Tim Pawlenty's litmus test

There is an interesting phenomena at work here. The NRA view represents a minority of Americans. Farmers, with their huge subsidies, are an even smaller minority. The 20% of Americans who are the base of the Republican party are able to whipsaw their views into being the predominate ones. Passion and singleness of purpose are powerful. The rest of us wonder how long before the counter-reaction, which we should hope will be rational and not extreme.

Pawlenty has always been, to the best that I can tell, a politician at his core. Nothing is wrong with being a politician but their core most be a core of principle, not politics, and I think he has to little of the former and too much of the latter.

In regards to NY-23...regardless of the outcome (I think Owens is ahead at the moment) the anti-conservative purist argument doesn't apply here. Scozzafava was simply a bad candidate all around. I disagree with those that think we need to purge the party, but come one! Scozzafava was not selected through the primary process and was in lock step with the Democrats on almost the majority of the important issues that are going to be fought out soon. This isn't a case of ideological purity...this is a case of asking too much of people...asking them to suspend all their core values in the interest of not being extreme.

My principles don't preclude moderation and include room for significant disagreements...but you can only disagree with so many of my principles before I just won't vote for you. I don't care what you call me, the Scozzafava's of the world are not getting my vote.

Hoffman lost, Owens won. Liberal bloggers over the weekend contrasted what they viewed as Owens’s gracious reaction to Scozzafava’s dropping out with Hoffman’s reaction. This was before she endorsed anyone. Until we see exit poll results, we won’t know the impact of things of that nature, or of Rush Limbaugh’s comment about Scozzafava (which Hoffman reportedly declined to denounce).

Huffington Post reports that “Owens managed to appeal to the voters with his talk of job creation and the need for more federal support for Fort Drum and farmers.” Exit polls in Virginia and New Jersey showed that voters largely retained the same views of President Obama as they had last year when he won both those states. They pointed strongly to the economy as being a factor in how people voted in those two states. The New York Times notes that Republican candidate McDonnell “avoided divisive social issues, concentrating instead on his plans to create jobs, improve the economy and fix the state’s transportation problems.” McDonnell reportedly rebuffed offers over the last few months by Sarah Palin to campaign on his behalf.

My takeaway? Tone matters as much as do policy positions. So does EQ. However one views purity tests, the candidate has to convince enough people that he’s not going to be an anger-driven, childish, or punitive avenger. Comments such as the one Limbaugh made about Scozzafava unnecessarily raised an image of a Beavis and Butthead party (as Paul Krugman said recently wrote on his blog about some GOPers) which cares more about putdowns than getting things done. The type of guys in a bar who break up over their own jokes, chortling “Yessss” and high fiving each other as most of the people around them roll their eyes and withdraw to other venues.

No matter how righteous anyone on the right (or the left) feels about their policy issues, they’re not going to win if their driving motivator sounds like hurting or punishing or putting down people rather than navigating the complex issues facing the nation. To think that the latter tone is effective is to fundamentally misunderstand human nature. And no one wants to put power into the hands of anyone who seems clueless about people.