July 31, 2008
Jul 31 00:44 The Gaertner-Tinklenberg Scandal??? Jul 31 03:04 Promoting True Energy Independence? Jul 31 04:24 Sen. Obama, How About Answering These Questions Jul 31 10:55 Obama's Tough Talk a Facade Jul 31 11:30 This Is Pelosi's Big Debut? Jul 31 16:48 Tinklenberg Tours Sixth District's Energy Innovators
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
The Gaertner-Tinklenberg Scandal???
As you know, I wrote about Susan Gaertner's LTE in the St. Cloud Times in harsh terms. The more I think about it, the more upset I get with the whole situation. I'm not the only person who's written about this incident. King also referenced it in passing here . Despite those posts, it's time that we scrutinized the connections and implications more.
What We Know About Ms. Gaertner
We know that Susan Gaertner isn't just the Ramsey county attorney.
We know that she's announce that she's running for the DFL endorsement for governor in 2010. We also know that she's Mrs. John Wodele.
What We Know About Mr. Wodele
According to this TPT post , we know that Mr. Wodele is Jesse Ventura's spokesman.
According to that TPT post, we know that Mr. Wodele is working for the Tinklenberg campaign. Though I haven't confirmed this yet, it isn't a stretch to think that he's a paid Tinklenberg campaign staffer. People like Mr. Wodele aren't the volunteer type, if you know what I mean.
Next, let's look at the content of Mrs. Wodele's LTE. It wasn't until the fortieth word before Mrs. Wodele made a misinformed statement about Rep. Bachmann's energy policy. (That's remarkable restraint these days for liberals.) Here's what Mrs. Wodele said:
The congresswomen's plan, announced a couple weeks ago, was simple: Drill.That's just plain inaccurate. Ms. Gaertner knows that Rep. Bachmann is supporting the American Energy Act. Here are some provisions in the American Energy Act:
To improve energy conservation and efficiency, the legislation will:Here's another set of provisions from the bill:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies, the legislation will:Ms. Gaertner knows that this isn't a drill only plan. Ms. Gaertner knows that it's a comprehensive energy package. She just can't admit that in public.
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
Let this be a lesson across the state and across the nation: Facts don't matter in this type of storyline. I'll bet that Democrats, whether we're talking in MN-6 or AZ-1, aren't hindered by verifiable facts. Because they're getting hurt so badly, their last, desperate tactic is to attack with unsubstantiated accusations.
Here's another bit of misinformation from Ms. Gaertner's LTE:
In addition, the EIA report said the projected amounts of oil produced from ANWR at peak would only reduce United States imports of oil by 4 percent and have little impact on the price of a barrel of oil.Right now, the United States uses 20,000,000 bbl./day. Four percent of 20 million is 800,000 bbls./day. There's no reason to think that we can't get close to double that from ANWR. That's before we factor in the oil off the OCS.
Here's another section of the LTE that's worth highlighting:
I take offense when a politician proposes a solution that is essentially a cruel hoax perpetrated on a constituency that is experiencing the agony of $4 gas and soon expecting further anguish when they have to turn on the heat this winter.Mrs. Wodele hasn't provided a bit of verifiable proof that Rep. Bachmann's plan is "a cruel hoax." All she's done is spew Mr. Tinklenberg's talking points, which isn't the same thing.
The big picture point I'm making is that Ms. Gaertner's sloppily researched LTE is a poorly disguised hit piece for her hubby's boss. That certainly isn't Minnesota Nice. In fact, it's downright sleazy. If Mr. Tinklenberg suggested that this be written, then the Tinklenberg campaign should apologize for suggesting it. If Ms. Gaertner's LTE was suggested by her husband, then it's something that the Tinklenberg campaign should distance itself from ASAP.
In either case, the Tinklenberg campaign's behavior has been shameful.
