January 12-14, 2010
Jan 12 01:55 That's the Democrats' Strategy For 2010? Jan 12 03:02 Pat Anderson Drops Gubernatorial Bid, Starts State Auditor Bid Jan 12 04:07 It's Time to Dispel These Myths Jan 12 04:58 I'm Bringing the Butter. Charlie Crist Is Toast Jan 13 02:08 GOP Civil War Playing Well Jan 13 04:58 Chris Tiedeman's Reinventing the Right Project Jan 13 12:45 What Exactly Is The Argument For Norm??? Jan 14 11:22 Kelliher, DFL Fined
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
That's the Democrats' Strategy For 2010?
Salena Zito's Sunday column contains some quotes from Democratic strategists that simply boggle the mind. Here's one of the quotes:
Says a Democratic insider who was intimately part of the 2006 and 2008 national gains for his party: " I think the overarching message needs to be populist in nature and reaffirm to voters experiencing the greatest economic anxiety (that) 'We hear you , and we aren't going to let corporate America", such as big banks or credit-card companies, "exploit consumers after we just bailed them out.'"WE HEAR YOU??? That's gonna be their message after ignoring the American people during the health care debate? That's gonna be their message after passing the stimulus bill without reading it and over the objections of the American people? That's insulting the American people, which will only dig a deeper hole for Democrats.
"To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the 2010 death of the Democratic Party are greatly exaggerated," says Phil Singer, a Democratic political consultant and former spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 2006 midterm coup.Phil Singer can quote Twain if he likes but I'd argue that Bachmann-Turner Overdrive offers the more appropriate quote: You ain't seen nothing yet. If Democrats think that they're encountering resistance to their governance, they ain't seen nothing yet.
In November and December, Democrats kept House and Senate members away from their constituents so they could threaten, bribe and intimidate them into voting for their health care legislation. They got accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. This fall, the 60+ percent of the American people that the Democrats ignored will have their say. It won't be pretty. That's what Byron Dorgan saw happening before deciding he'd retire.
I'd also quote Richard Trumka's statement from this morning:
In a speech before the National Press Club (and comments beforehand), AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka insisted that Democrats are "inviting a repeat" of the 1994 midterm elections by instituting a tax on high-end insurance plans as part of their final health care compromise, among other things.Big Labor doesn't have to sit at home to destroy the Democrats. They simply have to be less than enthusiastic in their financial support for Democrats that vote for taxing the unions' Cadillac health care plans. That would hurt Democrats already running into a stiff wind.
"It could well be" a recipe for disaster in 2010, Trumka told a group of reporters. "I just came back from southern California. I was in five or six places out there...it is amazing the number of people that come up to you unsolicited and say, 'I'm really worried about this health care bill.'"
Asked if he thought union and non-union workers will stay at home if health care reform (as outlined by the Senate) is passed into law, Trumka replied: "That could very well happen. A bad bill could have that effect...an [election] where people sit home. It could suppress votes...Look at what happened in '94."
Whichever way you slice it, the Democrats are in trouble this cycle. Having competent strategists wouldn't have helped save them from tough election but having incompetent strategists might lose them a couple extra seats.
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:01 AM
No comments.
Pat Anderson Drops Gubernatorial Bid, Starts State Auditor Bid
Earlier this morning, I got an email in my inbox inviting me to become a Facebook fan of Pat Anderson for State Auditor. That kinda surprised me since I didn't know that she'd announced she was dropping her gubernatorial campaign . Now that Pat's announced she's running for her old job under significantly different circumstances, it's worth taking a look at Election 2010 in Minnesota. Let's start by looking at the impact her announcement will have on the gubernatorial race.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm supporting Tom Emmer. Pat's departure will likely help Tom Emmer. I don't hold that opinion because I'm supporting him. Rather, it's my opinion because it's been a well-known fact that Pat and Tom were fighting over many of the same people. Both openly courted fiscal conservatives because both are fiscal conservatives.
Pat's getting out likely hurts Marty Seifert, though it'd be a stretch to call it a death blow. It likely hurts Marty because having Pat out of the race means that Tom will collect the lion's share of the fiscal conservatives.
At this point, I can't imagine Pat not getting the GOP endorsement for State Auditor. It's a job she's had before. She was very good at it. She got swamped in the 2006 disaster when a DFL wave swept the state. The question now is whether a similar wave will swamp Rebecca Otto, who formally announced that she's seeking re-election :
State Auditor Rebecca Otto, May Township, formally announced her re-election bid today (Monday, Jan. 11), speaking of innovation in government.Any DFL candidate that says they don't play politics is really saying that the politics they play aren't openly political. That said, it'll be interesting to see how this race shapes up. In the end, I think it tilts in Pat Anderson's direction because she made great inroads with fiscal conservatives.
"I'm not playing politics. I'm all about good government," said Otto to supporters. "And I will not stop," she said.
I've mentioned fiscal conservatives alot in connection with Pat because it's important to note that fiscal conservatives, whether they've supported Dr. Ron Paul or not, are the most energized activists. In every election that I've ever paid attention to, the candidate with the most go-getters campaign volunteers wins. If Pat wins, which I think is quite possible, it's because her volunteers will have run through walls for her.
The other thing Pat has going for her is that her name recognition is higher than Rebecca Otto's. Pat's name recognition was earned by showing up at the gubernatorial debates. For instance, she made a positive impression at the bipartisan gubernatorial forum in St. Cloud. (I'd be surprised if the conservatives there that night didn't give her a high grade that night.)
From an activist's perspective, I'm glad to hear Pat didn't adopt a I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home attitude. Instead, she's jumping into what appears to be a winnable race. This just strengthens the MNGOP ticket in 2010.
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:06 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-Jan-10 09:17 AM
It's a shame, though, that our two very excellent auditor candidates, both of whom have run excellent races to date and are arguably better-qualified, are probably going to play second fiddle to this...nothing derogatory intended, really... "retread" candidate. I wish there were a way they could all win.
I'm equally uncomfortable with the way you've characterized the governor's race. They're all fine candidates, and all, in my opinion, fiscal conservatives. The only difference I've seen isn't one of substance or even degree on the issues, but of style. The critical issue, IMHO, comes after May Day, when everybody either lines up behind the endorsed candidates to win, or picks up their individual ball to go home.
Comment 2 by Margaret at 12-Jan-10 09:37 AM
It's more than a little unfair to call Pat a retread. One thing I have noticed is that there are some people, especially some people who are new to politics that think that the answer to all of our problems is to start fresh and throw all incumbents out in the street. That's easier than actually studying their records. Some ought to go and some definitely NOT. Not only because they have fought the good fight while in the minority but also because they have something that ought to be precious to us--EXPERIENCE. Something the party of government will always have more of than we do. There are many legislative battles down the road if we cut into the DFL's majority this time or even better take a house. It will all be for naught if we don't have people who understand the process and can use it to our advantage rather than get out flanked by the DFL just because they are better at it than we are, with a bunch of right thinking newbies. Big government is just really good at fighting back.
In the case of Pat, study her record as auditor. I happen to think she was great and really cut into a huge area of government waste that goes unnoticed by many people, local government. You may disagree, but before you call her a "retread" I would think about what her experience in that office would mean to the how effective that office could be from day 1 in cutting government.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Jan-10 11:57 AM
I'm giving Margaret the 'Wisest Comment of the Day' Award she's just nailed it. It's easy to not do the research & say that there isn't a dime's worth of difference. Anyone can do that. THANKS MARGARET!!!
Glenn Beck is great at the 'there's not a dime's worth of difference rants' while ignoring people like John Kline, Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, Thad McCotter, John Shadegg & Paul Ryan. It's an easy cheapshot line but it doesn't have much to do with reality.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 12-Jan-10 10:59 AM
Jerry, Thanks for bringing out the rain clouds on this beautiful day.
Yes, I know there are some spoiled brats in the GOP but they're getting overwhelmed by the fresh faces brought in by the TEA Party movement.
Here's the reality: Tom Emmer & Pat Anderson benefit from this decision. So does the MNGOP because (a) the people they've been courting will run through walls for them & (b) they're drawing in energized unaffiliated voters.
It's Time to Dispel These Myths
Chuck Raasch's op-ed in today's USA Today contains two myths that the Agenda Media frequently peddle. It's time to dispel that myth once and for all. Here's the first myth I'm referring to:
The anti-tax, anti-big government Tea Party movement is the most active and most dynamic force in politics now, and both political parties risk a backlash if they do not take it seriously. Where the Tea Party movement ends up in 2010, inside the Republican Party or in a more independent or detached mode by November, is the biggest and most important unknown right now.Mr. Raasch shouldn't assume that he knows what they're about when it comes to the TEA Party movement. While it's true that the TEA Party movement started as a 'Throw-The-Bums-Out' movement that Obama's bailoutmania agenda ignited, that isn't where it's at today.
