With the endorsement of Brian Davis by the Republicans yesterday, the leftward side of the blogosphere is beginning to take a closer look at the Great Unknown.
Over at MnPublius, there's an interesting discussion going on about Davis's energy policy, while Vox Verax gets snarky about his notions about climate change in BREAKING NEWS! Copernicus wrong! Earth still center of the universe!. At Lloydletta's Nooz, MarkH notes that 1st CD GOP Endorses the Most Extreme Candidate. He cites an article in the Star Tribune that has been posted under several different headlines since it first went up.
As we might have predicted, they're not liking what they see.
If they got to see anything at all, that is. Minnesota Campaign Report notes that a video-journalist from the Uptake got booted from the CD-1 GOP convention.At this eponymous blog, Gavin Sullivan notes the rudeness he met at the CD1 and CD2 GOP conventions, though unlike the Uptake's volunteer, he was allowed inside. A conservative CD1 blogger--and the publicity chair of the Olmsted County GOP--does document his own rudeness toward Sullivan in this post. It's a rather peculiar thing to be proud of, in our small-town eyes. But we digress.
While that Star Tribune article has changed slightly since it first when up yesterday, we found one stable paragraph quite fascinating:
Focus on the family
Davis focused on family in his speech and outlined more specific issues than his competitor, saying he opposes gay marriage and the No Child Left Behind Act. He advocated for stem-cell research that doesn't involve human embryos and brought dozens of attendees to their feet at the end of his speech.
We find this focus to be quite fascinating, and perhaps it explains why the Republicans simply didn't want a video camera fixed on the Kafkaesque transformation of their congressional candidate. The article notes all three candidates adhere to social conservative views.
However, we recall that Davis didn't make them the center of his campaign before this moment, and thus we are inspired not to jump to our feet and applaud, but to jump down the memory hole that is the Internet.
Indeed, looking over the history of the contest, we find that Randy Demmer had been the one candidate to especially stress "family values," as our friends at IDHA had noted last September.
Davis, on the other hand, was a candidate in search of a signature issue. When the Rochester Post Bulletin first interviewed him, it reported that Latest congressional hopeful says Iraq War is No. 1 issue. According to the article:
Davis, 49, spent Wednesday traveling the district and meeting with media representatives. He said he believes the No. 1 issue, as it was in 2006, remains the war in Iraq. Davis said he opposes a rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and that the U.S. should do its best to support the democratically elected government in Iraq.
That position would appear to put him against a head wind of public opinion. Polls have consistently shown that most Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But Davis argues that more detailed reading of public opinion polls show that most people "don't want us to lose in Iraq." . . .
Abortion and stem cell research are mentioned last in the article.
A review of his campaign blog posts reveals no emphasis on "family values." In August 2007, abortion and marriage were at the end of a laundry list of issues, topped by national security and immigration. In October, it was Moveon.org. November: immigration and eminent domain.
In a January 2008 press release about fundraising, the top issues were defined:
Voters are responding to our conservative message focused on finding solutions to immigration, energy, an out-of-control federal budget and health care." said Davis.
That same month, he stressed health care at a candidate forum.
Now, suddenly, nearly over night, Davis is the family values candidate and the Republican party was talking nothing but to CQ Politics reporter Marie Horrigan:
Davis is running on a campaign platform of conservative values, including opposition to gay marriage and calling for less federal spending.
And indeed, as if transfixed by such coverage, one of the commenters at the Star Tribune raises the spectre that supposedly all lefties fear most:
. . .When Davis puts “Conservative Values” and highlights “protect life” and “union between one man and one woman” as the second most important issue, I have a feeling that the First District is being offered a male version of Michele Bachmann. . . .
And in kneejerk fashion, the readers concur. We believe that it would be a strategic error for Walz supporters to buy in to the New Brian Davis, as defined by this recent shift in emphasis.
As a long time First District congressional race watcher, we'd like to offer a far different view, having already noted those issues upon which Davis has heretofore focused. We'll now look at the contrast between Davis and Bachmann, then scrutinize his claims to authority in two of the three policy areas he raised most often, energy and health care.
Walz supporters should reject the Republicans' most recent attempt to reframe this race, avoiding the temptation to call Davis a "male Bachmann." Brian Davis should be seen for what Brian Davis is.
We believe that Davis is an extremist alright, but Walz supporters should be careful on how we define that extremism. With the GOP is now trying to cast him as the second coming of Michele Bachmann, we must ask ourselves what motivates this rebranding, for Davis's extremism has been not theocratic, but rather one of hardcore ideological positions centered on economic and foreign policy issues.
