August 3-5, 2009
Aug 03 02:21 Market-Based Schemes & Defensive Medicine Aug 03 02:52 Biomass: Collin Peterson's Thirty Pieces of Silver? Aug 03 10:50 Imminent Middle Class Tax Hikes? Aug 04 11:17 White House: Trust Us, Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes Aug 04 03:39 Gov. Pawlenty's Critique of ObamaCare Aug 04 16:43 Tinklenberg is Officially Out Aug 05 02:13 Obama Administration Picking Foolish Fights Aug 05 02:44 Paulsen vs. Bonoff In the Works?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
White House: Trust Us, Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes
The 2007 video of Barack Obama saying he's for a single-payor health plan has been watched by millions of people, both on TV and on the internet. According to this Politico article , the Obama administration is using Linda Douglass to tell us that we shouldn't believe what we've seen. It's one of the most bizarre episodes of spin I've ever witnessed. That's saying something because I recall eight years of Clinton spin.
The video begins: "Hi. I'm Linda Douglass. I'm the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, and one of my jobs is to keep track of all the disinformation that's out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this one; take a look at this one. This one says, 'Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.'First, here's what Sen. Obama said in the SEIU video:
"Well, nothing can be farther from the truth. You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they're taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they're cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression. The truth is that the president has been talking to the American people a LOT about health-insurance reform and what is at stake for them.
"So what happens is that because he's talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there...they simply cherry-pick and put it together, and make it sound like he's saying something that he didn't really say."
"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."Ms. Douglass, please explain the context of this statement. Please explain why that quote doesn't mean that President Obama wants a single-payor health care system. Please explain that within the context of Barney Frank saying that the "public option" is a good intermediate step to single-payor. Explain it within the context of Jan Schakowsky saying that she wants to kill health insurance companies.
The White House spin on this is pathetic. It's a waste of time. Ms. Douglass's spin also destroys what little is left of this administration's credibility. This administration's lack of credibility is what's destroying their health care initiatives.
People have been showing up at townhall events expressing their disgust with the various plans. Most importantly, they're expressing their disgust with politicians selling their plans to their voters. Just ask Keith Ellison, Russ Carnahan, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius, Arlen Specter and Lloyd Doggett how their sales pitch is working.
The one thing that I'm confident predicting is that politicians will get abused at the townhall meetings if these politicians try selling government-run health care.
This administration is the most deceitful administration I've seen. The Democrats want single-payor so bad that they'll say anything to deceive people until their goal is achieved.
It's time to shut this corruption down before this administration sets the United States back a decade or more. There's only one way to do that. That's by working to get honest politicians elected. Defeating DC-itis inflicted politicians this cycle is vitally important. There isn't a neutral corner in this fight. You're either letting these politicians stay in power or you're working to defeat them.
This day is a time of choosing. You can tolerate more Linda Douglass spin videos or you'll do everything possible to defeat these fraudsters.
Posted Tuesday, August 4, 2009 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by freschfisch at 04-Aug-09 11:50 AM
Franken's town hall meeting on healthcare August 26th.
Call Franken HQ for more details
651-221-1016
Comment 2 by Vickie at 05-Aug-09 12:49 AM
I am highly offended that the people in government, that were voted in (forgetting that they pass laws on behalf of the U.S. citizens not because of their own agenda)think they can lie to us and we don't figure out what they are doing? I did not vote for Obama, I saw right through him during his CHANGE campaign. What a joke~!!!!
Comment 3 by eric z at 05-Aug-09 06:45 AM
That "townhall meeting" dissent thing is a total lobbying-inspired hoax. Loudmouth impolite claques are being recruited and organized to give false impressions for FOX news hate-mongers to sound-bite and spin.
People really want true reform. Profiteers with a stake in the status quo do not. Figure from that where all the noise is originating.
Market-Based Schemes & Defensive Medicine
David Shuster writes a column the first Sunday of each month as part of the Times Writers Group. Dr. Shuster's column this month is about "market-based schemes" in the health care industry. I'm being polite when I say that it's got a few tidbits of misinformation in it. Here's a sampling of Dr. Shuster's misinformation:
Medical lawsuit reform, another topic that diverts attention from more important issues in the health care debate, is a supposed cost-cutting measure that has little to do with effective health care reform. Proponents claim that reducing the risk of "frivolous" lawsuits would save more than $100 billion each year by decreasing the practice of "defensive medicine," unnecessary tests ordered by physicians to diminish malpractice risk.While it's true that free market advocates talk about tort reform as a cost-cutting measure, that isn't the most powerful argument for tort reform. Doctor shortages are the most powerful argument. Years ago, I remember reading about how North Carolina was running out of ob/gyn doctors because their malpractice insurance was going through the roof. That wasn't happening because doctors had gotten sloppy. It was happening because ob-gyn doctors were a huge target of lawsuits. To protect themselves from litigation, doctors routinely ran extra tests to show they were being diligent.
In fact, as there is no reliable definition of what constitutes "defensive medicine," the actual cost of this behavior is exceedingly difficult to measure. Also, in states where lawsuit reform was enacted, the degree of savings in medical spending has been negligible, if any.
Saying that there isn't a "reliable definition of what constitutes defensive medicine" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, I suspect that somewhere in this statistic-keeping world, someone is keeping track of this statistic.
Of course, in the United States, any discussion of health care reform requires clueless contributions from advocates of the free market. Supporters allege market-based schemes that allow access to quality measures, prices and outcomes will create educated consumers that spend health care dollars more efficiently. As a result, the best, most cost-effective providers will flourish.Dr. Shuster thinks free market advocates are clueless. What he fails to recognize is that markets do this day in, day out. When Sears and Montgomery Wards failed to anticipate a new market, they sank and Walmart filled the vacuum quite nicely. (Nature isn't the only thing that abhors a vacuum.) When IBM didn't embrace emerging technologies, Dell, Mac and others jumped in.
Medicare is going bankrupt even though (a) they've got the market cornered in terms of percent of retired people using it, (b) they're allowed to levy taxes on working people and (c) they impose price controls on everything from doctors to drug prices to hospital payments.
QUESTION: If a businessman was given this set of conditions, what are the odds that they'd be on the verge of bankruptcy? For that matter, what's the likelihood that they'd even worry about losing money?
Democrats whine about the high price of health care. They'd have you believe that we're paying exhorbitant prices on 1950's medicine. One reason why we have higher prices than most industrialized nations is because Big Pharma is constantly testing new products, some of which have produced tomorrow's miracle cures.
As a nation's wealth increases, and as people of an affluent society understand that the person who has their health has everything, isn't it sensible that societies would choose to spend more of their disposable income on the most important things in life? Shouldn't we celebrate that we're spending money on the things that are producing lifesaving miracles?
Last night, during a conversation I had with King, I asked him if it wouldn't be useful to measure the quality of health care systems by survival rates of cancer and in the number of lifesaving medications and treatments are found each year. King thought that was a legitimate set of criteria to base things on.
Here's what I'm thinking: wouldn't more people pick living in a nation that has vastly superior survival rates for prostate cancer or breast cancer over those whose rates are low?
Just as a refresher, the survival rate for U.S. men who've been diagnosed with prostate cancer is 92%, whereas 51 percent of British men survive. The survival rate for U.S. women who've been diagnosed with breast cancer is 84% while the survival rate for British women is just 69%.
These things didn't happen by accident. They happened because a capitalist society often decides that spending extra money on health care is worth it. Despite Dr. Shuster's whining, there's no denying the fact that capitalist nations spend their money on the highest priority items. In this instance, that means spending money on high quality health care.
That isn't a scheme. People with common sense would call that setting smart priorities.
Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 2:21 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 03-Aug-09 08:24 AM
Doctor Quack:
I've been a victim all year of a doctor practicing defensive medicine.
