http://polibeast.blogspot.com/…
I admit, I’m a pretty nostalgic guy. I’m the type who, despite my limitless political junkiness, would much prefer falling asleep at night to TV Land or Nick at Nite, as opposed to the chatter on MSNBC or FOX. My all-time favorite show is “The Wonder Years,” and, when I’m rich and have a hot wife, I plan to collect comic books and pinball machines, in due part because they remind me so strongly of past times. (Yeah, I’m THAT cool.)
There is a political sort of nostalgia I hold, too. For instance, I wish I were around for the 1984 election, where I would have so passionately championed the Mondale/Ferraro ticket. Here are two figures I hold the highest regard for, and who I only wish I were able to have voted for. I look back on the glory days of Scoop Jackson, John F. Kennedy, and other Democratic juggernauts with the same wide-eyed look as I do old sitcoms and Phil Spector records. There’s something about old Americana that I can’t help but love.
I hate to admit this, but, as of late, I’ve found myself nostalgic for, of all people, Katherine Harris. Yes, liberal readers, the former Florida Secretary of State and U.S. Congresswoman. You know, the one who was so obviously non-partisan, fair, and unbiased in the 2000 presidential race? Yeah, that one.
See, the thing is, I see this new crowd of Katherine Harrises, the Sarah Palin/Michele Bachmann/Christine O’Donnell coalition of right-wing women, are merely amateurs in comparison to the original Tea Party Queen (well, in all fairness, that title probably belongs of Phyllis Schalfly, but, c’mon, she was no fun). Harris was as loony, crazy, and uber-conservative as they come, and the U.S. House is less entertaining as a result of her absence. She was really something else.
The reason I find myself lately pondering Katherine Harris is that one of those aforementioned Tea Party gals, Michele Bachmann, appears poised to stage a very Katherine Harris-y move.
I get the sense that Bachmann, who’s really one of our most clueless and deranged U.S. House members, sees herself much in the same vein as Harris – that, like Harris thought of herself, she is something bigger and better than just an ordinary U.S. Congresswoman. Her political ambitions are too bombastic for her to remain in the U.S. House, and I firmly believe that, because of these ambitions, Bachmann will make a surprising power play in ’12.
I believe that Bachmann will run for the U.S. Senate against Minnesota Democratic incumbent Amy Klobuchar in ’12. Why?
Well, much like Harris in 2006, Bachmann rightfully realizes that the state’s conservative base would catapult her to a comfortable primary victory. This is true. She wouldn’t even have to worry about it. In ’06, Harris knew all along that she probably couldn’t beat incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. What she realized, though, is that she could cruise through a primary, and, that if Nelson staged a blundering gaffe during the general election, she might at least have a small chance of winning. (That gaffe never happened, and she lost by 18 points.)
For Bachmann, it’s the same thing. Like Nelson in ’06, Klobuchar is a relatively popular incumbent, and, like Harris in ’06, Bachmann is far too conservative for her state’s electorate. What Bachmann hopes is that Klobuchar doesn’t run as sterling a campaign as Nelson in ’06 – that, somehow, Klobuchar screws up so royally that a Tea Party candidate can win statewide in one of the most blue states in the union.
Even if Bachmann loses, however, it’s a winning situation. She’s no longer just one of hundreds of U.S. House members. She took her shot at the big leagues, won her party’s nomination statewide, garnered tons of national press attention, and further established herself as a hero to the right. In the end, U.S. Senate victory or not, she’ll probably feel awfully good at the end of the day.
As for Harris, I’m sure she enjoyed the attention and thrill of the ’06 race. Sure, she’s no longer relevant, but, hey, does relevancy necessarily matter when you’re at home sitting on the gigantic pile of cash you built-up when you were relevant? Probably not a whole lot.
For Bachmann, I suspect a U.S. Senate run is a risk she’s more than willing to take. (Not that she has a snowball’s shot in hell of winning.)
I have to disagree with this, in spring of ’06 as Harris was getting ready to run I had lunch with one of her hill staffers who soon after left for Florida. He was absolutely convinced she would win and related how AMAZINGLY confident she was that she could knock off Nelson.
I’m sure later on when the bottom fell out of the GOP she realized the campaign was doomed, but at least in terms of deciding to run she had every faith she was the best candidate to win in November.
Now as for Bachman, whom I know not at all – directly or via staff – I have trouble believing she thinks she can win statewide (she doesn’t even have Harris pre-congressional electoral track record and even in ’06 Florida was a better battleground for a GOPer than Minnesota will be in ’12) and especially if she might look at the Harris example – where is Katherine Harris now? – losing elections is rarely a path to more presitige or power, more likely its a one-way trip to the Bar Trivia Answer political gulag.
Is Bachman smart and savy enough to realize she is in the best possible spot now and running for higher office is a kamakazi mission? I don’t know, but I doubt she’ll see losing as a political winner…
She is running for president (i am only partially joking)
(Warning, a very right wing blog)
http://www.minnesotademocratse…
If she does run the for Senate my guess is it would be in 2014 vs the far more vulnerable Al Franken. That could change if somehow redistricting forces her into a more Democratic district.
It’s the type of personality she is. Klobuchar would win by a couple of more points than her 2006 win, just because Bachmann is so out there.
I interviewed at her office in November 2005. I was going to college in DC at the time. I took a position at the NTU instead.
Oh man, that would’ve been a fun internship.
I am not a fan and I too think she is “out there”, but she has a committed base and will raise tons and tons of money in whatever race she runs in. In the reddest possible year, Bachmann could give Klobuchar a good run, but Amy would be the favorite. Remember, too, that a fairly significant third party candidate is likely to siphon votes off of both major party candidates. That actually hurts Bachmann more because she is at the extreme end of her party and the political spectrum, but it does make things unpredictable.
Speculating four years into the future is about like guessing the weather, but Franken would be vulnerable to a decent candidate in 2014. His rating is a tepid 43/42. If there is a Republican president after the 2012 election, it would ironically improve Franken’s chances two years later IMHO.
The perfectly unbalanced ticket.
and lose heavily. I find it hard to believe that Minnesotans would elect her Senator. If that ever happens, the Apocalypse would shortly be upon us.