As we noted at MnPublius, regardless of what one might think of Bachmann’s positions, she does have a track record of political engagement on those issues she cares about. (The earliest newspaper record for her involves a pro-life action in 1991, long before she ran for school board or the state senate).
Davis, on the other hand, simply has no record of being in involved with causes, politics, volunteer efforts—nothing, even on his bio at his own web site–other than membership in a mainstream Lutheran church (the same brand of Lutheranism to which Tim And Gwen Walz belong), his career and involvement with professional groups that help advance that career.
He’s no Bachmann in terms of his biography, and those who draw that comparison, whether from left or right, are equally guilty of using a false analogy.
At MnPublius, we addressed the deeply flawed logic behind Davis's appeal to his own perceived authority as a doctor and a mechanical engineer.
A commenter named "bobbi" pushed the fallacy of false or misleading authority that Davis himself invoked. She suggests that because Davis *may* have published scientific papers in one area (his MIT degrees are in mechanical engineering with a biomedical specialization) or another (medicine), he is qualified to parade his ideological opinions about global warming–which are straight out of the hard right’s playbook on climate change–as “scientific.”
In a similar vein, Davis attempts to transfer the prestige of the Mayo Clinic to argue that he would be able to address the health care insurance crisis that our nation must solve.
Unfortunately for Dr. Davis’s argument, the Mayo Clinic itself has studied health care insurance policy issues rather extensively over the past two years and has set up a policy center of its own. The conclusions and recommendations that Mayo has come to are different that those advanced by Dr. Davis. As is his MO, Davis adopts the hard right’s ideological agenda and solutions for this issue. A number of doctors have written to Bluestem Prairie to point out this essential disconnect.
We don't suspect Davis's extremism to be the product of a religious mania--but of a midlife crisis.
Finally, perhaps the Republican party noted the frequent contrasts that bloggers and letter writers had drawn between Walz and Bachmann and have hopes to turn this natural contrast to their advantage in the First. Unfortunately for this strategy, the pachyderm party has failed to see that critics aren't drawn to make the clear distinction between the freshman representatives because of their partisan positions, but because of their positions at the opposite ends of the spectra of hard work and accessibility.
Walz's work ethic is legendary: he serves on three committees and the congressional commission on China; Bachmann, but one House committee. Walz has held dozens of open public meetings in his district. Bachmann? Not a single one so far.
And this weekend, the Strib reports that Walz and his campaign put that fabled work ethic to use:
. . .Walz's campaign announced that their efforts had started Saturday with door-knocking and phone calls in Mankato, Rochester and Winona that reached approximately 5,000 voters.
Update March 31: Perhaps the family values pitch was just for the GOP base of activists in the First. This morning's Winona Daily News report suggests that the Brian Davis flavor of the day is shifting once again:
Davis cited Walz’s positions on taxes and illegal immigration as points of contrast.
“It should become clear that Tim Walz doesn’t represent the values of southern Minnesota,” Davis said.
Meanwhile, the papers report more on Walz's support for veterans.More in the morning news digest.[end update]
Update #2: We just found another example shape-shifting Davisism, this time in the Albert Lea Tribune's coverage of the endorsement.
Here's what Davis says on his campaign website:
However, I’m more committed than ever that we remain on the offensive when it comes to our global conflict with radical Islamists. We must remain diligent and steadfast in our pro-active response to these radicals who are intent on harming America.
Here's what the reporter heard him say in Albert Lea on Saturday:
Davis said he wants to maintain the military status that is second to none throughout the world and is wary of foreign entanglements.
So he'll be on the offensive globally but avoiding foreign entanglements? Sounds like a pander to the Ron Paulites. Or else he's just getting a little wobbly. Must be a good hair thing. [end update]
Reading your comment of 4/14/08 that John Boehner feels necessary to fund Michele Bachmann re-election campaign reminds me of the reader's comments made on the Strib website.
. . .When Davis puts “Conservative Values” and highlights “protect life” and “union between one man and one woman” as the second most important issue, I have a feeling that the First District is being offered a male version of Michele Bachmann. . . .
Without knowing exactly what was meant when stated that Davis could be a male version of Bachmann, I don’t believe that there is any doubt Davis would vote in lockstep with Bachmann. Now, from an election strategy perspective, if someone wants to describe Davis as “male version of Bachmann” and if a voter had a “lightbulb” brain revelation that Davis made be too extreme, that may not be bad.
Ollie says: No: Davis doesn't not resemble Bachmann, but Kline, who has mentored him. Davis talked about this in the Rochester Post Bulletin. Davis was pandering to the delegates, not imitating Bachmann. He has NO history of activism and is quite different from Bachmann.
Posted by: MinnesotaCentral | April 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM