June 6-7, 2008
Jun 06 03:06 Obama Strongarms Lieberman Jun 06 09:07 Climate Change Collapses Jun 07 01:06 Miniature MoveOn.org Attacking Sen. Coleman Jun 07 03:00 I Think Reverend Wright Dislikes Barack Obama Jun 07 09:54 Democrats In Energy Hell? Jun 07 11:53 Michael's Adventures From the Pits of Hell
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Obama Strongarms Lieberman
According to this ABC post , Barack Obama's temper got the better of him. Here's what happened in the Well of the Senate:
Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.This is one of the most boneheaded things Sen. Obama could've done. Sen. Obama owes Sen. Lieberman, one of the classiest acts in American political history, a formal apology. Getting in Sen. Lieberman's face isn't what I'd expect from a presidential nominee. Let's hope that wasn't Sen. Obama highlighting his presidential temperament.
They shook hands. But Obama didn't let go, leading Lieberman, cordially, by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.
Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE.
The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.
Lieberman also criticized Obama for voting against an amendment he offered with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and included other language that Obama said linked the war in Iraq to Iran in a way that troubled him. "Senator Obama opposed it saying it was saber rattling and referring to the possible threat of military force," Lieberman said. "But if you look at the Kyl-Liebermann Amendment as it was passed, it has none of that in it, regarding military action. I was hoping and I still hope that he will say that that vote was a mistake, and that he would support that resolution."In 1992, Bill Clinton harshly criticized Bush China policy. the minute he was elected, though, he quickly adopted the Bush policy. I suspect that Sen. Obama took the opportunity during the primaries to appease the nutroots idiots and that he's now tacking back now that he's facing a different electorate.
In other words, he's acting like a typical politician. That isn't surprising to anyone who's paid attention to him.
Posted Friday, June 6, 2008 3:06 AM
No comments.
Climate Change Collapses
Lieberman-Warner is headed for a humiliating defeat thanks to the hard work of Sen. Jim Inhofe. Here's what Stephen Moore wrote in this morning's Political Diary:
Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it's time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.I've maintained that Harry Reid has the worst political instincts I've ever seen. This verifies that belief. There's no worse time to propose a monstrous job-killing energy tax increase than when gas is almost $4 a gallon, diesel is almost $5 a gallon and when many important electoral states' economies rely on coal for powering their factories.
Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. "With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade," says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. "This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan."
Captain Ed nails that last point in this post :
With Barack Obama already facing an uphill fight in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and so on, they can ill afford to have the party associated with efforts to push the Rust Belt and the Midwest into a painful, years-long recession.This week, I sent Sen. Coleman several emails to express my opinion on this bill. One of the things that I said about the bill is that its economic repercussions would be devastating but that the political repercussions would be even worse. Even if gas wasn't at $4 a gallon, this legislation would face an uphill fight. The hill it faces when gas is $4 a gallon would feel like Everest in comparison.
I found Mr. Clifton's comparing Lieberman-Warner to HillaryCare amusing because we know how that started with promise and ended with House Democrats the minority party for the first time in 40 years.
I said here that Republicans should run on the issue of opening up federal lands and offshore drilling this summer. If they did that, I'd bet that they'd have a successful 2008 election cycle. Going on offense has additional advantages, namely that a good offense is a great to avoid playing defense on this important issue.
Why shouldn't we insist that the envirowhackos defend their policies? Why shouldn't we insist that they expain why their idea is the superior idea? It isn't like they've got the better argument. Their idea was defensible in the 1990s when gass was cheap. Bill Clinton was a great spokesman. All he'd do is say the magic words "the environment" and people would accept his irresponsible policies like the stone tablets Moses brought down from the mountaintop.
In truth, Bill Clinton's putting federal lands offlimits sabotaged our economy. It was predictable.
Now it's time to kill Lieberman-Warner once and for all. Then it's time to make the envirowhackos defend their policies in CD after CD. WE've got the better end of this issue. Now it's time to put the envirowhackos' policies to the electoral test. If we do that, we'll be fine.
