Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

God and Man in Minnesota Politics

Democrats in Minnesota want to defeat an evangelical preacher, Dan Hall, who is running for the state senate there. So they sent out a mailer with this stunning image: 

It’s been subsequently attacked as being “anti-Catholic” at a time when the Catholic Church, in the person of Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis, especially, has been a forceful and clear voice in defense of marriage

Minnesota Democrats claim innocence in regard to any intended connection with the marriage debate or even the Catholic Church, though.  Despite the Roman collar. Donald McFarland, communications director for the Minnesota DFL Party, tells me:

The ad is part of a two-piece mailing that highlights and criticizes the policy views of Dan Hall, a preacher who is the Republican candidate for the Minnesota Senate. I enclose both sides of both pieces. I understand that some Republican bloggers have taken one image from the first piece, and claimed that the mail is somehow anti-Catholic. But the text explicitly criticizes Preacher Hall for distancing himself from policy views that have been taken by the Catholic Archdiocese, by the Lutheran Synod, and other leaders in Minnesota’s faith community. Dan Hall is willing to enlist God and religion in his campaign when it helps him — but in fact, his views hurt the poorest and sickest among us, and this mailing holds him accountable for those views.

You can read the entire mailer, here and here. Courtesy of the DFL.

You click, you decide.   

On the anti-Catholic charge, McFarland says: “As far as I know, there are clergy members of other faiths that wear collars.” And adds: “It is blatantly clear that they are about Dan Hall and his stance against health care for the poor.”
   
Alex Conant, spokesman for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC, responds to the mailing with the observation that “Minnesota Democrats know they’re about to lose — and lose badly — but that’s no excuse for this sort of partisan and misleading mudslinging.”

Mark Drake, communications director for the Republican Party of Minnesota, meanwhile, blasts the mailer: “The DFL Party’s deeply offensive anti-Catholic mailing has absolutely no place in our state. It is an affront and is completely unacceptable.”

I think it’s safe to say it’s unholy politics. That’s a bipartisan problem for sure. But there is reason for bipartisan, ecumenical offense here. It’s an insult to suggest there isn’t some convenient anti-Catholicism here. But more so, it’s an insult to intelligent debate. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t “Ignore the Poor,” and I don’t know many men of the cloth who do either.

The Democratic party in Minnesota disagrees with cuts the governor made and this candidate won’t throw under the bus (to use the most overused phrase in politics). Democrats can easily make that point without the use and abuse of clerics. 

UPDATE: Calls to DNC chairman Tim Kaine encouraged

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   11

EXPAND  

 Jay
   10/26/10 22:42

Wow, I guess Kentucky Senate hopeful Jack Conway's brilliant campaign team must be moonlighting in Minnesota.

By the way, that sound you're hearing is the bottom of the barrel being scrapped. Yeesh.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/26/10 23:02

Seriously? Clerics should be exempted from politics? Imagery that includes a cleric's collar is offensive and anti-Catholic?

Isn't the context here a cleric with a a stated policy preference regarding help for the poor? It's partisan (it's a political ad, right?) but "misleading mudslinging?" What's misleading here?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/26/10 23:10

This is disgusting on so many levels. Clearly Minnesotans will view this for the smear that it is.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 lar
   10/26/10 23:43

Having spent twenty years as a graphic designer, I know images are not space filler; they import meaning. I'm willing to accept Mr. McFarland's contention that there was no intentional anti-Catholic sentiment. And I will concede his point that "clergy members of other faiths wear [Roman] collars." But he has to be willfully blind to not know that this image screams "Catholic priest." After all, it isn't referred to as a Roman collar for no reason. Intention aside, the image is deeply offensive to Catholics.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 05:54

What about just a man in a church robe? You know, the kind of thing that one sees in the Blues Brothers movies, 7th Heaven, or nearly any Hollywood wedding scene. In Lutheran Minnesota, that would be a more more common image, but maybe that is the point. Non-Catholics have a much more negative view of the Catholic Church than of their own church, especially given its current scandals. Why associate the incumbent with possibly positive feelings when they can appeal to conscious or unconscious anti-Catholicism?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 07:43

Look at that photo! Cue killing and rioting in
3...
2...
Huh?

Oh, it's CATHOLICS who are getting bashed?
Oh.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE! MOVE ALONG! HOPE AND CHANGE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER! MOVE ALONG!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 08:11

Democrats in Minnesota obviously agree with Democrats in Washington who believe a significant portion of the electorate is ignorant and easily manipulated. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't have spent millions on this mailer.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 08:57

To summarize the Democrat's defense, "We didn't mean to bash Catholics specifically, we were bashing Christians in general."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 09:40

I agree. Just because you are offended by what one person of a particular religion does, that doesn't mean that the whole religion should be condemned.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 12:07

The problem with the DFL flyer is the basic non-sequitur. They are asserting that, because you don't think government should do something, you must think that something should not be done at all. They did the same thing with school lunches a few years ago. Think parents should feed their own children instead of the government? Why, you must want to starve children!

Anyway, given the results of government's attentions to the poor, it is not unreasonable to think that getting the government to ignore them might be the most helpful thing you could do.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/27/10 22:43

The ad isn't anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-clerical. It criticizes a Christian clergyman and politician, by name, for failing to object when the governor, for ideological reasons, rejected federal funds that could have reinstated programs for the poor that he had cut. On the other hand, the Lutheran Synod and Catholic hierarchy had strongly rebuked the governor for his actions, and his ridiculous statement to the effect that the fate of people affected by his policies is in God's hands. And Ms Lopez' reference to the 'defense of marriage' is simply a non sequitur.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact