Are there two Minnesotas?

Posted at 7:37 AM on November 6, 2006 by Bob Collins (17 Comments)

There hasn't been much analysis this campaign season about the suburbs -- inner or outer ring. MSM just doesn't cover the suburbs much for some reason.

But the latest polls have Keith Ellison comfortably the favorite in the 5th Congressional District and Michele Bachmann less so -- but still with a pretty gap -- in the 6th District.

They're adjoining districts, and yet there probably can't be two politicians more different.

Comments (17)

Are there two Minnesotas?

No. Sometimes things are difficult to compartmentalize, and we just have to accept that.

Posted by tom | November 6, 2006 8:23 AM

Keith Ellison and Michelle Bachmann represent the very worst of both extremes of the political spectrum.

Hatred and intolerance of others fuels both campaigns: for Bachmann, it's "the gays", and for Ellison, it's "the Jews." Hmm, weren't those two groups that the Nazis persecuted?

The only thing good about either of them winning is that we won't have to see either of them as much around here.

Posted by Joe | November 6, 2006 8:28 AM

You mention Michele Bachmann and I have a question. What is the link involving David Barton, a national right-wing writer who has endorsed Michele Bachmann, having ties of some kind to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO, formerly the church of disgraced national evangelical leader Ted Haggard.

After Haggard resigned as head of the 30-million-strong National Association of Evangelicals last week following allegations of a three-year sexual relationship with a male prostitute and that he had trafficed in methamphetamine Barton went to the church as a speaker.

Barton spoke on behalf of Bachmann at the Bridgeview Assembly of God Church in Big Lake, MN, a few months ago in April. Bachmann touts a Barton endorsement on her campaign website.

So what is going on? Do you see this as news that voters in the Sixth District should know about? If not, why not? It looks like news to me.

Bachmann has called Barton "a fantastic and insightful writer." I do not know what he's written, but some blog readers might, and it probably reflects on theocratic tendencies that Bachmann has displayed.

My understanding is that Bachmann, Haggard, and Barton are all graduates of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahome; so there's some link. Do the Polinaut readers know any detail? Or blog guru, what's your understanding about all this?

Posted by eric zaetsch | November 6, 2006 8:35 AM

I'm missing the point of your question. Has Barton done something wrong other than having ties to a church led by Haggard?

Has *he* committed "sins" or does he just have "ties of some kind" and this is a "guilt by association" thing? Not that political folks would ever do that sort of thing late in a campaign?

What exactly do you think is the news story here?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 6, 2006 9:03 AM

I think it is highly inaccurate and very misleading to suggest that Keith Ellison hates "the Jews" as Joe says. Yes, he is Muslim. Yes he is African-American. Historically, these groups have not had the best of relationships with the Jewish community. This is strange and unfortunate. (Especially when you consider how the Jewish community played such a vital role in the Freedom Rides and the Civil Rights marches of the 60's.) Nevertheless, it is absolutely unfair to suggest that Keith shares these feelings. As Nick Coleman says, his one and only bad is unpaid parking tickets. That's it!

Posted by Katie | November 6, 2006 9:06 AM

I was curious, as well, about Joe's comparison between Michele Bachmann, who says being gay is "part of Satan," and Keith Ellison, who, so far as I have ever heard, has never uttered such trash talk.

Also, can you direct me to legislation that Ellison has authored and pushed that would deny Jews certain rights available to non-Jews, as Bachmann has done with gays?

Also, please send along links that demonstrate Ellison's "hatred and intolerance" of Jews. I'd be happy to send you a CD recording of Bachmann describing gays as being "part of Satan," among other hateful things.

Posted by Karl | November 6, 2006 10:01 AM

My point is clear. All these people are theocrats, all have an Oral Roberts tie, and they all are pushing an agenda. They have the theocrat agenda, and engage in saying others have an agenda as if they did not.

By the way, a local from Eden Prarie has been named to head that evangelical gestalt that the one hypocrite resigned from.

Bachmann has ties to th LaHayes, Barton, people wanting to sever all government ties to education - putting an end to public education, and she gets coverage for saying she wants to cut taxes. Rapturists and CWFA, and what they stand for.

Yet, no feet to the fire from the press.

The point is clear IF you want to see it. Bachmann's gotten a free pass. The press does not want to face the theocrat agenda a fraction of the population holds and is quite loyal to, and does not want to analyze or comment upon it and where it may lead.

Ducking the issue, big time, despite a clear theocrat running for Congress - with all the baggage it entails.

The point is clear.

