I have it from a reputable source that Jack Nelson Pallmeyer will be announcing early next week his candidacy for the United States Senate.
2 things:
1. Closed circuit to Jack: Holmes, you got to change your website. When searching for “Jack Nelson Pallmeyer” your website, www.mostimportantdecade.com is 10th on Yahoo, 5th on Google, and doesn’t come up in the first 5 pages of Ask.com search results. Next year as you run for the DFL endorsement or in the Primary, people will not see “Most Important Decade” on their ballots, they will see your name. As candidates websites become an increasingly important portal for their campaigns, why don’t you make it easier for people to find you online, not harder?
7. Mr. Pallmeyer will do well in the 5th Congressional district, and maybe pick up a delegate or two in the 8th. He will not win the endorsement, he will not win the primary. But, as I figure some reasonably smart people have already told him that, he will do what he did in his race for the 5th Congressional District in 2006, he will serve as a cogent and forceful advocate for the issues that matter to him, he will help frame the discussion around who is the nominee, and he will probably have a very fun floor show at the DFL State Convention.
Good luck to Mr. Pallmeyer.
Loading ...
Straight from point 1 to point 7, huh?
I was never very good at math. Sean
JNP would be a great candidate in the general against Coleman. He is very good on issues, is great on the stump and lives by his values. He brings less baggage then Al or Mike bring to the table, especially Al.
It’s probably too late of an entrance into the race at this point. Al’s the vacuum sucking up all the media, blog attention and so forth.
Sean, at least it wasn’t 1 and B.
I like JNP. I think he’s a good guy, and honorable man, committed to his issues. But I don’t see what he gains from this. Are his issues really going to get more air time in the race because he’s in it? I don’t think so. He’s not going to be a top tier candidate. He’s not going to have a lot of support, and has no chance at the nomination. I wonder if he’ll even top Jim Cohen at this point. This isn’t a race like the 5th, where the primary was the race, where he was an early entrant to the race, challenging the popular incumbent and pushing a peace agenda before it was considered politically viable. So what windmill is he tilting at/
I’d hate for JNP to start being seen as a Dick Franson.
When you listen to a recordings of JLP speeches backwards, you hear Marx laughing his ass off.
Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Zeppo?
So Jack Nelson Pallmeyer is running. So a lot of very liberal people in the Metro area will be able to highlight just how principled they are (by supporting him). They will then be able to declare how all the DFL candidates are ‘practically Republicans anyway’(and call attention to just how wonderfully pure they are). And when Franken/Ciresi gets the nomination, they will spend a few months hand-wringing about how they could possibly vote for a pseudo-Republican without their convictions causing them to burst into flames (reminding all of us mere sheep that unlike us, they are principled idealists, who vote their convictions instead of going with the herd).
But unless the Independence Party runs a candidate charismatic enough to make these Metro area liberals pull a Hutchinson and help re-elect Coleman, how will this effect the Minnesota Senate election? As someone said before, the Senate race isn’t like running in the 5th. The Senate race involves parts of the state where ‘right-winger’ is not a way of saying ‘DFLer’.
So until we know whether the IP candidate will be able to make the comfortable and well-educated of the Metro feel like they are ‘taking a stand against the system’, what actual effect will JNP have on who is the next Senator from Minnesota?
Pallmeyer can drive the debate. He can frame the issues. He can help establish an agenda. If he can garner enough support for all of that, he can win the nomination. If he doesn’t though, he will support the ultimate nominee. Until we have instant run-off voting statewide, third party candidate can only act as spoilers and we saw how disasterous that can be on a national scale in ‘00.
I would say there is someone more important than Pallmeyer driving the debate: Norm Coleman. I think how to best successfully contrast one’s positions with a man who is very good at seeming far more moderate than he actually is, far more independent of the GOP leadership than he actually is, and far more mainstream than he actually is will be more important than molding the debate to southwest Minneapolis.
In fact, if the frictions between Metro area and Greater Minnesota legislators that cropped up during the session indicate anything, those of us who wish to see Coleman defeated might really, really not want that to happen. In that case, I sure hope JNP doesn’t shape the debate.
Remember - in the 5th, the liberal good and just provide a candidate enough votes to win. Until the ‘D’ can win without the ‘FL’, however, I’d say that JNP running is only about the statement he allows people to feel like they made, not the real politics of electing a US Senator.
After reading here that Jack was announcing on Monday, I sent an email over to Chris McNellis, who is acting as his campaign manager during this exploratory phase. (She is at jack@mostimportantdecade.com) Her email this morning said that he is NOT announcing on Monday, and she is not sure where this is coming from. He will be speaking at the DFL booth at the State Fair on Monday at 1 pm.