Whether it was the doctor ordering an ambulance to take me to the hospital (hey I was well enough to drive and my house with a roommate was between the doctor's office and the hospital). That cost me and our insurance company over a thousand dollars.
Two tests the second which was ordered because the doctor was convinced I was bleeding to death and losing iron. After the second test he finally thought it was a good idea to be taking an iron supplement.
And I'm just one of 200 million plus americans. It seems like there was savings with me there are savings with the other 200 million.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Bill C at 03-Aug-09 09:28 AM
Gary,
Do you have a link to the stats about cancer survival rates? That is awesome ammo for this debate, but there is no credibility to a liberal when you say "I read it on a conservative blog".
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Aug-09 09:35 AM
Bill, This is information I got during a blogger conference call from one of the doctors who is part of the House GOP conference. I don't have a link for it but I'd recommend checking with the HHS website for starters.
Biomass: Collin Peterson's Thirty Pieces of Silver?
According to this NY Times article , all it took for Collin Peterson to role from adamantly opposed to the Waxman-Markey National Energy Tax to being an enthusiastic supporter of their legislation were a few peripheral provisions:
Fulcrum BioEnergy, a company converting waste into ethanol, also found much to cheer about.What a sellout. Rep. Peterson got this concession for political cover in exchange for his constituents getting higher gas prices and higher electric bills. Let's remember that then-candidate Obama said that, under his plan, energy prices "would necessarily skyrocket." Let's remember, too, that Rep. John Dingell told Al Gore during a committee hearing that Waxman-Markey was "a tax and a great big one."
The California-based business is pleased that the final bill counted municipal solid waste in its definition of renewable biomass, said Ted Kniesche, a vice president of business development at Fulcrum. The biomass language came as part of a deal hammered out with House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) to bring more farm-state members on board as the Waxman-Markey plan neared a final vote.
Apparently, that wasn't Rep. Peterson's concern. Apparently, it was more important that he got his fig leaf of political cover in exchange for legislation that won't impact global warming :
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."Waxman-Markey has three guarantees: one of the biggest tax increases in U.S. history, no impact on the environment and higher enegy costs to consumers. Something's telling me that those aren't the priorities that Collin Peterson's constituents would set.
I further suspect that Rep. Peterson's setting stupid priorities is why he won't hold townhall meetings. He's seen the treatments that Claire McCaskill, Russ Carnahan and Lloyd Doggett have received recently on health care.
It's time that Rep. Peterson stopped hiding and instead time for him to actually listen to his constituents. That means taking the heat along with the compliments. It's time that Peterson stopped being afraid of answering his constituents' questions.
If he isn't willing to do that, then it's time he retired.
Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 2:52 AM
No comments.
Imminent Middle Class Tax Hikes?
When George Stephanopoulos asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner whether he'd rule out tax increases, he got a less-than-enthusiastic response. Here's what Stephanopoulos wrote :
To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a "This Week" exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, "We're going to have to do what's necessary."That's Washingtonspeak for "Brace yourselves. Tax increases are imminent." Larry Summers is signalling that middle class tax increases are imminent , too:
Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn't do it.
"We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically," Geithner told me. "And that's going to require some very hard choices." "We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we convince the American people that we are going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," he said.
Summers, an ambitious pol said to be salivating over the prospect of becoming the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, was asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if even the middle class could face higher taxes under the president's ambitious healthcare overhaul. "There's a lot that could happen over time," he said sounding like an oracle. "It's never a good idea to absolutely rule things, rule things out, no matter what."Proving that fact is stranger than fiction, the LA Times reminds us what Candidate Obama said about tax increases:
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."Memo to Larry Summers: It sounds like your boss ruled something out without equivocation or hesitation. Of course, people with a brain didn't take Candidate Obama's pledge seriously. Democrats raise taxes to pay for increased spending. That's Politics 101. It's as predictable as the Yankees spending lavishly on the free agent market.