Glenn Beck often goes into his 'there-isn't-a-dime's-worth-of-difference' mode. He couldn't be more wrong. Regardless, people living in the heartland have noticed that elections have consequences. Right now, I can't afford to take Mr. Beck's long view approach because the Democrats have control of the levers of power. The vast majority of my TEA Party activist allies feel the same way.
The only logical place for them is within the GOP. The third party option isn't an option. As currently configured, the Democratic Party isn't an option, either. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
Here in Minnesota, people who worry about the Democrats' fiscal insanity identify with Republicans, especially Michele Bachmann. (That isn't a slight on John Kline or Erik Paulsen. It's just recognition that Michele is the one most identified with the TEA Party movement.
In Michigan, TEA Party activists identify with Thad McCotter. I found out during my interview with Rep. McCotter that he's a huge fan of the TEA Party movement. In Indiana, TEA Party activists identify with Mike Pence. In Ohio, TEA Party activists identify with John Kasich.
In short, the GOP is quickly becoming identified as the TEA Party Party.
Here's another myth that's related to the TEA Party:
The Republican brand is in even worse shape than the Democrats', 28% positive and 43% negative in December. In 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, the GOP was a blank slate. Today, Americans are more familiar with Republicans in power, and some are wary of their return.The Democrats are doing the heavy lifting for the GOP. Their strategists appear to think that telling the people that Republicans didn't support the Democrats' reckless spending plans is helping the Democrats. Thanks to the Democrats' gift of publicizing the fact that Republicans are exercising fiscal restraint, Republicans are rebuilding quicker than expected.
During the 2008 campaign, the candidates I stayed in touch with told me that their door-knocking revealed that Republicans weren't well liked but conservatives got better ratings. If the TEA Party activists have the impact that I think they will, they'll help recruit more fiscally responsible Republican candidates. That's half the battle by itself.
In turn, if the GOP returns to their fiscally responsible roots, the Republicans' negative rating will mirror the TEA Party's positive ratings by the end of November, 2010.
You can take that to the bank.
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:14 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-Jan-10 08:38 AM
I love your optimism, but there are still two possibilities you haven't mentioned. The first is that the conservatives, to the degree they are not Republicans, can simply stay home with a pox-on-both-your-houses (and obviously self-destructive) mentality in November. The second is that these same people will vote in some races but skip others, believing that NOT voting for a "RINO" or even less-than-perfect Republican somehow gives them a magic third choice on the ballot-- "Mr. Nobody."
Fortunately, I see some signs that both the Republican Party and the Tea Party folks-- normal, good conservatives all-- are both coming to their senses and realizing they need each other. The caucuses will be, I strongly hope, an affirmation of that.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Jan-10 11:01 AM
Jerry, I've considered those possibilities. I didn't think that they were liikely, though they were possibilities.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 12-Jan-10 04:24 PM
Two words that could upset your neat applecart:
Ron Paul
Where he goes and what he does is not an agenda owned by the Jesus jockeys, the warmongers, the Rubio support group, or the Sutton-Brodkorb-Crists.
He's not a Tea Bagger, but he's got more credibility than the entire host of the others, collectively.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 12-Jan-10 04:27 PM
What do you think of this six hundred per head, plus transportation and lodging organizational thing at Opry land?
Gary, J.Ewing, are you going. Is Captn. Fishsticks?
See, there's an effort to coopt the thing, and a buy-in threshold being put up already to screen out the riff-raft.
That could splinter and backfire largely. Some are trying to put their behind in the driver's seat; and not being elected as much as self-appointed.
Your tent, guys. My opinions.