Originally posted Thursday, July 31, 2008, revised 11-Aug 12:17 AM
Comment 1 by Charlie Quimby at 01-Aug-08 12:32 PM
Gary, I don't know whether all your suppositions about the Gaertner-Tinklenberg connection are correct - women running for political office themselves do get to write opinions without consulting their husbands - but at the very least, the paper should've more fully disclosed Gaertner's family relationship to the campaign.
On your comment: "There's no reason to think that we can't get close to double that from ANWR."
Maybe you should look at the report Gaertner cites. This sounds like one reason:
"Significant areas of uncertainty regarding the impact on U.S. oil production and imports of opening ANWR are:
* The size of the underlying resource base. Because there has been little petroleum drilling or exploration in ANWR, there is little first-hand knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of this region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the geologic conditions that exist in the neighboring State lands. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are uncertain."
Of course, oil companies criticized for not drilling on all their leases rightly say it's because not all land leased in the expectation of finding oil actually has enough to be worth drilling. You can't have it both ways - uncertainty when you don't drill but certainty when you want to get access to new land.
Promoting True Energy Independence?
This post on El Tinklenberg's blog suggests that true energy independence is only found in the Sixth District. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Tinklenberg believes that. I'm merely pointing out that Mr. Tinklenberg's blogger has suggested it. Here's the opening paragraph of the post:
While Rep. Michele Bachmann tours the nation for photo opportunities, El Tinklenberg will tour the 6th District today to visit sites that promote true energy independence, lower fuel costs for suffering consumers, and create jobs in our local economy.Is Mr. Tinklenberg's blogger suggesting that the Sixth District is where we'll find the answers to our gas crisis? While I'd agree that there's enough brainpower in the Sixth District, there's one item that isn't found in sufficient supplies to solve the crisis. That item is oil. Without that "item", we won't have "true energy independence."
Why does Mr. Tinklenberg oppose opening ANWR and the OCS? I'm not buying the "The oil companies already have 68 million acres to explore" excuse. I don't see a need for having a single acre offlimits but I'm a reasonable man. I'd settle for half of the federal lands containing oil and natural gas being available for leasing. That'd be a huge improvement over the 85 percent that's currently offlimits.
There's nothing wrong with Mr. Tinklenberg taking this tour. It's a nice first step.
If Mr. Tinklenberg is interested in supporting a true 'all-of-the-above' energy package, though, he'll need to widen his horizons. Alot. Instead of just focusing on energy products found here in teh Sixth District, he'll need to make the tour that Rep. Bachmann already has made.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:04 AM
No comments.
Sen. Obama, How About Answering These Questions
According to this article , US combat deaths will show a massive decline from the 66 combat deaths from July, 2007. This month's combat death toll currently sits at 5. To be fair, though, it should be noted that last July, US troops were just getting started with the Surge's offensive.
With those statistics in mind, we should ask Sen. Obama some questions. Here's the first question I'd want answered:
Q1: How flexible would your 16 month plan be if Gen. Petraeus said that he didn't want to lose the gains that the Surge has produced?
Q2: Do you think the Iraq war is winnable? If you don't think it's winnable, why not?
Q3: Are you committed to winning in Iraq so that we'll have a strong, stabilized ally in the heart of the Middle East? If you aren't committed to winning there, why aren't you?
Q4: Why is winning in Afghanistan more important than crushing Iran, the Mahdi Army and AQI in Iraq?
Q5: In your opinion, did the Surge put in place the conditions needed for the Anbar Awakening? Did it put in place the conditions needed for political reconciliation? Did it put in place the conditions needed for improved security for the average Iraqi? Did it put in place the conditions needed for economic recovery? If you think that the Surge had nothing to do with any or all of these things, explain why it didn't have that effect?
Q6: Isn't it true that you were wrong when predicting that the Surge not only wouldn't improve conditions in Iraq but that it would make things worse?