After all, it isn't like people want another tax increase coupled with higher gas and home heating prices.
Posted Friday, June 6, 2008 9:17 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 06-Jun-08 10:41 AM
You know back in February when we still had a debate on who the Republican candidate was somebody went on the phone and said didn't you want to win the war and the election.
I was thinking along with other people we wanted to win the election by winning the economic debate. Mccain would have a huge lead if he was running on opening the lands, not talking about global warming. Why doesn't he and Coleman get it?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Jun-08 11:21 AM
Why doesn't he and Coleman get it?They're suffering from what I've identified as Washingtonitis, which is known to afflict fine men when they spend too much time in our nation's capitol.
The good news is that our voices are getting heard because we aren't shutting up. While others complain about our legislators' deficiencies, I ignore that & get to work on solutions.
CALM, COOL, COLLECTED IS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD.
Miniature MoveOn.org Attacking Sen. Coleman
An organization named Alliance for a Better Minnesota is making a major ad buy attacking Sen. Coleman for high oil prices. Here's what's being reported :
A left-leaning political group is about to air ads questioning Republican Senator Norm Coleman's loyalties when it comes to rising gas prices and the profit-rich oil industry.This "left-leaning political group" obviously doesn't think that Sen. Coleman is green enough so they're attacking him. What a yawner. This organization is a wimpy clone of MoveOn.org, a thousand other progressive organizations with upbeat names and socialist agendas. The goal of these ads is to avoid playing defense by going on offense.
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota says it is purchasing six-figures worth of ad time across the state to run the 30-second spot. The group says the ad will start airing this weekend and run for at least a few weeks.
The ad says Coleman has supported billions of dollars of tax breaks for oil companies and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from them.
Coleman's campaign says he has backed increased fuel-economy requirements for new cars and supported efforts to shift tax incentives from oil companies to renewable-fuel programs.
As we saw earlier today, it's the envirowhackos that can't make the case for their radical agenda. They ran millions of dollars of ads but couldn't even get a simple majority to vote for cloture on the Cap and Tax bill. That they pose as a mainstream organization is insulting.
I'm all for new solutions to our energy problems until they cause expensive and unexpected problems. For all the talk about green being the way, there's alot of problems with some of the existing alternatives. Just ask Andy Aplikowski what he thinks about new technology.
What's happening is that people aren't liking green products once they learn more about the downside of the products. It's one of those 'the more you know, the less you like' kinds of things.
As is my habit, I decided to check into what Alliance for a Better Minnesota is about. One of my habits is to see who they've worked with in the past. Fortunately, they usually store that on a page of its own so that progressives can see their organization's bona fides. This website wasn't like that but I still found what I was looking for.
One of the directors for ABM is former Klobuchar campaign manager Ben Goldfarb. He's currently with Wellstone Action!, which boasts of its associations with such famous leftist organizations as Amnesty International, EMILY's List, Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM), the Human Rights Campaign and Moveon.org. Oddly enough, EJAM evolved from "a 2003 Minneapolis Urban League (MUL) meeting." Here's what EJAM is about:
EJAM evolved from a 2003 Minneapolis Urban League (MUL) meeting focusing on health disparities in communities of color. This meeting served as the foundation for a coalition of community members and organizations coming together to focus on environmental justice and health disparities. Issues that came up at the meeting were coal plant pollution, need for neighborhood legal advocacy assistance, lead poisoning, and health disparities.In other words, this is like a clearinghouse of ultralilberal causes. Of particular interest to me is IATP's involvement in the coalition. That's the organization that Mark Ritchie founded. Let's remember that they're the extremist group that helped incite the WTO riots in Seattle during the Clinton administration.