I'm Bringing the Butter. Charlie Crist Is Toast
Based on this Miami Herald article , I'm betting the ranch that Charlie Crist will soon exit the Florida GOP primary for the U.S. Senate seat. Here's what makes me think that:
Republican activists in Gov. Charlie Crist's home county voted 106-54 to support former House Speaker Marco Rubio in the U.S. Senate primary. Monday night's straw poll was the 11th conducted by a county Republican committee and Rubio has won them all.The Rubio campaign quickly sent out a list of their straw poll wins. Here's the abridged version of their list:
Pasco County- Rubio 73, Crist 9In polite society, that's what you'd call a thumping. Thrashing works, too. The AP included this observation:
Lee County- Rubio 60, Crist 11
Highlands County- Rubio Won 75-1
Bay County-Rubio won 23-2
Jefferson County- Rubio won 39-6
Florida Federation Of College Republicans- Rubio won 19-6
Republican Women's Club of Duval Federated- Rubio won 65-4
Gilchrist County- Rubio won 11-1
Hernando County- Rubio 46, Crist 0
Marion County- Rubio 40, Crist 8
Palm Beach County- Rubio 90, Crist 17
Okaloosa County- Rubio 86, Crist 4
South Sarasota County- Rubio 70, Crist 17
Orange County- Rubio 211, Crist 27
The fact that Crist lost in Pinellas County, which he represented in the state Senate and where he's lived nearly all his life, can't be a good sign for Crist.Gee. Ya think? Crist's campaign likely with spin it by saying that straw polls are largely symbolic, which is true to a point. They stop being symbolic when the man with the 100 percent name recognition gets thumped by a relative unknown time after time after time. Here's what the Tamba Bay Times reported :
Rubio got 106 votes to 54 for Crist among the members of the county's Republican executive committee; three other candidates got a total of 9 votes.TRANSLATION: Rubio is garnering the support of the most reliable workers. If a campaign, like Gov. Crist's, can't outwork their opponents, they're in trouble.
The committee is the governing body of the local party, including representatives from most voting precincts. Of its 240 members, 177 were present to vote.
It was only the latest in a series of more than a dozen straw polls won by Rubio, most by large margins, in county Republican parties or GOP clubs. Those voting are the party's base supporters, people who attend party meetings, volunteer to work in campaign boiler rooms , and rarely vote across party lines.
That's why I think it's probable that Crist will be forced to drop out before there's a primary.
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 5:07 AM
No comments.
GOP Civil War Playing Well
Last Friday night, Larry Jacobs told Cathy Wurzer that the GOP was in the midst of a civil war . Based on Scott Rasmussen's generic ballot polling , I'm torn between thinking that the GOP civil war is playing exceptionally well or Larry Jacobs's GOP civil war is exceptionally exaggerated. Since it isn't likely that Larry's information is wrong, the only conclusion I can reach is that the GOP's civil war is playing exceptionally well.
Republican candidates have now posted a nine-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the first two weeks of 2010. The latest national telephone survey shows that 45% now would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.In 2006, Rasmussen pegged the Democrats' lead at six points. They gained 31 House seats . In 2008, their generic ballot lead was 6 points. The Democrats won 21 seats .
Last week, Republicans started the New Year with a nine-point lead, their biggest in several years, while support for Democrats fell to its lowest level in years. Republicans have held the lead on the ballot for over four months now.
The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats is down to the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of tracking.
I don't think that the Democrats' tumble has run its course. While GDP growth will likely increase, job growth isn't likely to be prolific enough to help Democrats. Besides, the Democrats' difficulties run much deeper than the economy. Factor in Bailoutmania, the Democrats' failed stimulus bill, Cap and Trade and Pelosicare, including the Medicare cuts, and you've got serious difficulties.
Let's remember that there wasn't a recession in 1994. It's true that there were alot more retirements than there are this year. The focus of many quotes from Democratic strategists is on retirements. I think that's a mistake. Each cycle has its own unique identifier.
There wasn't a TEA Party movement to fuel the passion in 1994. In 1994, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wasn't threatening to actively campaign against Democrats like they're threatening to do this year:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue warned the U.S. faces a double-dip recession because of the taxes and regulations under consideration by the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama.Simply put, there's alot of things working against Democrats. In 1994, there really were 2 things working against them: corruption, which led to the retirements, and health care.
"Congress, the administration and states must recognize that our weak economy simply could not sustain all the new taxes, regulations and mandates now under consideration. It's a sure-fire recipe for a double-dip recession, or worse," Donohue said in a speech providing the Chamber's outlook for 2010.
Donohue said the lawmakers should not let former President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of year and lambasted Democratic efforts on healthcare and financial regulatory reform as well as climate change.
This year, Democrats are fighting alot diferent opponent. In 1994, people didn't start thinking about retaking the House until October. This year, activists are already thinking it's possible. The volunteers will be fired up by March, ready to run through walls if that's what's needed.