Posted by Eric Zaetsch | November 6, 2006 10:12 AM

There aren't two Minnesotas. Bachmann wouldn't be running ahead--even slightly--if MPR and the daily papers had been doing competent political coverage throughout her career. If they'd been reporting all the incidents of her hate peddling rhetoric, her bizarre conspiracy theories, and the fact that she's always been the stealth candidate of a powerful out-of-state pseudo-Christian political movement, she never could have gotten this far in Minnesota.

The reason she is likely to win is that the MPR and the newspapers have actually helped her with her strategy--helped her to conceal her extremism by failing to report it. The number of voters in the 6th who know exactly what Bachmann is, is probably comparatively small. I'm not going to blame the rest of the voters in the 6th because the professional journalists behaved like cowards and fools.

On what would happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment failed to pass in 2004: “...because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 6, 2006 10:26 AM

Yes, that seems to be the "spin."

If true, Bachmann will be a one-term congresswoman should she be elected.

Check back in two years.

//who know exactly what Bachmann is, is probably comparatively small.

Warning, Will Robinson. Shouldn't you find out if this is true before basing a conclusion on it?

The redistricted 6th favors Bachmann; everybody has known that since redistricting chased Bill Luther out of the 6th and into the 2nd. He knew he couldn't win and he wasn't just afraid of stupid voters.

For some reason, the Dump Bachmann crowd doesn't seem interested in the POSSIBILITY that the voters who vote for Bachmann DO know what they're getting and, in fact, identify with Bachmann.

Do I know that to be the case? Nope. Do I think it's a possibility? Yes.

For a group that has worked so tirelessly to dig up everything you can on Bachmann -- all the way down to she knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who .... -- where is the research on the 6th District to support your contention?

http://visittheanalyst.blogspot.com/2006/03/can-democrat-win-in-6th-cd.html

Posted by Bob Collins | November 6, 2006 12:52 PM

I don't live in the 6th, so I don't know all the facts for sure. It does seem to me that Bachmann is increadibly far to the right. Obviously some voters must have identified with her. On the other hand, I think she has definately tried to make herself seem much more moderate.
Why is she leading in the polls then? I think that Wetterling hasn't run a very good compaign... just like 2 years ago. She talks about taxes and runs attack ads. Why hasn't she just talked about all the work she's done getting laws passed that protect children? That's something I think the voters of the 6th could identify with, and probably would make the polls look a little differently.

Posted by Jimmy Z | November 6, 2006 2:09 PM

Bob--

I checked out the link that you directed us to--the one that shows the voting breakdown for the 6th District. The data there would seem to refute the point you're kinda/sorta trying to make, which is:

"For some reason, the Dump Bachmann crowd doesn't seem interested in the POSSIBILITY that the voters who vote for Bachmann DO know what they're getting and, in fact, identify with Bachmann.

Do I know that to be the case? Nope. Do I think it's a possibility? Yes."

The info you directed us to shows that Wetteling is doing best in the areas where Bachmann is BEST known--the district she currently represents in the State Senate, Stillwater, and nearby Woodbury. If I'm reading the numbers correctly, they show that the voters who are best acquainted with Bachmann's record and rhetoric (through letters to editor and columns that cover her in small local newspapers) are the very voters who are rejecting her.

Bachmann is doing well in districts where they don't know much about her; in districts where her campaign has been able to "control the message"--with the witless help of the large dailies and broadcast media, who showed no interest in exposing her documented lies, hate rhetoric, paranoid conspiracy theories. Thus, the point I've been making all along remains intact: big players in local media bear a heavy burden of the responsibility if this nut is elected.

What about the other possibility you raise--the possibility that she will win *because* a lot of the voters in the 6th *agree* with the crazy stuff that Bachmann spouts? There are certainly a lot of voters who buy into that--you should have heard some of the calls in support of Bachmann after I spoke about those views on "Garage Logic." People were chiming in about how we're living in the end times, how there's a move to get a global religion and government into place. I'll bet even Soucheray was creeped out, a bit.

The question is: are there enough people like that--people who share B's crazy worldview--to put her into Congress, all by themselves? My answer would be no, because I have faith in democracy--I think that if the majority of Minnesotan voters are acquainted with facts and must conclude from the facts that a candidate is an extremist loon, that will doom the extremist loons candidacy.

I firmly believe that if the major players in Minnesota media had just done their jobs--exposing her bigotry and looney statements-- that would have doomed her candidacy. The loony voters in the district, by themselves, would not have been enough to put her over. To get elected, she had to pose as a mainstream GOP conservative in the tradition of Reagan. She's not, but she adopted that pose, and the big local media never exposed her for what she is.