Jack Nelson=Pallmeyer will also be at the first Senate Forum (along with Ciresi, Franken and Cohen) at 7:30 pm on Wednesday, September 5 at the Golden Valley City Center, 7800 Golden Valley Rd, Golden Valley (near Winnetka). An overflow crowd is expected.
May I suggest that those speculating about Jack’s chances or his influence on the campaign (or on the Senate, for that matter) give a listen. Bloggers might even want to do some live coverage, if they can get a seat.
A last comment about the name of Jack’s website: Most campaigns are primarily about the ego of the candidate and the potential effectiveness of selling that high opinion to others. Jack’s campaign is actually about the unique challenge of shifting our national spending away from military adventurism, toward sustainable energy use and mitigating climate change. I don’t know anyone who would vote for Jack because he is a movie star; he’s not. I don’t know anyone who WOULDN’T vote for Jack if they care about those issues.
I really wish Jack had started his campaign earlier but he teaches at St Thomas and had to finsih off the semester before starting. He did campaign all summer through the exploratory phase.
I think that if we have enough debates or forums between all the candidates, it will be awfully clear that Jack is by and far the most edcuted of the candidates and knows the most about the issues.
Franken knows nothing more than what needs to be in his stump speech, which isnt much, all you need to do is shout Universal Healthcare and people will clap, Jack will tell you how we will get to universal healthcare.
Jack has the most elaborate issue page on his website and that says something. He isnt just running so that he can be a US Senator, he is running so that he can do something positive, which unfortunately is not what I see in Ciresi or Franken.
I was still chuckling about John S.’s very astute comment about the Pallmeyer campaign and his self-rightous supporters when I got to Andrew’s comment:
“He isnt just running so that he can be a US Senator, he is running so that he can do something positive, which unfortunately is not what I see in Ciresi or Franken.”
Wow, that didn’t take long. Maybe Pallmeyer’s campaign wouldn’t be such a pathetic joke if his supporters didn’t post idiotic statements like that. Yes, Andrew, that’s right. Pallmeyer is the only candidate running to do something positive. What a joke.
Dan,
Would you consider these statements of yours to be name-calling:
“self-rightous,” “pathetic joke,” “idiotic,” (and again) “joke?”
If I understand you correctly, you are trying to maintain that Franken and Ciresi actually have strong policy positions on the issues of the day, and that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer supporters are mistaken in maintaining that they don’t.
Perhaps you might cite a few of these bold and insightful positions by either Ciresi or Franken, rather than just calling names. It might actually advance the conversation somewhat.
The problem I see, personally, is that voters thought they had elected people last November who would end the occupation of Iraq, return our civil liberties, start cleaning up the environment again, and change our national spending priorities. Unfortunately, they just haven’t seen much along those lines at all, with both Tim Walz and Amy Klobuchar voting to permit warrantless wiretaps, with Walz voting for another $100 billion for Iraq, and with even Ellison initially voting for additional war funding last March.
So the near consensus is that the country is going in the wrong direction and that we need a bit of leadership to counter the tragic errors of the neocon Republicans. Is it truly too much to ask for our candidates to articulate clear positions that point to a different direction. Is it too much to ask for more than consultant-mandated, focus-grouped empty phrases? To me, it seems that empty stump speeches don’t do the trick any more. This war has just been going on too long.
So please, Dan, go right ahead and analyse Ciresi or Franken positions and show us all how bold and frseh and courageous they are. But please, please try to go just a bit beyond the name-calling.
Wow. Let me add another name for Pallmeryer supporters: dishonest.
Nowhere did in my comment did I refer to candidates’ positions, or whether they even had positions. I was commenting on the completely vapid comment that unlike Ciresi and Franken, Pallmeyer is “running to do something positive.” It would have been fine if the comment had been along the lines of what you are talking about - that Pallmeyer has more concrete positions on issues related to the war. I would have had no quarrel with that argument. But instead we got the the same old self-righteous garbage about how Pallmeyer cares and Franken and Ciresi don’t.
Charley, I know its much easier attacking a strawman than addressing someone’s actual arguments. That seems to be theme with Pallmeyer supporters - why even get to specifics when you are so much more enlightened than everyone else. But if Pallmeyer is ever going to rise above “complete joke” status, his supporters might think about dropping their self-righteous holier-than-thou rhetoric.
Dear Dan,
So it seems that I have understood part of your intent, but misunderstood part. It looks like you are OK with calling names, even though you are concerned that I am “attacking a strawman.” In fact, you continue in this last post: dishonest, vapid, self-righteous garbage, complete joke status, self-righteous holier-than-thou rhetoric.