In 2006, local and state Chambers of Commerce picked their spots in supporting candidates. This year, local, state and federal Chambers of Commerce will be actively contributing to Republicans. In 1994, Democrats threw health care reform under the proverbial bus the minute it started heading south. This year, they're hanging onto it even while they're dropping in the polls.
I don't know that Republicans will retake the majority in the House but I'm certainly not ruling it out.
That isn't bad for a party supposedly without solutions to today's problems while they're fighting a civil war.
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:08 AM
No comments.
Chris Tiedeman's Reinventing the Right Project
Tuesday afternoon, I interviewed longtime GOP activist Chris Tiedeman about his latest project. Titled " Reinventing the Right; Conservative Voices for the New Millennium ", Chris talked about how his new project fits nicely into the TEA Party movement. Here's Chris's reply to my comment that his project fits into the TEA Party movement:
Many or most of the folks who have become self activated by the TEA Party movement are out there for that very reason. They are nurses solving health care without Harry Reid's input.The pioneering American spirit is still alive and well, although it's been hibernating for far too long. Since the days of building the railroad to building the Golden Gate Bridge and into the twentieth century, America has had a spirit of ingenuity and innovation. Chris's book, Reinventing the Right: Conservative Voices for the New Millennium, is a solutions-oriented book. Follow this link to buy a copy of Chris's book.
The current majority isn't convinced that people can make smart decisions. That seams fair since We The People think that Washington and St. Paul politicians haven't made alot of great decisions lately.
Here's another great exchange:
GARY: Chris, You mentioned earlier that we're at a crossroads...How will free market capitalism help people prosper?Chris is exactly right. It's time We The People accessed the information we need. It's time that our government got out of the way. The thought that people can chart their own course is a liberating thought. That makes it appealling, too.
CHRIS: We are at a point in history where information is instant and nearly perfect. That isn't to say that all information is accurate, but everyone has access to such a vast amount of information that the consumer is in control. Markets, with the kind of information available, lead almost by necessity to prosperity.
Reinventing the Right has a definite libertarian theme to it. That's always been an important force in Minnesota and national politics. It's the direction that the nation is trending in right now.
With Election 2010 looming, Chris won't have long to wait to see whether the people accept the challenge of living more independent lives. That's essentially what this election comes down to. This is the clearest choice between the philosophies in a generation.
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 13-Jan-10 07:13 AM
Quick diversion - not to hijack the post - but Strib reports Pawlenty suggests the unallotment dispute should bypass intermediate Court of Appeals review:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/81240177.html
I agree 100%. Anything else wastes time and effort. It should be expedited to the top, and the front of the queue of matters on the Minnesota Supreme Court docket.
No need to respond unless Gary or another reader disagrees. i think everyone is together on this.
What Exactly Is The Argument For Norm???
There've been a alot of articles written speculating whether Norm would run. My friend Andy Aplikowski wrote a great post this morning on whether Norm should run. First, let me say up front that I love Norm dearly. I think he's a great statesman. Second, it's important that I announce that I've been asked to be part of Tom Emmer's steering committee and that I've accepted that position.
Now that that's been dispensed with, let's cut to the decision facing Republicans. On one hand, you've got Tom Emmer, who has built a great organization and who gained alot of delegates yesterday when Pat Anderson dropped out of the gubernatorial race. Most of Tom's delegates are willing to run through the wall for him. Because of that, I can confidently say that Tom's on the right side of the enthusiasm gap.
Anyone who's paid attention to the last 2 election cycles knows how important that it, don't we? Last year, the Democrats had a huge enthusiasm gap advantage. Now they've got the White House and supermajorities in the House and Senate.
Having talked with Tom about his vision for Minnesota, I'm confident that he can build a vibrant GOP majority. I've witnessed how well his message is selling with Minnesotans. Most importantly, Tom's message doesn't just resonate with rock-ribbed conservatives like Andy and myself. Tom's message connects with independents who are energized about politics for the first time in their life, too . BTW, many of those independents who are energized about politics for the first time in their life are part of the TEA Party movement. I'm confident that history will record the TEA Party movement as the dominant force in American politics this cycle.
That's how winning coalitions are built.
The argument against Tom is feeble. The argument is that he doesn't have high name recognition and his fundraising abilities aren't as good as his opponent. It's worth remembering that that's what the NRSC said about Marco Rubio in Florida.
