Yesterday Eva posted an article from the St. Paul Legal Ledger.
I don't know the publication, but the article's important. For one thing, Bachmann is referred to by the reporter as an "ultraconservative"--not just as a "conservative."
I don't know if the journalist knows it, but since the early 1960s "ultraconservative" has been the polite, "journalese" euphemism for "reactionary, right wing nut." For example, in the early 1960s the American news media used the term "ultraconservative" to describe the John Birch Society-- which believes in the existence of a centuries-old anti-Christian Master Conspiracy undetected by historians and news media outside their movement.
Former Star Tribune political reporter Eric Black has claimed that he spotted Bachmann as "an ultraconservative" early on in her career. Unfortunately, Black made that claim fairly recently, long after Bachmann was elected to Congress. And unfortunately (if that is true that Black spotted her early on as an "ultraconservative") Black and the Strib took pains to keep that fact from the Strib readers. For years and over the objections of this blog, the Strib continued to portray Bachmann as a "conservative" in the tradition of Ronald Reagan.
That was the image that Bachmann wanted the public to have of her.
That's why a story like the St. Paul Ledger story is important. It suggests that the "conspiracy nut/extremist" view of Bachmann is "trickling down" through the Minnesota media. It suggests that it's now "okay" for non-blog print publications to report what we have reported along--the fact that she's off the political mainstream in terms of her extremist worldview; the fact that she's not "a Reagan conservative."
If Bachmann wants to go higher in politics--she *can't* be identified to the public as an "ultraconservative" (even though she certainly is one in fact--a true believer in apocalyptic conspiracy thinking.) Successful conservative Republicans are those *avoid* such tags, no matter what they believe privately.
Whether the reporter understands the significance of the term or not is irrelevant. As late as last year, such charges about Bachmann were not on record, in print, and could not be cited and quoted by other "serious news" media to describe Bachmann and her world view.
This year, things are different. If the St. Paul Legal Ledger is ever called out to justify their characterization of Bachmann (which is unlikely)--they can now cite other mainstream professional papers for support: the editorial by the St. Cloud Times denouncing Bachmann's extremism and the editorial in the Star Tribune about Bachmann's conspiracy thinking.
And it's local media coverage like that, that can snowball into "dumping Bachmann."
That's the big picture, regarding local media and a possible change to election results. The other news here is the Tarryl Clark rumor, repeated again in the article.
It seems to me that Reed and Tinklenberg will run whatever the odds against them. They know that whether they win or lose, there will be big grassroots money coming in from out of state to defeat the "ultraconservative" Bachmann. And the ability to raise funds--whether you're going to win or lose--is very attractive to some politicians.
So the fact that Tinklenberg and Reed are in the race is not necessarily indicative of their belief that they can actually defeat Bachmann in this Republican gerrymandered district.
A reminder: the way the district is gerrymandered, any conservative Republican can win this district. The reason that Bachmann got the GOP nomination for Congress (instead of some other Republican conservative is:
Bachmann and the national and state theocratic organizations that guide and back her could destroy the candidacy of any other Republican candidate, if Republicans did not give *her* the nomination. She is quite literally able to terrorize the state GOP into submission by threatening withdrawal of evangelical voters from one of the few remaining GOP House seats.
So the odds favor a Republican conservative in this district, as currently constituted. Why would any Democrat want to dash his or her career and time and money in a vain effort to thwart voting arithmetic?
And that's why the Tarryl Clark thing is important to people trying to figure out what the odds of victory are, today. Clark is smart, telegenic and capable. She could raise money and win in any number of other races where local conditions favor Democrats. And she has no intentions of wasting her political advantages on a no-hope race in this Republican gerrymandered district.
I conclude that if Clark enters this particular race, it will be because she has become convinced that the arithmetic in the 6th district has fundamentally changed since the last time Bachmann ran. If she decides to run, that's a signal to the rest of us that the election has morphed from "no hope for a Democrat in this Republican district" to "some significant hope for a Democrat in this Republican district."
I think Bachmann is worried about a shift against her in the 6th district voting demographic, too. We've already reported here on one sign that she is worried: these new photo-op events she started doing this year about "non-insane, non-right wing" topics ("women's health" and "saving Social Security.") Bachmann's voting record shows that she doesn't really give a damn about these things, but she's trying to present herself as if she does. One commenter suggests that this is because she's doing worse with women voters in the district.
If Tarryl Clark enters, that's a sign that there's been a real change in Dem election chances in a conservative district. Because, as I say, she's not the sort of politician who wastes her time. (My opinion of Tinklenberg and Reed is that they would run whether the math showed them winning or not. That's not dissing them as candidates; either of them would make a much better representative than Bachmann.)
So if Clark enters, that's good sign for us Bachmann-dumpers--whether she gets the Dem nod or not. |
|