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:26 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 31-Jul-08 10:06 AM
Good luck on getting these answers. Bill Hemmer interviewed him on Fox, video here: http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/ and he would not even answer a direct question on whether the surge worked. There was this exchange. Hemmer asked Obama about the surge. After a 2 and a half minue non-answer in which Obama mostly gave credit to the Iraqi's, Hemmer directly asked him "I haven't heard the words the surge worked." to which Obama replied "You probably will not get the particular words your fishing for."
Obama couldn't even answer the question about whether he would answer the question.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 31-Jul-08 09:13 PM
How about we add question seven:
You say we need a "surge" of troops to win in Afghanistan. Doesn't that automatically mean you believe that a troop surge can cause victory yet you keep denying that is what happened in Iraq?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama's Tough Talk a Facade
Yesterday, Barack Obama issued a challenge to Sen. McCain. That doesn't mean he'll accept the opportunity to debate Sen. McCain on taxes, though. Here's what he said yesterday:
"I want to cut taxes for middle-class families, ordinary folks who are working hard and playing by the rules," he said. "I'm ready to duel John McCain on taxes right here, quick draw."Sen. McCain quickly responded:
"If Barack Obama wants this so-called duel then why did he and his entourage run for the hills when John McCain challenged him to 10 town halls," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.The truth is that the Obama people want nothing to do with a debate. They've seen the Obamessiah away from the teleprompter. He's a disaster. The gravitas gap would be substantial, noticeable and embarassing.
That's why he can't afford to do anything more than be lippy.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it again: Sen. Obama is a gifted orator in an empty suit. That won't change anytime soon.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment 1 by G. Christenson at 01-Aug-08 08:50 PM
This is hilarious. Somehow I don't think Obama is afraid of McCain.
Comment 2 by Jeff at 01-Aug-08 09:07 PM
Didn't Rush Limbaugh already trademark this schtick?
In any case, shut down the blog until you come up with some original material.
Comment 3 by osama08 at 01-Aug-08 09:57 PM
1/10
get new material ditto head
Comment 4 by AceGently at 02-Aug-08 01:46 AM
But there are some real downsides to the idea. Noam Scheiber noted recently:
McCain has several big disadvantages vis-a-vis Obama. He faces a massive enthusiasm gap and will have trouble attracting large crowds. He's in all likelihood going to be massively outraised and outspent, making it hard to get his message out. And, possibly as a result of the previous problem, he'll be cast as a right-winger determined to continue George Bush's policies.
The unmoderated debates would help him overcome all three problems. They'll draw big crowds and generate lots of buzz. They'll help him get his message out for free. And, just by virtue of appearing frequently at Obama's side and having a civil debate, they'll make him look much more moderate than the Obama campaign wants him to look.
Comment 5 by Aunt Jemima at 02-Aug-08 03:53 AM
A gifted orator that needs a teleprompter? You know that makes as much sense as pancakes which I had for breakfast.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 02-Aug-08 09:49 AM
Auntie, He certainly needs a teleprompter. Take Thursday when he said that filling our tires & getting regular tune ups would save us as much gas as what we'd get from ANWR & the OCS.
That's only one instance where he's gotten his facts badly wrong on major policy issues. He's so full of himself that he delivers lines that sound great but have no basis in fact.
His grasp of history is awful, too, & it's starting to get people wondering if he's got a clue about history.
Comment 7 by The Lady Logician at 02-Aug-08 11:28 AM
Comments 1-2 and 3....if that is the best defense of your guy that you can launch.....sheesh how lame!
Ace - the enthusiasm gap is starting to narrow. Sen. Obama has lost a ton of hard core support thanks to his recent FISA vote and his comments after the Heller vs. DC decision. Fundraising is also not the big issue it once was. We had a race out here in Utah where the incumbent Congresscritter outraised and outspent his primary challenger 8 to 1 and he still lost.
Auntie - take the Senator's teleprompter away and he can't get two words out without stuttering. Just take a look at his Meet The Press appearance from last weekend or what happened when he got heckled at a campaign appearance justs this week. Get him off message and watch him flounder.