The argument was that Charlie Crist had the fundraising ability and the 100 percent name recognition, which made him an ideal candidate. Today, Rubio's campaign is gaining momentum. Crist's campaign is in shambles. The army of Rubio supporters is growing and enthusiastic. His message is resonating with the same types of people that Tom's message is reaching. It isn't coincidence that Marco Rubio's message is experiencing the same success that Tom's message is experiencing.
In announcing her candidacy for the State Auditor's position, Pat Anderson paid Tom a great compliment :
Even when she still was in the race, Anderson acknowledged that it has been Emmer who has done the best job of igniting the passions of the forum crowds. " He's a great speaker, very passionate, and the activists feel he has a better [legislative] voting record than Marty [Seifert]."Pat's compliment goes to the heart of why Tom should be our next governor. Tom's willing to fight for his vision of limited government, common sense reforms and restoring prosperity to Minnesota.
Tom's appealing vision for Minnesota will help grow the Republican Party, too. In short, Tom's vision is connecting with Minnesotans, which is why his coalition is so formidable.
Which brings me to Norm. Norm's name recognition is great and his fundraising ability isn't in dispute. With all due respect to Norm, though, those aren't as important as they once were. You needn't look further than Ron Paul's fundraising last year.
he isn't in the U.S. Senate because he didn't run a great campaign. It wasn't that people didn't like him. They did. They just weren't inspired by him.
The biggest question facing Norm is what his message will be. Will he be a fiscal conservative? Nothing in his record says he is. Will he be a reformer? Again, I don't know. Will he fight for Minnesota's taxpayers? I don't know. There's no question whether Tom will fight for Minnesota's taxpayers.
The question that I can't answer is why Norm is the right choice for being the next governor. The question I can answer quickly is why Tom Emmer should be our next governor.
At the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters.
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:32 PM
Comment 1 by Bill Krause at 13-Jan-10 01:06 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by
"you needn't look further than Ron Paul driving factors anymore."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-10 01:33 PM
Good catch Bill. I've corrected that sentence. I think it'll make sense now.
Comment 3 by Bill Krause at 13-Jan-10 01:53 PM
That's better, but I'm still not exactly clear what you mean.
Are you saying that Emmer is going to be able to raise money like Ron Paul? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-10 02:04 PM
Bill, I'm saying that message is more important than fundraising ability. Ron Paul had a message that appealed to some enthusiastic people. Ditto with President Obama.
The moral of the story is that the $$$ will come.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 13-Jan-10 04:53 PM
I'm not one to get into your side's internal strife, but Norm's message would be he brought hockey back to Minnesota.
What else is he going to say, "I lost to Franken in a close one," or "The Wrestler whomped me good?"
Hockey, is my guess. That inspires who, exactly, statewide?
Comment 6 by eric z. at 13-Jan-10 04:58 PM
Gary, I went over and read Andy's item. All your GOP readers should do that. I have seen it termed a "civil war" inside the GOP these days. Given Norm's uncapped ambition it could go uncivil. Not that many outside the GOP would cry at night were that to happen. Just how the tealeaves look to one not used to reading them in the GOP cup.
Comment 7 by Margaret at 13-Jan-10 10:08 PM
Why exactly is the argument for Norm Colman the argument against Tom Emmer? We are in the middle of an evaluation period here before the endorsement. I see both of them as having strengths and both having weaknesses. (Each, very different) People seem very quick to tear candidates down. This will come back to haunt us after the endorsement, whoever the winner is. The other thing that needs to be remembered here is that each candidate has his/her passionate supporters. When you go hammer and tongs against somebody remember that there are some people who have bought into that candidate. When you tear their candidate down you make it harder for people to come together after the endorsement. I say this as somebody with no particular candidate in mind. We have been blessed with a great group of candidates. Let's compare and contrast them, not just choose one and trash the rest. Also, "the money will come" quicker if there is trust and cooperation in the party.
Comment 8 by walter hanson at 13-Jan-10 11:53 PM
Gary:
The question that should be asked what does Norm Coleman do to make us think he can win?
He lost to Franken in part because he had discouraged enough Republicans with his support for out of control spending, for opening the borders.
He has ran three statewide races and lost two of them. The third he won in part because the candidate who he had been running against had an accidental death.
He has lost two statewide races because in the first race he allowed an independent candidate to steal his issues (remember Jesse supported tax cuts and conceal carry until he was given his conceal carry permit). He lost the second race because he allowed an opponent to define him as corrupt.
He's the front runner without even having to offer a vison for what he will do to improve Minnesota.