The Obama administration's irresponsible spending spree caused record deficits. Left unchecked, those deficits will cause higher interest rates and high inflation rates. Had Democrats decided that they would've been sensible, there wouldn't need to be a raft of proposed massive tax increases.
Unfortunately, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are wedded to spending irresponsible amounts of the people's money. That's why defeating liberals all across the nation is vitally important in 2010. Our wallets can't afford to keep this leadership team intact in 2011. The economy can't afford it, either.
Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 10:54 AM
No comments.
Gov. Pawlenty's Critique of ObamaCare
My first reaction to Gov. Pawlenty's op-ed was simple: Finally, a politician who gets it. Before getting into Gov. Pawlenty's op-ed, it's important that we think back to the greatest example of state-level innovation of the last quarter century.
During the 1990s, the Great Lakes governors took innovation to another level. The result was effective welfare reform in Massachusetts and Wisconsin and state-level education reform in Michigan and Wisconsin. These innovations played a major role in the prosperity of the 1990s. In fact, a respectable argument can be made that these innovations were the catalyst to the prosperity we experienced.
Fast forward to today. We're again facing major problems that need solutions. Because he wasn't a governor, President Obama doesn't have alot of patience with outside-the-Beltway-based reforms. If he didn't have such a 'Washingtoncentric' attitude, he'd realize that that's the route he should pick for health care reform. Gov. Pawlenty's message to the nation is vitally needed. Here's part of what Gov. Pawlenty said about health care reform:
Instead of returning power to patients and rewarding positive outcomes, many Democrats in Washington want a government-run plan that would require states to comply with dozens of new mandates and regulations. One study by the Lewin Group recently concluded that an estimated 114 million Americans could be displaced from their current coverage under such a plan, and another study by House Republicans said the plan could result in the loss of up to 5 million jobs over the next 10 years.Thus far, the Democrats' reforms have focused mostly on access. To a lesser extent, they've focused on prices, not to be confused with costs. Completely absent from their reform discussion is quality. That's the fatal flaw in their legislation.
In typical fashion, the self-proclaimed experts piecing together this Democratic health-care legislation are focusing on only one leg, access, of a three-legged stool that also includes cost and quality. Expanding access to health care is a worthwhile goal. But equal or greater focus should be placed on containing costs for the vast majority of Americans who already have insurance. Those costs will not be contained by a massive expansion of federal programs.
Massachusetts's experience should caution Congress against focusing primarily on access. While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected. The result? Increased taxes and fees. The Boston Globe has reported on a current short-term funding gap and the need to obtain a new federal bailout.
If you ask the average person how important it is that their health care system is high quality, I'll bet that they'll say that it's the most important consideration. I'll bet that they'll say that access is worthless if that access doesn't provide cures for whatever ails them.
QUESTION: Isn't health care really a means to an end, with the end being a return to full health? Shouldn't all reforms be required to fix something that's broken in the system while maintaining the high quality care we currently have?
In Minnesota, our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket.This isn't magic. It's common sense. Give people the freedom to make decisions and the information they need to make important health care decisions and they'll make the right decision far more often than they'll make a bad decision.
Not surprisingly, informed health-care consumers vote wisely with their feet and their wallets. Employees overwhelmingly selected providers who deliver higher quality and lower costs as a result of getting things right the first time. The payoff is straightforward: For two of the past five years, we've had zero percent premium increases in the state employee insurance plan .
It's also impressive that health insurance premiums for state employees haven't seen high inflation rates. This isn't by accident. It's the result of results-oriented market policies.