LL
Comment 8 by Suck it freedom muzzler at 02-Aug-08 07:35 PM
This blog deletes comments but no one reads it anyway.
Comment 9 by Suck it freedom muzzler at 02-Aug-08 07:46 PM
The Mccain campaign is just upset that Obama has been selling out stadium space and drawing crowds of hundreds of thousands of people - while mccant couldn't fill the local Burger King.
Ask yourself, which campaign has gone 90% negative ads because they are unable to talk up the merits of their own candidate. When will republicans realize that the Mccain campaign has gone completely tabloid?
Comment 10 by The Lady Logician at 02-Aug-08 10:43 PM
And which campaign has already started inserting race into the campaign? It sure as heck was not the McCain camp!
LL
Comment 11 by Bob McCarty at 22-Oct-08 01:53 PM
Man, I'm stunned to find people describing Barack Obama as a "gifted orator," despite the fact that his oratorical prowess surfaces only when he is using a teleprompter. In a recent post, I highlighted a media interview during which Obama used variations of the word, "Uhh," a total of 30 times during the interview that lasted two minutes and 47 seconds. That's almost 10 times per minute!
This Is Pelosi's Big Debut?
Speaker Pelosi is making the rounds of the talk shows to promote her new book . According to Drudge's headline, it debuted at #869. Considering that she's the first female Speaker of the House, you'd think that it would start in the top 10 bestseller list. That's pathetic for a history-making figure.
To put things in perspective, I don't recall a Dick Morris book starting outside the Top 10. Ditto with Newt's books. Ditto with O'Reilly's books.
UPDATE: Rush just updated the story, saying that it's now #899, dropping 30 places since Drudge posted the story.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:31 AM
No comments.
Tinklenberg Tours Sixth District's Energy Innovators
Yesterday, ethically challenged challenger El Tinklenberg toured the Sixth District's alternative energy companies. After finishing the tour, here's what he had to say :
"Domestic drilling is at best a partial solution to America's energy crisis," Tinklenberg stated. "We can drill the south lawn of the White House and we will still only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we are using 25% of the world's daily oil supply.It appears that Mr. Tinklenberg doesn't think that increasing domestic oil production by 1.5-2.5 million bbls/day, roughly 10-15 percent of our oil usage is a significant portion of the gas crisis solution.
"We are not victims in this energy crisis. We have some control over the situation. We need to agree on a comprehensive plan that moves us toward energy independence through responsible drilling, increasing efficiency, investing in renewables, and decreasing consumption. That's what it will take to bring down fuel costs, steward our resources, and ensure America's long term energy security."
While I agree that thinking of oil as the silver bullet fix to our longterm energy needs is foolish, I'm equally certain that it's a significant part of the solution for the next decade or possibly more.
I also find it troubling that Mr. Tinklenberg says that he's for "responsible drilling" instead of just saying he's for drilling. Does Mr. Tinklenberg think that Big Oil will pillage the lands they lease? Does Mr. Tinklenberg think that Big Oil is irresponsible environmentally? I'm wary anytime a politician uses a qualifier in a sentence because it's usually meant to give them enough wiggle room to explain why they voted against something that they said they'd vote for.
It's also worth noting that Rep. Bachmann supports the vast majority of the alternative energy sources that Mr. Tinklenberg is talking about. That leads to this question:
Why should I vote for a 'Me Too' candidate?For the life of me, I don't see a compelling reason.
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 31-Jul-08 06:28 PM
Another politician that doesn't know from 2+2. US domestic oil production supplies roughly 30% of current US consumption. If we only have 3% of the world's reserves, how are we doing it? We have untouched reserves that could double this production. He is taking some other number associated with oil and using it incorrectly. He's either lying or stupid, neither of which is a recommendation for high office.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 31-Jul-08 08:13 PM
Jerry, I couldn't agree more. My only regret is that I didn't think of it first. LOL
Comment 3 by Chuck at 31-Jul-08 11:40 PM
Is there oil in the South Lawn of the White House?