The mistaken part, as I understand, is my false understanding that you had addressed the question of candidate positions at all, which you believe is part of my setting up a straw man.
Dan, it was not my purpose to mischaracterize your position. It is truly hard for me to understand your intent with all this name-calling. Could you please describe the importance you yourself place in candidate positions, as opposed to fund-raising or polling (for example)? Then maybe we could talk. But please suspend the name-calling and verbal attacks, if you could. It will make the conversation more direct and honest.
Charley,
I think candidate positions are very important. Frankly, I am concerned about the fact that Franken and Ciresi may be waffling on the war (especially Franken, because he was initially enthusiastically pro-war). I am also very disappointed in some of Klobuchar’s positions on the war, including the wiretapping bill vote, which illicited a nasty letter to her from me.
If Pallmeyer and supporters are going to call these guys out on their positions (or lack thereof) then Pallmeyer may be a valuable addition to the race. My problem is exactly what is set out in John S.’s comment and fully demonstrated in Andrew’s - the idea that only Pallmeyer is the only candidate that cares or who is “running to do something positive.” That is my problem - the non-substantive “name-calling” by the Pallmeyer supporters. All I am asking is for Pallmeyer supporters to drop the self-righteousness. Yes, your guy is the furthest left on the war. That’s great. It doesn’t make your guy Jesus. Dan
Dan,
Fair enough. I couldn’t agree with you more about Franken and Ciresi waffling on the war, and my experience with Franken has been particularly discouraging, especially during his intemperate embrace of branding Kerry as a war-monger during the 2004 election.
My frustration with Klobuchar is long-term. I have been trying for 3 years to get her to even consider de-funding the war, but she won’t budge. I am also aghast at her public comments that seem to be justifying future war against Iran. She sounds anti-war, but she really won’t ever do anything personally to stop it or even slow down the next one.
So you have made two constructive challenges, in my opinion. First, to come off a little less self-righteous. This is going to be hard since, so far, this part of the political spectrum has actually been quite accurate in its predictions. But I will personally try.
The second challenge is be substantive in our own claims about Jack’s policy positions and credentials. This is only reasonable. I will personally commit to writing a blog at http://www.mnblue.com within the next couple of weeks, outlining the most persuasive policy points I can, plus the most positive argument I can make that Jack’s candidacy will make a policy difference while the other candidates will not (which I think is the most annoying claim that you have reacted to).
In the meantime, you might consider checking out The Big E’s analysis of the 3 candidates at http://www.mnblue.com/mnsen_candidate_comparison2
Sounds good Charley. And sorry for being so hostile. I do check up on MnBlue from time to time and did read that piece, which was good.
Well, its good to see a blog comment section that’s a bit more civilized than most. While I happen to agree with much of what Dan has said, its nice not have seen some of the real trolls.
But there seems to be a disagreement here about what politics is about. My distaste for Pallmeyer is not for his politics. As a wishlist, Ivory Tower lefty is better than most. And there have been a few good academics in politics.
The depth of my feeling is this: elections are about more than your right to put a button on a bag, and the goals of the left are about something more than your ability to boast of how you’ve always been on the right side of the issue. To the un-insured, health-care is about the pills, not how you ‘stood against the corporations’. If you have family or friends in Iraq, its about getting your loved ones out of a war zone - and be damned if its only 100,000, not all of them out, right now, or that some might end up based in Qatar or Kuwait, or anything thats not double-plus pure. You want them out of that hell-hole, whether or not its a ‘blow against the war machine.’ Its about results, not doctrinal purity!
I could go on, but thats my point about JNP: its not that we are all sheep following the polls. To heck with the polls. It is that he will never be Senator. I think he lacks the undefinable quality that takes outsider into power. He is pure, but will only be that.
And because of that, I am disgusted that he is running. This Senate race is about selecting someone to vote on the policies of our country, someone who will do it better than the current incumbent. This race is not about moving the debate so as not to upset the sensibilities of the pure; its about getting at least some of the those ideas made into law and policy. This is an election about getting ridding of a bad Senator and replacing him with someone better. It shouldn’t be treated as a hobby, an excursion, a way to show how wonderful you are.
And let’s face it: thats all a Pallmeyer campaign would be.
Dear John S,
You sound somewhat frustrated. In that, you are certainly with the majority on that.