Since then, the MUL has hosted monthly EJAM meetings to define mission, goals, and scope of the newly formed coalition, which consists of: North Minneapolis community members, MUL, NAACP, Sierra Club North Star Chapter, Metropolitan Area African American Chamber of Commerce, Institute for Agricultural & Trade Policy, Women's Cancer Resource Center, Council on Black Minnesotans, Indigenous Women's Network, African American Tobacco Network, Synergy Publishing, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, and members of area churches, public schools and the medical community. In Fall 2004 EJAM established its first 15-person Board of Directors.
The point of this research is to know who we're dealing with when the dishonest ads start running. It's important to be prepared to question the sincerity of the attacks. Not all of these organizations are dirty. Many are legitimate, though, so it's important that we know the difference.
Sen. Coleman should take each opportunity to highlight the things he's done that've helped Minnesotans. That means highlighting constituent services. It also means policy initiatives that've helped Minnesotans.
There's nothing that stops negative attacks faster than building, then maintaining, a positive image.
Posted Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:06 AM
No comments.
I Think Reverend Wright Dislikes Barack Obama
Appearing on Hannity & Colmes Thursday night, George Will declared that "I think the Reverend Wright dislikes Barack Obama." Here's the transcript of that exchange:
HANNITY: And we continue now with the author of "One Man's America," George Will. All right. So let me ask you about the radical long-term associations that Barack Obama has had. We have the conviction of Tony Rezko. We got Reverend Wright. We got Father Pfleger. We got Bill Ayers.It's been obvious since Wright's National Press Club appearance that there was some serious friction between Wright and Obama. That bad blood won't go away anytime soon, either. I suspect that Wright will go make fundraising appearance, most likely for the NAACP.
Are you surprised as I am? You know here are the most radical members in society, long-term relationships that it hasn't had a greater impact if the polls for Barack Obama?
WILL: It's not done having its impact for two reasons. I do not believe that the Reverend Wright has gone to earth and is going to be hibernation until the middle of November.
I think the Reverend Wright dislikes Barack Obama. I can only interpret his performance at the National Press Club as a deliberate and successful attempt to injure Barack Obama., perhaps as retribution for Obama asking him to stay off the podium when Obama announced his candidacy.
Wright's been Sen. Obama's personal albatross since the tapes hit the mainstream. Wright will continue being Sen. Obama's personal albatross right through Election Day.
I hope conservatives think of this exchange anytime they get upset with Sen. McCain:
HANNITY: What do you make of the fact that a lot of conservatives are not happy with the choice of Senator McCain for president? I'm a big fan of yours. I'm a big fan of Thomas Sowell, the last two lines of his column today said "Senator McCain has been criticized in this column many, many times. But when all said and done, he has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.When the Reagan Revolution began, one thing that conservatives were thirsting for was a sane judiciary. We've added some questionable justices since that time but we're on the verge of changing that for a generation. I admit that it'll be difficult to get strict constructionist justices through the next congress. If we get an Obama administration, though, he'll replace Stevens and Ginsberg with younger versions of Stevens and Ginsberg, all but guaranteeing a 5-4 split on the court for a generation.
On the contrary, he's paid a huge price for resisting our enemies even when, they held him prisoner and tortured him. And the choice between him and Barack is a no-brainer."
Do you think the McCain people are just counting on the fact that he's not Barack Obama?
WILL: Well, I think there are a lot of people out there who are McCain supporters in the way that I am. I am a supporter of McCain's mother, who gave us the excellent advice that, in the end, we should hold our nose and vote for her son.
His record is mixed. Everyone's record is mixed. But on spending he is sound . I happen to think he's right on immigration but it will set me at odds with some conservatives. I'm strenuous opponent of his McCain-Feingold law. Indeed I believe I hold the Olympic indoor and outdoor records for most columns written critical of John McCain.
But, in the end, a sufficient consideration is this, Sean. On inauguration day 2009, the oldest justice on the Supreme Court, also the most liberal, John Paul Stevens, will be 88 years old. Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be 76. She's probably the second most liberal.
Any president who serves two full terms will replace through rolling attrition about half the federal judiciary. So it matters tremendously who is the president.