Steve Gottwalt is one of the health care experts in the House GOP. He's also my adopted state representative. Steve thinks that we should look at the Swiss health care system instead of the policies that the Democrats are currently embracing. Steve doesn't agree with everything in Switzerland's health care system but he thinks we should adopt a number of the things from their system. Here's what he recently told me:
I believe the Swiss model gives us a good example of consumer-driven, market-based solutions that preserve quality and innovation, increase access, and reduce costs. Switzerland has an individual mandate (not something I'm keen about) that everyone must have health insurance, but they leave it up to the consumers to choose the coverage that suits them best. The government helps subsidize those who can't afford coverage; those who can afford it buy it; those who want Cadillac coverage (and can afford it) can buy it. Swiss health care is high quality, with excellent access, no rationing, and they spend 11% of their GDP compared to our 17%.I share Steve's skepticism of mandated health insurance. Still, I'm impressed with the fact that they have high quality health care and their costs are under control. Steve also points out what I've known for awhile:
We have the best level of treatment for serious illnesses, and best adult mortality rates in the world. We treat our sick people instead of letting them die waiting for care.Government-run health care systems aren't at all responsive. Serious people can't look at the VA hospital system or at Medicare patients and say that those systems are responsive or innovative. The VA hospitals are pathetic excuses for health care facilities. If private hospitals or clinics were run that shoddily, they'd be shut down in no time flat.
Serious people understand that parts of the health care system need reforming. Nobody's disputing that. What's in dispute is whether ObamaCare should get serious consideration as a reform option.
After people read Gov. Pawlenty's op-ed, ObamaCare faces a steeper uphill climb than they already were facing.
Posted Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Aug-09 07:10 AM
WaPo publishing that op-ed is interesting. I am glad you spotted it, because it was below my radar.
It looks as if Weymouth has found sponsorship gains, even without having held any of her proposed salons for savants.
Trust mainstream media to be, well, you complete that thought for me Gary. With WaPo and Fox now looking to be working the same side of the street, what will people think?
One final healthcare thought - MN 6, if you know, do the Bachmann clinic staff still lack employer-provided healthcare coverage, are they still in that bind? The question seems timely, especially now with the Bachmann family itself likely to be covered via Ms. B. holding the seat in Congress?
Tinklenberg is Officially Out
El Tinklenberg didn't have a serious shot at winning the DFL endorsement for running against Michele Bachmann. Today, he acted on that reality by withdrawing from the race :
A week after he announced he was running again for Congress, Elwyn Tinklenberg this morning said he had reconsidered his prospects in an increasingly competitive field of candidates in the Sixth District race.Actually, Tinklenberg is a better fit for the district than Tarryl in terms of his beliefs. This makes the Bachmann-Tarryl matchup essentially inevitable, which is what I've expected from the start.
"I am terminating my campaign for Congress," he said in a statement. "This is obviously not an easy decision for me, but I have come to the conclusion that it's the right one." Tinklenberg said while he welcomed the chance of running once more against incumbent Michele Bachmann, a Republican, "the path to that campaign is becoming increasingly improbable."
What this means is that Tarryl will have to defend her votes to increase taxes that much longer. In a district with a strong entrepreneurial streak, increasing taxes on small businesses is the fastest way to become unpopular.
A few minutes after he announced his withdrawal, State Sen. Tarryl Clark, another Democrat, secured a powerful union endorsement for her bid for the seat. She received the backing of AFSCME Council 5, which represents 43,000 public and nonprofit workers, including 5,000 in the district.The DFL frotnrunner getting AFSCME Council 5's endorsement will help Tarryl solidify her position for the endorsement next summer. Still, it's worth having in terms of GOTV operations.
Considering the political climate, I'm not certain that the DFL endorsement is worth that much. (Check back to LFR later for a post on the changing political conditions.) In my opinion, having the DFL endorsement in CD-6 this year isn't worth much. It's shaping up to be a difficult year for Democrats nationally. Running against Michele Bachmann isn't much fun any year because she's a great campaigner who doesn't take prisoners.
I think that Tinklenberg made the right decision for himself by dropping out. Good luck, Tarryl. You'll need alot of that.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 4, 2009, revised 08-Nov 2:42 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Aug-09 06:57 AM
Gary, you probably have it pegged, the race will be on Bachmann's record, not Tarryl's.