That's the case the candidates should make. Money will follow that winner. Coleman won't be able to get the nomination.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 9 by J. Ewing at 14-Jan-10 08:40 AM
While we may disagree on preference within the existing field, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I know that the MNGOP has come a long way in the last several years towards being "sensible" in candidate selection, carefully balancing electability and principle, though sometimes failing to endorse both in a single candidate. In this season, however, it seems that we have an embarassment of riches, with multiple gubernatorial candidates already giving us both. I cannot imagine Norm being victorious in that race because he is superior in neither. Would I vote for him over Al Franken again? In a heartbeat, but that's not the choice we're discussing. Norm has a political future, I think, but not if he meddles in this race.
Comment 10 by Bill Krause at 14-Jan-10 10:28 AM
I tend to agree with J. Ewing, we do have a great field of candidates. But in terms of electability, I just don't have confidence in a few of the candidates ability to raise money. Maybe Anderson is right that that donors are waiting for the fog to clear (and for Norm to make a decision).
I also lack confidence in some of our candidates to generate an appeal outside of their base. Maybe in 2010, independents and moderates will move to the right on their own, but this is still Minnesota, so I'm not that optimistic. I've only seen Hann try to make the case that he can attract I's and M's., ever body else is stumbling over each other trying to be the most fiscally conservative.
Comment 11 by Bill Krause at 14-Jan-10 11:19 AM
Short follow up:
From the PiPress
http://www.twincities.com/ci_14184529
"A Rasmussen Reports poll of likely Republican voters released Wednesday showed 52 percent would vote for Coleman in a primary, while all of his GOP challengers were in single digits. "
with this glimmer of hope
"The poll indicated Minnesota voters are becoming more moderate and Republican.
Forty-eight percent consider themselves moderates (up from 35 percent a year ago), while 34 percent said they were conservatives (up 5 percentage points) and 15 percent called themselves liberals (down 6 points).
Thirty-eight percent said they were Democrats (down 6 percentage points from 2009), 32 percent identified themselves as Republicans (up 4 percentage points) and 23 percent called themselves independents (down 2 points). "
Comment 12 by Leslie Davis at 14-Jan-10 11:21 AM
I've attended numerous events when Tom Emmer spoke and for the life of me I cannot discern a message other than opposition to everything. Not one single positive item. Did I miss something, or did you?
Leslie Davis, Republic(m)an for Minnesota Governor 2010
Response 12.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Jan-10 11:54 AM
Mr. Davis, Yes you missed something. Tom's agenda is about making government return to doing what it's supposed to do, not doing what the special interests tell us government should do. Tom's agenda is about making Minnesota a state that limits the scope of government. That means actually saying no to the special interests. That means setting the right priorities. That's the only way Minnesota will again prosper.
You might not like Rep. Emmer's agenda but it's foolish to say that telling government & the special interests no is a bad thing.
Comment 13 by Bill Krause at 14-Jan-10 01:10 PM
"other than opposition to everything. "
Tom Emmer was very clearly for reducing the tax and regulation burden on Minnesota businesses as a way to stimulate job creation.
Comment 14 by Lady Logician at 15-Jan-10 03:41 PM
Mr. Davis - are you the same Leslie Davis touted on this site?
http://earthprotector.org/
If so please tell me WHAT is conservative about anything that is proposed on their "Activities" site.
http://earthprotector.org/activities.php
What business is it of GOVERNMENT whether my dogs are neutered or not? What business of GOVERNMENT is it to dictate what I eat and how much I exercise? What business of STATE GOVERNMENT is it if the school district wants to allow sodas in the schools to raise money?
WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS HOW I RUN MY LIFE?????
I eagerly await your reply Mr. "Republicman".....
LL
Kelliher, DFL Fined
Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and the DFL are getting fined for essentially trying to skirt Minnesota's campaign finance laws:
A state oversight committee fined House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher's gubernatorial campaign $9,000 and the state Democratic-Farmer-Labor committee $15,000 over a campaign finance deal that had Democrats and Republicans alike crying foul.I don't often agree with Matt Entenza but his campaign has it exactly right. This wasn't the DFL and the Kelliher campaign playing on the up and up. MNGOP Chairman Tony Sutton put things in perfect perspective :
Under the arrangement, several Kelliher donors were directed to the DFL party to pay for an expensive voter database after Kelliher had reached a fundraising cap set in state law. The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board today found probable cause that the campaign and the party violated separate state election laws, both gross misdemeanors, and issued the fines.