Later, Hannity asks Will what he thinks of Hillary as Obama's running mate. Here's Will's answer:
WILL: It would be a ghastly choice. Leave aside the fact that Barack Obama right now is the beneficiary of an enormous wave of gratitude from the millions of Americans who thank him for closing the Clinton parenthesis in the history of the American presidency.I agree with Will that pro choice women likley will fall into line behind Obama. Those aren't the Hillary supporters that I think will abandon Sen. Obama. I think it's much more likely that blue collar workers and Catholics will abandon him. If Obama doesn't do well with Catholics, it'll sting him badly in Ohio and hurt him enormously in Pennsylvania. If Obama can't flip Ohio and hold Pennsylvania, we'll have a McCain administration. It's that simple.
Beyond that, Sean, when a voter looks at the perspective vice president, the voter says what if the president dies? When a president look at her, a presidential nominee looks at a potential running mate, he says what if I live?
What if Barack Obama would have her down the hall nursing her grievances and her presidential aspirations which are, I believe, undimmed, he would have her energetic and interestingly ...
POWERS: Right.
WILL: ... temperamental president in the wings also with all of his interesting business associates. What does she bring to him? She brings him New York. If he can't carry New York without her he's going to lose anyway.
But people say he will bring the women who were attached to her. Once the women who are her sort of women understand that John McCain is, A, pro life and, B, going to appoint Supreme Court justices, they'll fall into line soon enough.
Posted Saturday, June 7, 2008 3:01 AM
No comments.
Democrats In Energy Hell?
Anytime a pundit with a reputation as good as Fred Barnes agrees with you, it's a good thing. That's how my morning started today. Imagine my delight when I saw Fred's latest article was titled Fuelish Democrats and it talked about high gas prices. Here's the opening to Fred's column:
Republicans finally have a winning argument on a big issue, and they'd better make the most of it. It starts with high gasoline prices--the single most infuriating issue to voters these days--but doesn't end there.Amen, Brother Barnes.
Democrats are not being blamed for causing the price of gasoline to reach $4 a gallon, at least by the public and at least for now. Where Democrats have stumbled embarrassingly is in their campaign to persuade the public that the American oil industry is the chief culprit. A Gallup national poll in May found only 20 percent blame the oil companies for gouging, down from 34 percent a year ago.
Where Republicans have succeeded is in selling their solution to soaring gas prices: drilling for oil offshore and on federal lands, areas now off limits. In the Gallup survey, support for drilling in precisely these areas jumped from 41 percent in 2007 to 57 percent in May.
So Republicans have an issue to exploit. And it's one on which Democrats are especially vulnerable because they promised in the 2006 campaign to offer a "common sense" plan to curb gas prices. They have yet to produce one, and the price per gallon of gas has risen by more than $1.60 since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.
Democrats have also insisted, unwisely, it turns out, on pushing to enact a global warming bill that would further boost the price of gas and rake in trillions of dollars in new revenue. This might have made sense a few years ago, but not in the days of public anger over $4 a gallon gasoline.
I've consistently said that Democrats were putting a knife to their own throat by (a) pushing the the Cap and Trade legislation, (b) insisting on not increasing oil production and (c) pushing an unbalanced plan that overemphasizes conservation and alternative energies but does nothing about increasing oil exploration.
I've also consistently said that we can't solve this crisis--yes, the high gas prices constitute a crisis--without undoing the damage done by Bill Clinton's legacy-building in his second term. When Clinton put huge blocks of federal land off-limits, he set in motion this problem. At the time, environmental groups praised him while sober analysts predicted a looming problem.
Let's be blunt about this: Bill Clinton cared more about the adulation and his legacy than he cared about doing the right thing. Think of energy as a huge pipeline. When Clinton put federal lands off-limits, he put a virtual bottleneck in the pipeline. Today's environmentalists will argue that (a) it'll take years before drilling could impact prices, (b) conservation is the equivalent of putting major oil field online and (c) there's only a few drops of oil down there. Let's critique those arguments.