And the record is that she's a large mouth that is several paragraphs ahead of her brain, she makes up facts and dramatizes them, and she's divisive and has a do-nothing record in Congress.
What bill of substance has she authored? Name one.
All hat, no cattle.
Clark has been in State leadership for some time, and with Reed possibly opting for an IP run and being a serious and intelligent option there to Bachmann's amateur hour antics, I am not certain you are reading the cards correctly.
But it will be circus time in the district. And prior to the Tinklenberg decision you seemed to feel the DFL situation interested you more than now when you say the endorsement in the DFL probably will be a non-factor.
We agree, and the pundits have called it - CD 3 and CD 6 will be the more contested seats.
So why are we seeing the GOP leadership smoke screen going on now about Collin Peterson? Cargill likes Peterson exactly where he is, and the farmers agree. If the GOP leadership expects to wedge into one DFL seat, it would be Walz, wouldn't it? Why this misdirection now, or is it just working the GOP base to a frenzy over Peterson, as something to do early on, to condition them for the other events, Governor included?
Obama Administration Picking Foolish Fights
The Obama administration hasn't learned the time-tested axiom that you shouldn't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. Tuesday morning, that's what Linda Douglass did. She accused Matt Drudge of cherrypicking videotapes to make it sound like President Obama favors a single-payor health care plan.
That's because Drudge linked to a video showing then-Sen. Obama saying that he believes in single-payor but that he didn't think they could make the transition immediately. Sen. Obama said that it might take 10 to 20 years before they could transition from our current system to a single payor system.
I suspect that Ms. Douglass thought that she'd put out that forest fire after making that video. Ms. Douglass was wrong. BADLY WRONG, in fact. She's wrong because Mary Katherine Ham put this post together for the Weekly Standard blog.
Despite copious coverage this morning, a top link on Drudge, and the Politico dubbing it a " viral campaign ," Douglass' dreary video is up to only about 350 views. The original attack video is logging more than 400,000.The extended version of the video now has had 55,977 views in only a few hours. Linda Douglass's video now has 49,327 views for almost an entire day. Meanwhile, Drudge's original video has had 509,504 views.
As the White House should have learned by now, picking a fight with a guy like Drudge can be counterproductive, just like picking a fight with say, Rush Limbaugh. Today, Drudge responds with the uncut version of this 2003 video of Obama advocating single-payer, government-controlled health care, but warning that it will be a gradual process.
More importantly, the new Drudge video shows that President Obama is a proponent of single-payor health care, thereby refuting Ms. Douglass's video. This is the most tech-savvy administration yet but they still haven't figured out that they can't spin things when there's video disproving their spin. Perhaps that's proof of their arrogance.
Whether it's arrogance or foolishness that's causing the Obama administration to make these decisions, there's no denying the fact that they've seen health care reform go from looking like a sure thing to where it's hanging on for dear life.
Between the Democrats' mistakes and the reality of how much the Democrats' reform will cost, the Obama administration now is facing an uphill fight. The good news is that they deserve it.
Posted Wednesday, August 5, 2009 2:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Aug-09 06:40 AM
Gary, that "10 to 20 years" hedging is why some of us who believe that with stronger leadership the gap could be lessened are frustrated with Obama. If neither pole of the spectrum is happy, some might say he is doing something right. My frustration is he has in effect taken single-payor off the table or allowed it so, well before the groundswell of public opinion has been sounded. He's weaseling and retrenching, and knuckling under to GOP, Blue Dog, and industry pressures for delay and watered down non-reform and it is disappointing. It is no kind of "CHANGE" whatsoever. More was expected when the man gained such overwhelming support. It is as if he was disingenuous then, not now, in retrenchment mode.
Any thoughts that way?
Paulsen vs. Bonoff In the Works?
Doug Grow's post about a potential matchup of Rep. Erik Paulsen vs. State Sen. Terri Bonoff got me thinking about the 2010 election cycle.