So I want to ask you a fairly simple question. Do you think that Nancy Pelosi, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Walz, even Keith Ellison are bringing us any closer to a rapid end to the occupation of Iraq? Does it seem to you like they have been moving us toward universal health care at the speed you would like? For that matter, how do you feel about the job they have been doing so far on civil liberties, supporting education, rebuilding the infrastructure, or creating jobs?
Personally, I have been more a little disappointed since November. Haven’t you?
Let’s be honest here for a moment. It is certainly not the fault of folks like Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer that you have friends and neighbors who are fighting and dying in that particular hell-hole called Iraq. You and I both know that he would never have voted for it in the first place, and that he never would have voted to fund it after Bush invaded. Sadly, the same cannot be said of many Democrats.
We are still pissing away lives and treasure in a war we all know cannot be won by military force. So if you truly hate the war so much, I wonder why you continue to support Democrats who aren’t courageous enough to de-fund it.
Charley.
One word answer to the question you asked, about whether I believe the Dems are getting us closer to leaving Iraq.
Absolutely! For the reasons in my last post, absolutely! They may not be defunding - but withdrawal plans now have so much support, even the President has to try and spin his way into them. The Dems are holding, and Republicans are joining every day it seems. No, they didn’t wave a magic wand and make it all better, but thats not how things work. We live in a democracy. Those with other ideas elect their representatives too.
But to say they have nothing is completely ridiculous, and feeds into the idea that JNP and his supporters are just holier-than-thous, and naive ones demanding change by magic wand.
And now let me be honest: Pelosi, Walz, Klobuchar, Ellison - they will do more to end that war than Jack Nelson Pallmeyer will ever do. This war will not be ended by protests and other displays of virtue, by an especially nice button, or an unusually vigorous bit of chanting. It will be ended by legislators. It is the in the process of being ended by those legislators. I would like to elect more legislators who can effectively end the ones already there.
What frustrates me is what I talked about in my last post. Good people have been working for ten months to get real troops out of a real desert - but you say nothing has been done because it doesn’t conform to your ideology. What really frustrates me is people who will not support the people who are slowly and painfully fighting for results, and then lecture those of us who are. Yes. That’s quite frustrating.
While I don’t share John S.’s disgust over Pallmeyer’s candidacy (especially since he is running as a Democrat and not a third-party spoiler) I agree with just about everything else. While I am disappointed with Klobuchar and some Democrats, its not fair and not accurate to say they haven’t done anything to try and stop this war. Before the 2006 elections, there was essentially no debate on the war. The Democrats have brought the debate to congress, and have passed withdrawal bills, that were defeated due to the fact that the president is a Republican and the Democrats’ majority is so small and made up of many reps in tough districts. The policy differences between Pallmeyer and Klobuchar are miniscule compared to the differences between Klobuchar and Mark Kennedy.
Dan,
It’s true that the Democrats have only a small majority in Congress, but you don’t need a supermajority to NOT pass a funding bill. One half voting “no” will do it. Perhaps this is where your “tough districts” argument comes in. Supposedly those in tough districts need to vote in favor of occupation funding, since their red districts still believe that de-funding this tragic war would still indicate defense weakness.
But consider this: no reasonable person could now believe that the Iraq war can result in a military victory. So voting to prolong a war simply because you are afraid of your constituents is, by definition, an act of political cowardliness. You are, by definition, voting for more senseless deaths in order to win an election.
As for progress in ending the war since Democrats took charge, I would simply point out that the financial costs have jumped from $2 billion per week to $3 billion per week since January, and the costs in human lives has been roughly comparable. To me, that would indicate that things are getting worse, since the Democrats have allowed and even funded the escalation that Bush asked for.
Charley,
As you surmised, it is indeed my “tough districts” argument that keeps the funding going. Your response is that “no reasonable person could now believe that the Iraq war can result in a military victory.” Ah, if only our electorate was made up of reasonable people. 25-30 percent (or whatever the latest numbers are) think Bush is doing a good job and that the war is going well. In the “tough disticts” that number is going to be even higher. And while bowing to the will of these irrational people may indeed be cowardice, what is political bravery going to get us? It will get our moderate, cowardly Democrats who vote with the Democrats some of the time replaced with Republicans who will never vote with the Democrats. You just aren’t going to elect true progressives in “tough districts.”
You may think its worse that the Democrats are now in on the war, but you can’t say they haven’t at least tried to stop it, which distinguishes them from the Republicans. Even a lot of the reps in “tough districts” who supported funding did support anti-war votes. As the war continues to fail and public support continues to erode, maybe some more of them will get some political courage. Its very hard to be patient when American troops and Iraqi citizens are dying needlessly and we are spending a ton of money there while our bridges our collapsing. But patient is what you have to be.