They're right about it taking time to get the new oil flowing. To that I say this: Since it'll take time, then it's time to get started ASAP. The American consumer can't afford additional delays.
I also agree that conservation is the equivalent of putting an oil field online. I'd argue, though, that conservation alone can't fill all our needs. I'd even argue that increasing conservation and increasing production of alternative fuel sources isn't enough to eliminate this crisis. I'd argue that increasing conservation and production of alternative fuel vehicles and increasing oil production is the only way to provide the shot in the arm that we need.
Let's look at what Gallup's polling is saying. It's important to note that Democrats are on the wrong side of opening up federal land. If Democrats want to stick with their keeping federal lands off limits, they'll get hammered this November. This isn't a winning issue as it currently sits. What's worse is that it becomes a bigger trouble spot for Democrats each week.
There's another important aspect to this, namely, that the NRCC is aggressively pushing this issue in its fundraising and it's weekly e-letters. I believe that the NRCC developed a spine on this when John Hofmeister testified to Congress . Patrick Leahy intended to preach to the evil leaders of big oil. What happened instead was that they lectured him. Here's how Mr. Hofmeister challenged Congress:
"If the nation set a goal of increasing domestic production by 2 (million) to 3 million barrels a day by opening up new sources of exploration and production, we could demonstrate to the world that we are in control of our own destiny," Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister told a Senate panel today.That was only one of the shotgun blasts he let fly with. Here's another:
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.For years, Democrats have put a huge stranglehold on increasing oil exploration, ignoring the most basic principles of supply and demand. They've stuck their heads into the sand as demand increased exponentially and supply was being choked off. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that that's a recipe for disaster.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.
Guess what? That disaster is staring at us right now. It's time we took action to solve this crisis. If we don't, the US economy will be in a deep recession for a very long time.
Forgive me if I don't see the value of that, especially when it isn't necessary.
It's apparent that the NRCC spotted blood in the water the minute Maxine Waters let fly with her socialize comments:
It's time that consumers of all political persuasions told Washington Democrats that we demand the opening of our nation's oil spigots. It's time we told them that to not increase oil exploration and production demonstrates an absence of leadership. It tells everyone that Democrats won't do the right thing because it'll cost them campaign contributions from their envirowhacko allies.
They're entitled to that position but it's a political disaster waiting to happen. I said here that this issue is the path back to a GOP majority. I'm more confident of that now than when I initially said it. Here's Fred's explanation on why this issue is toxic to Democrats:
Both House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid have cast global warming as the greatest threat facing America today. In fact, Pelosi was so concerned about this grave threat that, shortly after taking charge of the House, she vowed to bring a global warming bill to the floor by July 4, 2007. Now, though a bill is ready, she's unlikely to schedule it for debate and a vote in 2008.I criticized Democrats when they started down this path. They deserve greater criticism now, which is what John Boehner is doing on a consistent basis:
Spotting an opening, House Republican leader John Boehner has made Pelosi his chief target on gas prices. He needles her relentlessly. Week after week since last winter, he's dwelled on what he calls the "Pelosi premium." This is the portion of the price increase which he attributes to her inaction.If Speaker Pelosi wants to stick with this position, which she's pretty much forced to do, then she'll 'reap the rewards' for that consistency.
Last week, he asked her to bring the global warming bill up for full House consideration, knowing full well Pelosi has no intention of doing so. He wants the measure to get "the time and attention it deserves during these truly unprecedented times for families and small businesses," Boehner said sarcastically.
There is a downside to Republicans talking about this. Fred lays it out here:
It's sensible for House Republicans to continue holding press conferences at gas stations. But, John McCain is a problem. He opposes drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), though he has come around on increased domestic production in other areas (except off the coast of Florida). Flipping on ANWR may be too much for McCain, though doing so would be consistent with his national security argument against spending billions for Middle East oil.Here in Minnesota, Norm Coleman opposes drilling in ANWR. The upside for Sen. Coleman is that he's a proponent of drilling everywhere else and he's for increasing refining capacity. While that isn't a totally popular position, it's a defensible position. I suspect that most voters will give Sen. Coleman and Sen. McCain a partial pass on ANWR just as long as they don't go further green.