First, let's put in the context of there being a significantly different political dynamic at work in the 2010 cycle than what existed in 2008. Simply put, Sen. Bonoff might've lost her best opportunity to win the Third District seat.
According to Rasmussen's Generic Ballot Question polling , Democrats currently trail Republicans by a 43%-38% margin, which is outside the margin of error. That means Bonoff, like Tarryl Clark, would be fighting against this year's trend. It isn't impossible to win in this climate but it's more challenging than 2008 would've been.
It's also more difficult to defeat an incumbent than it is to capture an open seat. If you factor in what I call the Obama Factor (Obama's presence at the top of the ticket plus his great GOTV operation), it isn't difficult to picture Sen. Bonoff having a better shot at winning last time.
The other thing that's getting noticed is that Erik Paulsen is a solid conservative who is creating a strong bond with CD-3 GOP activists. Those activists will be a strong GOTV operation next year.
There's still 15 months separating us from Election Day, 2010, which is several political lifetimes. Still, with Democrats spending money like there's no tomorrow and with health care reform pulling Democrats down, coupled with the fact that Democrats will have alot of vulnerable freshman and sophomore seats to defend and Sen. Bonoff is fighting an uphill fight.
Posted Wednesday, August 5, 2009 2:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Aug-09 06:32 AM
Gary, I am glad to see you thinking about this possibility.
Bonoff did not gain the DFL endorsement last cycle, so it is all hypothetical.
And incumbency generally is a benefit, it was for Ramstad, but as you have noted there is a gulf between Paulsen's and Ramstad's dynamics and viewpoints.
And it is not as if Bonoff is a wild card. Folks know who she is. With healthcare reform still a wildcard; how much would you bet, either way?
What is most interesting is you do not seem to see any more viable DFL option. With your knowledge of the district, is there one, in your opinion? Or is it very likely Bonoff vs. Paulsen? That seems the implicit point of your post. But explicitly, do you read a Bonoff endorsement as a DFL done deal? Not that you are privy to DFL inner thinking, just do you see anyone else as much of a factor?
And what about the IP in CD 3? Only a wild card? Less a factor than when it was an open seat contest?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Aug-09 07:45 AM
Eric, I think the only thing that's wild about the health care reform debate is whether it'll hurt Democrats or if it'll be devastating.
As for CD-3, I think the elections are really all about Paulsen. If he keeps his nose clean, he'll be there a long time.
Bonoff is actually a relatively good fit for the district. It's just that her chances dropped dramatically when the DFL activists picked Madia.
Comment 3 by R-Five at 05-Aug-09 04:48 PM
I'm OK with this matchup. Bonoff is terrible on camera, like Barbara Boxer, makes absolutely no sense.
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-Aug-09 07:44 AM
Gary, thanks for the reply comment.
I thought the Madia group did an excellent political job of gaining the endorsement - working the caucus machinery, then butchered the general putting Madia in a "Me too, I agree with Paulsen," mode where only the IP candidate out of the three looked sound. It was a big disappointment for me, from bold to overly cautious to certain defeat by failing to energize or distinguish himself as closer to Ramstad than Paulsen is.
R-Five -- I have never seen Bonhoff, but Paulsen is far from being the Energizer Bunny, except for his plodding manner, he keeps going and going. I thought the IP guy came out as the brightest and most articulate of the CD 3 set.
Comment 5 by Walter Hanson at 06-Aug-09 06:36 PM
Eric:
It's easy to win the endorsement when you run far left. Madia got the endorsement because he was running far left. The general campaign was a disaster for him because Paulsen showed that madia was a liberal democrat who will hurt the district.
Think about Madia ran the campaign you folks wanted compared with Tinkelberg and Franken (no luggage, open seat, well organized) and he had his butt kicked.
The district should have an easy win for Paulsen in 2010 regardless who the Democrats put up.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
