Category: 2012 Election

When you’re a candidate running against an incumbent, there are usually qualities that people want to see in you – like the ability to identify and properly handle problems in a calm and reasonable manner. Because, let’s face it, if you’re elected, you’re going to be helping constituents with a lot of red tape and general bureaucratic messes. It would seem that Mike Starr, running for election to Minnesota’s 31st Senate seat, might not be the most qualified for handling problems in a calm and reasonable manner.

This is his very public response to getting a bad grade from NRA on his questionnaire:

It seems he has since tried to send the tweet down the memory hole, so I guess he learned that acceptable political rhetoric from a candidate rarely involves demands to “kiss [one’s] ass” directed at a major interest group for a key demographic.

Now, I’ve been involved with a campaign whose opponent was unfairly given an inflated grade and ignored in the endorsement process when it was a clear choice for gun owners in a winnable seat. You know how they handled it? Ask around and contacted NRA about the grades. Guess how NRA handled it? They reconsidered the race, acknowledged the need to revise the grade, and sent out postcards noting the correction. Don’t get me wrong, the internal folks were initially very upset with the situation. But, they didn’t react by cursing at NRA publicly.

On Starr’s website, he indicates he has previous grades of A & B from NRA. I went searching and found that he has run for office before, and his grade was already on the decline due to his answers on his questionnaires. More importantly, his grades were from years ago, not the most recent election cycle. The issue has fundamentally changed since he first answered a questionnaire. Heller, McDonald, the expiration of a federal gun ban – all monumental game changers that happened since he first answered NRA and his grade has fallen since those things started happening.

Now, I’m not arguing that NRA got it 100% right in this case because, clearly, I haven’t seen his responses. On the other hand, I can say that this type of outburst on behalf of his campaign account doesn’t exactly bode well for any gun owners who might want to talk to him about concerns about his positions. It looks like he would just tell them all to “kiss [his] ass” and walk away.

UPDATE: To Starr’s credit, his demand for gun owners to kiss his ass still stands. Twitter was just acting up and telling me the tweet was no longer there when I gathered the information for this post. Here’s the Twitter embed version:

@nrapvf As a 25 yr mil service member a gun owner, a coach for the HS Trap Tm spt C&C spt 2nd Amendment to get an “F” you can “KISS MY ASS”

— Mike Starr (@StarrforSenate) October 5, 2012

Bitter has a summary of the down ticket races to watch in Pennsylvania in regards to gun rights. Despite turning a number of the Philadelphia suburban ring county districts back to red in the 2010 election, I’m still very concerned about how long term trends look for the GOP. Gerlach has always been in tight races. It’s one of those things that just feels like it’s a matter of time. I am quite pleased that Kathy Boockvar, the Democratic Challenger of Mike Fitzpatrick, scored an A on her NRA questionnaire. While Fitzpatrick will undoubtedly carry an endorsement per NRA’s incumbent friendly policy, it is a sign that perhaps the Democrats don’t think running anti-gun candidates is a wise choice, even very close to Philadelphia. The worst thing that could happen to us would be for the Democratic Party in this area to become reflexively pro-gun-control. Not only does that run the risk that a good seat goes bad, it makes it easier for the Republicans to get away with just not being as bad as the other guy.

… I still think Romney owned that debate, and the Brady Campaign are still irrelevant.

TechCrunch has a timeline of when they believe technology started to kill serious presidential debates. It’s worth your time to read because there are a lot of good one liners.

As someone who normally is wildly optimistic about the impact of technology on democracy, presidential debates are one area in which innovation has yielded nothing but mindless drivel to the presence of civil society.

Before any of you old timers start in with “in my day…” rants on how good it used to be, take a look at when they claim the decline in serious political debate at the national level began. It’s far earlier than any of you remember.

Sebastian has his liquor. I have my wine glass. We’re ready for tonight’s debate.

A bit of a back and forth between Profs. Reynolds and Althouse on Instapundit over the Daily Caller’s latest video, and her own blog, is interesting. It’s very rare that I find myself in disagreement with Glenn Reynolds on a topic, but in this case I have to agree with Ann Althouse. I think to any extent that conservatives drag racial issues into this election, it will benefit the Obama Campaign, even if objectively you might have a point. The reason is, because as Prof. Althouse puts it:

Politics, like any other human endeavor, entails human emotion, and unless you want to turn away from politics altogether, you have to play within reality that exists. The emotions around race are deep and complex. I recommend not toying with them. Move to something more optimistic and positive.

If there’s anything true about how we approach issues of race in this country, it is almost never with objectivity or rationality. It is a touchy subject, because there is a lot of awful history there we’re not that distant from. I get that a lot of people want to show that Obama isn’t the post-racial President he was sold to the public as, but playing the race card is playing with fire, and we’re best leaving that topic alone. There are plenty of criticisms of the President that don’t involve Rev. Wright or issues of race.

Mitt and Barry go at it starting at 9PM EDT. Will guns be brought up as a topic? What are your thoughts. I’d suggest that Obama and Romney both would likely prefer it not, but I think there’s a good chance it will. The Brady folks obviously thinks this too, or they wouldn’t be making such a big deal about it. One thing is for sure, if it is mentioned, expect Brady to spin it in some way as to play up their influence on the public debate.