The environmental lobby pushed this legislation hard. Now it's wounded because of the debate. I expect Democrats in swing districts will do everything they can to avoid getting tied to the environmental agenda. Embracing their agenda in those districts is the equivalent of embracing retirement.
This issue isn't just any issue. This has the potential of putting voters into the GOP column while increasing GOP turnout. That's why this is the perfect anti-liberal storm.
That isn't the position Reid, Pelosi, et al, expected to be in right now.
Posted Saturday, June 7, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 07-Jun-08 11:59 AM
One thing you might have wanted to mention about the drop argument Gary was that Charles Schumer gave a speech that if we increased oil production by opening ANWAR and getting a million barrels per day it will provide a penny of relief. Yet in the hearing you mentioned Schummer was commenting if the Saudi's added just a million barrels per day it will provide about $.65 in relief.
Just curious is Saudi oil more magical than oil from ANWAR?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Jun-08 12:01 PM
Walter, I wasn't aware that Schumer had said something that stupid. I would've expected that from Reid but not from Schumer.
Comment 3 by Ben White at 07-Jun-08 12:41 PM
Conservation is not the same as drilling for more oil.
When you produce more oil, you get the benefit of being able to use that oil. When you conserve oil, you lose the benefit of using that oil.
Energy conservation motivated by non-economic factors is simply artificial poverty. It's like needing new shoes because your old shoes have holes and you get frostbite, but deciding to "conserve" shoes instead of buying new ones.
Michael's Adventures From the Pits of Hell
Michael Brodkorb should be applauded for reporting from the pits of hell , aka the DFL state convention. Here's a couple posts that I found noteworthy:
9:40 a.m.: Nominations have closed. Mike Ciresi's name was not placed into nomination.Think of the message that endorsing Franken on the first ballot would send to the state. If this happens, which I think is possible, it'll send a horrible signal to independents and devout Catholic Democrats. This isn't the image that vulnerable freshmen legislators want to fight while they're out doorknocking.
11:07 a.m.: According to a press release, Al Franken has been endorsed by the DFL Feminist Caucus. I haven't seen any signs that DFL activists at the convention are concerned about Franken's jokes about drugging and raping a woman.
11:14 a.m.: Representatives of Team Franken are pushing the idea that the endorsement for U.S. Senate could take four to six ballots. I think this is hogwash. Some liberal bloggers are playing along and pushing this story. I think Franken will be endorsed on the 1st ballot.
If the Coleman campaign is smart, which I think it is, they'll ridicule Franken's endorsement from the DFL Feminist Caucus mercilessly.
I just talked with the Lady Logician awhile ago and we agreed that not putting Ciresi's name into nomination was smart. LL said that Ciresi probably wouldn't mount a primary challenge unless the endorsement goes 3-5 ballots. Only then would Franken be seen as a weak challenger.
Make sure you check MDE frequently for the latest from the DFL Convention. If anyone will get the goods, it's Michael.
Posted Saturday, June 7, 2008 11:53 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 07-Jun-08 12:45 PM
Did the Lady Logician's site go dark?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Jun-08 01:26 PM
Yes & I just notified her of this. She's looking into it literally as we speak.
UPDATE: Good news: Cindy's back in business.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 07-Jun-08 02:35 PM
Well Gary - you were right. It went on the first ballot. It's Coleman v. Franken!
LL
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 07-Jun-08 02:37 PM
BTW Roosh - my hosting company has been having issues for a while. As a result, I didn't get notification that my renewal was due until after the site went down. Thankfully the NEW owners of the company have fixed most of the issues and are working on making sure that my notifications come on a more timely basis....
LL
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 07-Jun-08 03:03 PM
LL, I wish I could say it was my prediction. This time, Michael gets the credit.
