A Michele Bachmann roundup

Plenty of postgame talk around the blogosphere in the wake of the 6th CD convention, which gave the endorsement to Michele Bachmann. Here's a sampling.

I'll start off with a couple of posts from Martin Andrade. Not to pick on him, because he has been reasonable, but he brings up some points that, frankly, confuse me about the opposition to Bachmann, points you'll see elsewhere if you read those who are not given to supporting Bachmann.

In this post, Andrade says:

There are between 100 and 200 GOP regulars who were completely trampled by Michele Bachmann in her pursuit of the GOP endorsement in the 6th district.

I replied in the comments, and I'll reprint it here.

This canard again. I'm not sure how "between 100 and 200 GOP regulars were completely trampled by Michele Bachmann."

Counting how? Because Bachmann got that many votes for endorsement, that means any delegate who voted for her trampled on a "regular" to get there?

And how did this trampling occur? Bachmann's delegates went to their caucus like everyone else, indicated their desire to be a delegate like everyone else, and put themselves forward as delegates at their BPOU like everyone else. How is that a trampling?

The danger in local politics is always that the local units turn into little fiefdoms, run by people for whom politics is a little club, a hobby.

So along come some new faces, and instead of welcoming this new, dynamic political force, instead of encouraging the participation of a whole new cadre of enthusiastic politcally active people, the hobbyists denigrate the new people, and invalidate their participation.

That the "regulars" believe they somehow have a divine right to be delegates, rather than celebrating true grassroots efforts that open the delegate process to everyone, is a sign that change might be in order.

In this post, Andrade wrote:

Y'all are going to love this, I heard it first from a friend of mine who works at the capital, then I got confirmation just now from some people at the convention. Bachmann had loaded other delegations with some of their people. So on the first ballot, Bachmann's people vote for Esmay or Krinkie or Knoblach, then on the second ballot they vote for Bachmann, creating the illusion of momentum. Thus, on the third ballot people decide to join the winning team and Bachmann gets the endorsement. Realpolitik? Machiavellian? Sure, but why not? (Okay, Realpolitik is probably the wrong word, but close enough.)

I made a couple of comments to this, but in another post. I'll reprint those here.

As for Statement A, can you provide any firm evidence of what you say, beyond just the fact "someone told you?" Who are the people you talked to? What are the names of the delegates who were part of this?

In politics, there ought to be a better standard of truth than just throwing things over the transom. I could say someone told me Krinkie eats live puppies for breakfast. What good is that statement in the absence of any supporting evidence?

Marty,

I give you credit for not making your statements based on one source, but I just think it would help in general if we were able to judge the sources.

Who is your source in the "capitol"? The Governor? The night shift janitor? A Democrat? St. Paul is lousy with people who don't support Bachmann or her politics. How can we know if someone isn't ginning up a controversy?

And your sources at the convention, did they see someone being told to vote first for Esmay and then for Bachmann? Did a delegate say they were told to do so? Did they merely witness someone vote different ways on different ballots and assume that was evidence of a plot?

We've seen instances lately at the national level where single anonymous sources were less than rock solid. I just think it's best to be open and put names on things, otherwise let it be.

I also agree with Thorley. I don't see how the changes discussed Friday night were so wildly in favor of only Bachmann, let alone unethical.

To me, the discussion about completing the agenda before adjourning prevents an early endorsement, it doesn't railroad through one for Bachmann. Same for the length of speechs, how does shorter speeches benefit only her and no one else? If I'm the guy going first, by the time the last one goes my speech is 2 hours in the past. Who's going to remember me? If speeches are 15 minutes, I'm only an hour in the past, a little better.

Doug, at Bogus Gold, has some wise words.

And that seems as apt a metaphor as any for the reactions of so many experiencing heated Congressional District endorsing conventions in Minnesota this past weekend. Many Republicans in the 6th, and Democrats in the 5th came away rather shell shocked. Politics, like thunderstorms, seems neater and friendlier when you're not too close.

However, with just a bit of distance, I hope sensible people realize that they did not just witness some new corruption of a formerly pristine process. Rather, they witnessed an inherently messy process, and I hope they learned from the experience.

A personal anecdote in way of analogy: In the past I've freely admitted that, while I was an active Republican at the time, George W. Bush was not my first choice for the Republican nomination in 2000. He also wasn't my second choice. It was very hard for me to come to terms with supporting his candidacy when I had poured so much energy into supporting his rivals. But after all was said and done, I looked back on it and realized I had just experienced one of the more important civics lessons of my life.

Sure, I could have moped and refused to support the Republican Party's nominee. I wouldn't have been alone. I knew people who jumped to the Constitution, Libertarian & Reform Parties at the time. The thing that held me back was the realization that I had just learned a lot more than I knew previously about how this country is actually governed. I had learned about the blocking and tackling that separates a serious, winning candidacy from idealists running in parallel, but not truly competing. In short I had learned how our form of government actually works in the early 21st century.

And that left me with a choice: Would I join it and participate in order to bring about the kind of policies I believed in? Or would I drop out and sneer at its imperfections from the sidelines?

Obviously, I decided to stay. Along with that decision came the responsibility to learn how to engage myself in a more meaningful fashion, which I have been doing ever since.

Pscymeistr is contemplating his participation between now and November.

While the outcome of this convention was certainly a disappointment to me, I personally will move on. I may not work personally for the Bachmann campaign for the reasons stated here (at the very least, she has some serious fence mending to do with myself and a lot of the other delegates I talked with).
....
If Michelle Bachmann feels she needs to obfuscate and perform sleight-of-hand with republican delegates in order to win, then what is to keep her from performing sleight of hand and obfuscation with regard to her campaign promises? If she can't be above board with her own delegates, who's to say whether she will be above board and true to her conservative rhetoric?

As I mentioned in the my comments above, I don't clearly understand what was underhanded about the proposals made, and I have yet to hear any solid evidence that moves were made with delegate voting.

Andy at Residual Forces points out the DFL seems to be happy that Bachmann is the endorsed candidate.

No comment from this peanut gallery other than, see! This is exactly what they wanted.

I think the fervor cuts both ways, though. The same level of excitement and participation that brought Bachmann's supporters to the 6th CD convention will carry over into the general election. The same voters will be motivated to get her to Congress. The more the DFL demonizes Bachmann, the more motivated the GOP should be to support her.

The 6th District is the most Republican district in the state. Bachmann is at home in the district, and we shouldn't fear the usual DFL partisan attacks. Bachmann didn't get to this point by espousing positions wildly unpopular with Republican voters. Quite the opposite. We'll be fine.