At least one Democratic candidate issued a swift condemnation following the board's decision.
"What we have seen in the DFL's behavior amounts to an 'inside job' that's unfair to all the other campaigns that played by the rules," said Bridget Cusick, spokeswoman for former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza. Entenza is seeking the DFL endorsement, but has said he will run in a state primary election whether or not he gets it.
Sutton used as simple an analogy as he could to clarify the cash/services issue.Chairman Sutton is exactly right. This isn't that complicated. The DFL should be experts at this stuff. Ditto with Speaker Kelliher. Though the contributions made to the DFL at Speaker Kelliher's request aren't considered an in-kind campaign contribution, it's similar in that a person can't max out their cash contribution to a candidate, then give that candidate another thing of value. Clearly, that's what happened in this instance.
"If I give you $500 for your campaign for governor," he said, "I can't then turn around and give you $500 worth of copy paper."
"These people have been around," said Sutton. "They know the rules. It's so basic. When you file to become a candidate, you get a book: Here's the rules, follow them. It's not that hard."
I can't imagine other candidates like Tom Bakk or Matt Entenza not having private conversation with Brian Melendez. I'm betting that those conversations wouldn't be exchanges of pleasantries. I'm betting that they'd be rather heated.
Chairman Tony Sutton and Deputy Chairman Michael Brodkorb issued this statement following the CFB's ruling:
"Today's ruling vindicates our belief that Margaret Anderson Kelliher deliberately circumvented Minnesota's campaign finance laws to benefit her campaign for governor. Along with R.T. Rybak, Kelliher is now the second DFL gubernatorial candidate to have been involved in a scheme to get around Minnesota's campaign finance laws. Kelliher and other Democrats are wrong to think they don't have to play by the rules. These sort of schemes demonstrate Kelliher does not have the judgment to lead our great state."Initially, the DFL and the Kelliher tried passing this off as a mistake. Chairman Sutton quickly exposed that with the quote I posted above.
The DFL can't plausibly argue that they don't have a culture of corruption problem to fix. Neither can Speaker Kelliher or Mayor Rybak. Speaker Kelliher and Mayor Rybak are veteran politicians who've supposedly read Minnesota's campaign finance laws. It isn't plausible that their campaign finance problems are a simple mistake.
This shouldn't be the defining issue of the campaign but it certainly should be remembered by voters when they study the candidates and determine whether they'll do what they're promising to do.
It's worth remembering that Matt Entenza has truth-telling issues, too. It's worth remembering the different stories he told in 2006 :
Entenza first downplayed his investigation into Hatch. He says in March of last year, he asked for basic public information that any citizen could get, and his campaign manager released the result to the press, a box of routine public documents on the attorney general's office.Putting it politely, Entenza's story isn't credible. You don't hire a high-powered, and high priced, oppo research company to get "basic public information that any citizen could get." You can hire someone to google that sort of stuff.
Two hours later, Entenza said he had just discovered that Chicago-based Gragert Research also asked a local sheriff about Hatch's past parking record.
"I was just looking to get some basic public documents...They decided that they would get these extra public documents. And it is deeply embarrassing to me, and I take responsibility for the fact that it happened," said Entenza.
It's time we got rid of the DFL's culture of corruption. More importantly, it's time we got rid of their anti-prosperity policies, especially their tax increases.
Rybak, Kelliher and Entenza: Putting a high priority on raising taxes. Putting no priority on integrity.
Posted Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jan-10 01:01 PM
Jennifer, Don't hear what isn't being said. I've condemned corruption wherever it's found because there's no such thing as acceptable corruption.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 16-Jan-10 10:14 AM
Gary, your response to Jenifer begs the question. The fact is, you wrote:
"It's time we got rid of the DFL's culture of corruption. More importantly, it's time we got rid of their anti-prosperity policies, especially their tax increases.
"Rybak, Kelliher and Entenza: Putting a high priority on raising taxes. Putting no priority on integrity."
There are two flaws. First, unlike your response, you appear really only intent in getting rid of Dems, corruption being only a guise. Otherwise, why not write it in the body of the post as you delinquently qualify things, in a comment? Get rid of corruption in each party.
Second, it is intellectually dishonest to equate policy differences over proper levels of taxation to a question of integrity.
That is simply partisan intellectual floundering [having both eyes on only one side of the head and hence only seeing things one way].
