenda. “Now I feel like we are living in the 1960s, and Arizona is the new Alabama,” she said.

      Ms. Blase last year helped found a group called “Somos Republicans,” which translates to “We Are Republicans.” The goal was to raise support for Republicans among fellow Hispanic voters. In a letter urging Gov. Brewer not to sign the bill into law, the group described it as “a direct slap in the face to Hispanic-Americans.”

      Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com

      1. “I think that this legislation was not good long term politics for the GOP.” I’m not saying you’re wrong, but can we agree that this is a no-good standard for governance?

        As long as you’re bringing that up in the context of dissecting the whole “inside baseball” game of it all (and I suspect you are), that’s fine. But if you’re suggesting that’s a metric — even one of many — by which legislative or executive actions should be judged, you’ve lost me.

      2. PM says:

        Think of it this way–in the longer term, the political benefits of an action as well as the economic and social benefits of the same action should all be the same.

        In the long term (the context i specifically used), the public will come to see the costs and benefits of an action pretty clearly (most people in the US now think that the immigration of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was beneficial to the US). I think that, in the longer term, the difference between what is politically expedient and what is good from a governance perspective disappears.

  12. Say what you will about Mark Dayton – he’s the one guy standing up for public school teachers and unions – against just about everyone else – including his Democratic colleagues. Sayeth Dayton: Tim Pawlenty is “”prejudiced against the public schools”.”

    I personally would rather have a millionaire governor who takes the right positions than one who is afraid of straight talk.

  13. PM says:

    Does anyone else here find it at all ironic that the republican candidate for Governor is–wait for it–a TRIAL LAWYER?

    After listening to republicans, for years, talk about trial lawyers as the source of everything that is bad in the world (well, almost everything), i find it somewhat entertaining to see a trial lawyer as their “great hope”.

Comments are closed.