And I'll tell you who agrees with me, about "How she'd never be able to win the 6th, if more people had been told about her extreme, crazy views"--Michele Bachmann, her GOP backers, and the evangelical political movement--they all agree with me on that. Pre-election, she ran like hell from the extremist rhetoric she'd practiced for years in front of Bachmann-friendly audiences. We must assume that the reason she did that is that she believes--like me--that there *aren't* enough extremist votes in the Sixth District to put her over--if the media had done their jobs and reported her crazy, extremist views.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 6, 2006 3:15 PM

//What about the other possibility you raise--the possibility that she will win *because* a lot of the voters in the 6th *agree* with the crazy stuff that Bachmann spouts

You know, when you change facts, it makes me wonder about the rest of your treatises. I never made any such point that people agree with the crazy stuff Bachmann spouts.

What I said was is it possible that the voters AGREE with Bachmann?

In fact, you use the word "crazy" multiple times.

It does answer my question, though. You thinkt he answer is no. So you've reached a conclusion by virtue of eliminating other possibilities. Not because they were well researched possibilities, but because you don't think it could possibly be the case.

//And I'll tell you who agrees with me, about "How she'd never be able to win the 6th, if more people had been told about her extreme, crazy views"--Michele Bachmann, her GOP backers, and the evangelical political movement--they all agree with me on that

because?

//firmly believe that if the major players in Minnesota media had just done their jobs--exposing her bigotry and looney statements-- that would have doomed her candidacy.

Of course you believe that. Do you think we don't GET that you believe that? But that only means you believe that. You think we should accept that as fact because you refuse to see any other possibility.

Crazy...witless...loons.

Do you folks realize how YOU sound at this stage of the campaign? You're waging a "the end is near" campaign (which you certainly have a right to do ) against a candidate whom you seem to suggest agrees with you.

Do the research, show me the proof...that the people who vote for Bachmann do so , not because they agree with her, but because they don't know any better.

If you're right. She'll be a one-termer. If you're wrong,she'll settle in for a long stay if elected.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 6, 2006 3:26 PM

As a member of the State House, Keith was proud to stand with Representative Frank Hornstein and others to oppose anti-Semitic statements and to forthrightly challenge then Representative Lindner's denial that gay and lesbian people were victimized during the Holocaust.

Posted by eb | November 6, 2006 3:32 PM

I must admit--I don't get your point, Bob.

"Do the research, show me the proof...that the people who vote for Bachmann do so , not because they agree with her, but because they don't know any better."

You did the research *for* me today, Bob. I just pointed out to you that the link *you* directed me too, shows that Bachmann's support is weakest in her home district--the area that knows her best, the voters who are most familiar with her voting record and her "loony"--and yes, it is "loony"--hate mongering and pseudo-Christian bigotry.

Bachmann is strongest where the small town papers HAVEN'T been covering her crazy statements--"about how evolution has never been proven, etc. etc. etc. for six years. They don't know her craziness in the northern part of the district, so she's doing better there. She's doing rotten in her home district, where they know her. I just called this to your attention, but it seems to have gotten by you.

So that's the argument, that's the fact as borne out by the data that *you* directed me to. I fail to see, why you fail to see...

And I'm surprised that you have so little faith in democracy. My basic premise is, that if the media report the facts indicating that a candidate is a liar and loon, the people won't elect that candidate to public office. The fact is that the major local media didn't report the facts about Bachmann's craziest statements. That fact is now a part of the history of this campaign.

And she is a loon, and a nut, and a liar. We have film and sound recordings of her being a loon and a nut and a liar. It is not just my opinion--she holds and states political views that are "lunatic"--"paranoid"--"hateful."

When I call your attention to that fact--I give you quotes from Bachmann, etc.--you ignore it. For whatever reason. It's not a matter of my opinion, or trusting my judgment--if you want to refute me, you have to tell me that a statement like this is a sane, defensible point of view:

On education reforms laws passed by the GOP-controlled US Congress: “Federal law forms a new governance structure that opposes both free enterprise and representative government…A new national curriculum is used that embraces a socialist, globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America.”. — Michael J. Chapman and Senator Michele Bachmann, “How New U.S. Policy Embraces a State-Planned Economy” © 2001.

What do you make of the sanity of an elected official who make such a charge--against a Republican administration? She's telling folks that a bunch of education laws passed by her fellow Republicans have created a new American government that opposes free enterprise and representative government? That's not nuts?

How about the people the statement is directed to, people who believe that charge? What is their mental state like, if they would believe that about George W. Bush and the GOP Congress.

So I won't apologize to anyone for calling them a "loon" or a "nut", if they go around saying loony things, paranoid things. I don't care how it "makes me sound;" it's the truth--the people who spout and believe this, and dozens of other crazy theories and lies spouted by Bachmann, are "NUTS." Here I stand, that is the truth, all I can do is report it.

It was your job, and the job of the professional media, to report that a candidate for high office held crazy views like that. She's a dangerous candidate, and you guys have--unwittingly or negligently--been helping her to attain high office by remaining silent.

And she won't necessarily be a one-termer, if I'm right. She's got powerful out of state backing, and if the media continues to give her a free pass every time she says something crazy or plainly untrue, she's going to do just fine in future elections. The Senate or the Governor's mansion are not out of reach, in the next ten years, if you guys keep doing the kind of job of reporting you've done so far. And--worst of all--if she wins, she will inspire imitators who will run for office by appealing to the same crazy, paranoid "base", in the name of Jesus.

Whether you understand it or not, whether you admit it or not--you guys have been mid-wifing the birth of something truly awful in Minnesota politics.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 6, 2006 4:29 PM

Bill, I was rather hoping you'd use the link to start your research on the 6th and what people do or do not want.

Just explain to me how you think you're in touch with the voters, because as near as I can tell, your screeds seem to boil down to "I don't agree with her."

Well, that and a basic assumption that the voters aren't as "smart" as you are.

I think they are.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 6, 2006 4:38 PM

First of all--I don't think that other voters are not as "smart" as I am; I don't know where you got that idea. You're wrong to attribute that view to me. I'm the person in this dialogue that thinks the great majority voters *are* smart enough to end her political career, if only you guys in the media had done fair and accurate reporting on her hate rhetoric and extremist statements. I believe that the voters would reject her if they were informed, as the voters in her home district are rejecting her now; that's why I've been begging you guys to address her hate rhetoric and crazy conspiracy worldview. If she wins, it will be because the media has allowed her to mislead the voters as to her agenda and worldview.

If all I read was the big dailies and all I listened to was the broadcast media, I'd probably have the impression that most of the GOP voters in the 6th district have--that she's a mainstream Ronald Reagan conservative. She's *not*, she's an extremist with a conspiracy oriented worldview who lies, who been caught telling lies, hateful lies.

And you know that, Bob, you know she's not what she pretends to be during this campaign--you've read the stuff I've sent in here, and you probably know there's lots more documented stuff at the Bachmann Record web page I've run. You may remember when Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy was consigned to the garbage bin of history after the media reported and broadcast his extremist views: "Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice," proposing to use nuclear weapons to defoliate the jungles of Viet Nam. Bachmann's said many, many more things that are crazier than anything Goldwater said in '64.

But--for whatever reason--MPR thinks it's not newsworthy that there's an extremist candidate posing as a Ronald Reagan Republican in the race for the 6th District.

So it's not a matter of being "smarter than", it's matter of what voters know about this candidate. The fact that a lot of the voters don't know, is to a large degree, the fault the big local media. As the data you referred me to shows--when most people learn what Bachmann is really all about, most people turn their backs on her. They have the "smarts"; what they lack is the facts, because you guys have been spiking them.

And your second take on my thinking is wrong, too. It's not just that "I don't agree with her." I disagree with Steve Sviggum and Tim Pawlenty and David Strom of the Taxpayer's League, but I don't identify them as "dangerous nuts" simply because I disagree with them. I chose those words carefully to describe Bachmann--because we can prove the charge; it's her own words that condemn her.

You had those facts, too, but you ignored them--you seem to think that this is a problem that exists almost entirely in my head. When I call your attention to the facts indicating that she's a nut and a liar--you simply ignore them, and proceed to talk about what you think of my personality.

I give you reasons why I've concluded she's a nut--without even challenging them or discussing them, you dismiss them as a "screed."

And where did I ever claim that I'm "in touch with the voters"? I'm not here or on the web to "get in touch with them" or reflect their views, I'm not a member of any political party--the only reason I ever came here was to try to get out the truth about Bachmann.

Because you guys never did.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 6, 2006 6:17 PM

Bob, it's a little late now, but a great analytical story in the 6th CD would have been to prove or disprove Bill's theory (and mine): that the voters most familiar with Bachmann's extremism--those of us who have been "represented" by her for the past six years--hold her in the lowest esteem. Interviews with voters from Stillwater and St. Cloud could have given a good indication as to whether this was a factor or not. Both cities are equally Republican, but one knows Bachmann and the other doesn't.

The precinct-by-precinct vote totals will tell the story after tomorrow. Unfortunately, that will be a little late.

Just a thought...

Posted by Karl | November 6, 2006 6:41 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories