May 1-3, 2008
May 01 01:54 Inevitable, Thy Name WAS Barack Obama May 01 09:26 Editorial: Tinklenberg Brings New Excitement to CD-6 Race May 01 10:12 Tinklenberg a Moderate? I Don't Think So May 01 13:18 DFL Sticking With Franken? May 02 01:10 Tarryl's Accountability Dodge? May 02 02:24 Rep. Bachmann on Earmarks May 02 11:32 Franken Should Be Applauded? May 03 10:32 What They're Saying About Michael Brodkorb
Inevitable, Thy Name WAS Barack Obama
This winter, article after article talked about the huge audiences Barack Obama was drawing. Experienced pundits like Fred Barnes were saying that Barack OBama was likely to be the 44th President of the United States. What nobody was paying attention to, though, was Sean Hannity talking about Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers.
Three months after Super Tuesday, and two months after the YouTube videos showed up of Jeremiah Wright screaming about the USKKK of A and talking about the United States government creating the AIDS virus just to commit genocide against the black population, Barack Obama isn't seen as the candidate of inevitability anymore. This article essentially says that Barack Obama has 'come back to the pack'. ALOT.
Sen. Barack Obama's aura of inevitability in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has diminished in the wake of his loss in the Pennsylvania primary and the furor over his former pastor, said the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.A multitiude of pundits think that Obama's delegate lead makes him untouchable. Other pundits think that he doesn't share Jeremiah Wright's worldview. I'm not certain that he doesn't share Jeremiah Wright's worldview.
The poll was conducted largely before Obama's news conference Tuesday denouncing his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and may not fully capture the impact of the controversy or the response. But it found that Obama, whose delegate lead has given him a commanding position over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton since February, is now perceived to be in a much tighter fight.
Upheaval has taken a toll
Fifty-one percent of Democratic primary voters say they expect Obama to win the nomination; 69 percent said so a month ago. Forty-eight percent of Democrats say Obama has with the best chance of beating Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, down from 56 percent a month ago.
Obama still holds an edge on several key measures: 46 percent say he remains their choice for the nomination, while 38 percent preferred Clinton, who has lost support among men. On that question, his margin grew, to 8 from 3 points, in the past month.
Obama also has an advantage over Clinton in ratings on honesty and integrity and in being less beholden to special interest groups.
The fact that more than 2 out of 3 people used to think that he was the nominee and that barely 1 out of 2 now think that he'll be the nominee is a pretty sharp plunge.
Earlier today, I saw a poll on TV (I don't know which network) that showed Sen. Obama's favorability/unfavorability rating had gone from a +21 points to a +5. To be specific, Sen. Obama's ratings had gone from 54-33 to 47-42.
Don't interpret this as meaning that Hillary will get the nomination. I don't believe that. Her negatives are higher than Sen. Obama's. Here's another reason why I don't think she'll get the nomination:
Obama still holds an edge on several key measures: 46 percent say he remains their choice for the nomination, while 38 percent preferred Clinton, who has lost support among men. On that question, his margin grew, to 8 from 3 points, in the past month.Being perceived as more honest and "less beholden to special interest groups" is an undeniable plus. That said, more performances by him where he pretends to not have known Wright's incendiary views will drop his honesty ratings in a heartbeat.
Obama also has an advantage over Clinton in ratings on honesty and integrity and in being less beholden to special interest groups.
The bloom is off Obama's rose. Now that the new media has forced the Agenda Media to deal with the skeletons in Sen. Obama's closets, his St. Barry image is getting tarnished. That was the sole basis of his appeal. People voted for him because they thought he'd be a post-partisan, post-racial candidate who would unite people. Now they see that he's just a politician who'll say whatever he needs to get elected.
Posted Thursday, May 1, 2008 1:55 AM
Comment 1 by Phidippides at 01-May-08 02:03 PM
This points to why Hillary may have been staying in the race this long. If Obama slips up big time - or even partly-big time - the person clearly next in line would be the automatic Democratic nominee. Perhaps she's been expecting or banking on the possibility that he would run into an insurmountable hurdle along the way. It doesn't look like the Jeremiah Wright issue is insurmountable, but then again, it's only the beginning of May.
Editorial: Tinklenberg Brings New Excitement to CD-6 Race
According to this editorial , the DFL endorsement of Elwyn Tinklenberg has injected some excitement into the CD-6 race. Here are the reasons the editorialist gives for that excitement:
Tinklenberg's focus on investing in basic social structures to create a sound economy resonates with people's deepest concerns: Safe and adequate roads and transit systems, fully funded education for our children, and health care for everyone. To stop the devastating loss of family homes, he would advocate a freeze on mortgage rates for responsible homeowners whose payments are about to skyrocket.I've often wondered what a "responsible timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq" would look like. I suspect that it's just a focus group tested phrase that translates roughly into "I don't want to sound like a defeatist by calling for immediate withdrawal." Personally, I'd prefer leaving when we've destroyed Sadr's militias and eliminated Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs. In othe words, winning.
El supports a responsible timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq and would work to cut the red tape in Washington and guarantee that all of our veterans have access to comprehensive and needed services. In concern for Homeland Security, he would strengthen a first line of defense by investing in police, firefighters and emergency medical workers to assure they have the resources they need and then work to greatly improve port and border security.
Based on his campaign website, Mr. Tinklenberg is an alarmist who doesn't see the world objectively. Here's what his 'On the Issues' economic webpage says:
Working American families are experiencing levels of financial anxiety not seen since the Great Depression. Wages no longer keep pace with the rising cost of living, unless you happen to be a CEO. The income gap between the wealthy and the middle class is staggering.This is a rewrite of the 2004 script when John F. Kerry kept talking about the Bush administration being the first administration to not create any net new jobs since the Great Depression. Mr. Tinklenberg obviously softened the tone a bit but the alarmist message still sticks out. If you take Mr. Tinklenberg's rant literally, which I don't, you'd believe that the economy is in crisis. While I believe that there's some challenges ahead, I don't believe that we're in a crisis. There's nothing here that a few policy changes and a little time won't fix.
When it comes to health care, Tinklenberg is just another advocate of universal health care:
- We must put aside our political differences and move toward universal healthcare, beginning with the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover every American child.
- Universal healthcare is not just a moral issue, it's an economic necessity. American businesses both large and small are losing out in the global market due to the crushing costs of healthcare. With universal coverage we can help our businesses compete, while reining in those corporations that unfairly force their employees onto public assistance.
- A universal healthcare system will lower premiums for every American family. It will also improve care by taking the burden off overcrowded emergency rooms, while emphasizing prevention and early diagnosis.
- The laws must also be changed to allow the government to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:I pointed it out then and I'll repeat it now. Look at the third bullet point:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement .Everyone better ask themselves if they want to see a slowing of new life-saving technologies, especially as a greater portion of the population moves into their health care usage years. Ask yourself if you or a family member or a coworker have benefitted from a new technology within the last 5 years. If you're being truthful, which I believe LFR readers are, I'll bet a healthy portion of you will say that you have benefitted or will benefit from a new technology.
Let's also highlight the fifth bullet point:
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.Only socialists think that removing profits will benefit people. I've pointed out before that removing the "profit-motive" in anything means that that activity will end. I posed this question to a businessman this winter:
Other than outlawing an activity or product, what's the best way to guarantee that a product will stop being made?The businessman's reply was simple: "Remove the profit and the activity will stop."
In other words, El Tinklenberg is for a health care system that stops innovation in its tracks. I fail to see what's so exciting about that.
Nowhere is Mr. Tinklenberg more out of touch with Minnesotans than with immigration:
No one can deny that illegal immigration poses a major challenge, both economically and in terms of national security. Yet as Americans, it is also our job to protect the basic rights of all who work in and contribute to our great nation.It isn't our job to "protect the basic rights of all who work in and contribute to our great nation", especially if they're here illegally. It's our job to find those here illegally, then ship them back to their country of origin.
Another important part of immigration policy is to levy stiff fines on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. To his credit, Tinklenberg says that he agrees with that, though I'm unconvinced that he'd fight for that in Washington.
In 2006, Tinklenberg was touted as a moderate. Compared with Patty Wetterling, he was. Compared with true moderates, though, he still believes in too many socialist economic policies.
That's nothing to get excited about.
Posted Thursday, May 1, 2008 9:32 AM
Comment 1 by mattt at 02-May-08 02:47 AM
Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, 60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan, It's worth a read.
Tinklenberg a Moderate? I Don't Think So
Back in 2006, Elwyn Tinklenberg touted himself as a moderate. He also said that he'd vote to impeach President Bush . My question is why he'd vote to impeach President Bush. Here's what Tinklenberg said just prior to the CD-6 endorsing convention:
"I [Elwyn Tinklenberg] would support a resolution for impeachment if it was brought to me. I would not introduce one. I think there are so many issues that have been waiting for resolution. So many issues that have to be addressed from the war to the economy to health care that we need to move on and move on aggressively." Source: Star Tribune, May 10, 2006Mr. Tinklenberg must answer this basic question: What did President Bush do that rises to the level of impeachment? Did he cause a constitutional crisis? If President Bush didn't cause a constitutional crisis, then why would Mr. Tinklenberg say that he'd vote for impeachment?
Mr. Tinklenberg said this to pander to the extremists in MoveOn.org. He resisted making any sort of statement on this until just prior to the endorsing convention. Why should we take seriously a man who'd take his constitutional duties that unseriously? This isn't just any issue. This is about the House of Representatives declaring that the Commander-In-Chief betrayed his oath of office by doing what the Constitution prohibits him from doing.
The extremist left wanted President Bush impeached. In fact, John Conyers is promising President Bush's impeachment ...right after the election. By saying that he'd vote for President Bush's impeachment, Tinklenberg's placing himself with extremists like John Conyers and Keith Ellison.
It's also worth noting that Mr. Tinklenberg arrived at this decision before particular articles of impeachment had made their way out of the House Judiciary Committee. I don't see the difference between that thinking and denying someone being prosecuted the presumption of innocence. Tinklenberg's essentially saying that he's voting on the verdict before he hears the evidence.
If Tinklenberg is willing to suspend his use common sense to pander to extremists, what other things is he willing to sell us out on once he gets to Washington? I suspect alot, especially considering the fact that he'd be a former lobbyist living in the lobbyist capital of the world.
People have disagreed with Michele Bachmann, sometimes sharply, but people know where she stands. They also know that she won't quit the fight just to please a lobbyist.
That's the difference between a spineless panderer and a leader with a titanium spine. That's why Michele Bachmann will be re-elected to represent the people of MN CD-6.
Posted Thursday, May 1, 2008 10:12 AM
No comments.
DFL Sticking With Franken?
According to this Strib article , the DFL is standing with Al Franken. I wonder if their support will stay steady in the days ahead.
Meanwhile, DFLers said Wednesday that they were standing by Franken, with party officials and activists voicing confidence in his candidacy a day after he acknowledged the unpaid state taxes from 2003 to 2006.While it's possible that these activists and party officials are publicly saying that they're standing by him, I'd doubt that they're that steadfast. I've said many times that the most finely honed instinct in politicians in winning elections. In major league sports, a manager getting a vote of confidence from the owner is usually the kiss of death. The same Strib article mentions Tom Bakk and Tim Walz as possible replacement candidates:
Although most DFL activists interviewed Wednesday said they still support Franken, some party leaders acknowledged being nervous. And state Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said he had been approached "by numerous people in the last 16 hours" to enter the race.It wouldn't make sense for Walz to jump in unless he doesn't think he can get the DFL nomination for governor in 2010. That's why I couldn't picture Walz jumping into this race.
Bakk, chairman of the state Senate Tax Committee, said that he wouldn't rule out a U.S. Senate bid but that so far he is keeping his sights on a run for governor in 2010. "But there's no question this is pretty serious," he said. While he probably wouldn't be the one to do it, Bakk said, "there may be a way to take the endorsement away from Franken at the [state party] convention."
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, whose name has also been raised in DFL circles as a potential Senate alternative, denied that the congressman was thinking of a switch from a House reelection bid. "He will not be a candidate for the U.S. Senate," said Richard Carlbom, the campaign's political and finance director.
Likewise, I can't picture Bakk jumping into this race either because he's got his eyes set on the governor's race in 2010, too. If he jumped into the Senate race, he'd lose, which would dash his hopes of becoming governor in 2010.
For better or worse, the DFL is stuck with a fatally flawed Franken candidacy.
Posted Thursday, May 1, 2008 8:10 PM
No comments.
Tarryl's Accountability Dodge?
According to this MPR article , Tarryl Clark is proposing a constitutional amendment on this November's ballot that would "create a council that would decide on the salaries and other compensation" for legislators. Here's the question that would appear on this November's ballot:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to remove legislators' ability to set their own salaries and instead establish a council to prescribe salaries for legislators and elected executive branch officers?"Let's tell the truth about this amendment. If passed, legislators will be able to say that they didn't vote for the latest pay raise. Meanwhile, they can just blame an unaccountable, unelected commission for setting legislators' and constitutional officers' compensation.
I want legislators dealing with that directly. I want someone to be accountable for their actions. If they aren't willing to write legislation, then vote for their pay increase, then they shouldn't get pay increases.
There's another flaw in Tarryl's proposal. Here's who'd serve on the commission:
Eight nonjudges named by the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and one person from each congressional district (8) in the state named by the governor. Four named by the Chief Justice and four named by the governor must be members of the majority party, and the other four named by the Chief and the four by the governor must be members of the minority party.What happens if the 2010 census results in Minnesota losing a House district? That's a distinct possibility.
Let's not forget that the House and Senate DFL initially passed their 'per diem' increases without a floor vote. Here's what happened in the House:
EVERY MEMBER SHOULD VOTE FOR THE "PER DIEM" HIKE: Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) asked the House for a direct vote for the increase in per diem payments to $77 per day. Under the DFL's rules, the decision was made by only 22 members of the House Ways & Means Committee on January 10. The DFL killed Rep. Buesgens' A-4 amendment with a procedural motion by a 69-60 vote.Sen. Ray Vandeveer pushed for a vote on raising the per diem after the Senate leadership tried just running it through the Rules Committee. They raised their per diem from $66 to $96.
EVERY MEMBER SHOULD VOTE FOR FUTURE HIKES: Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) asked the House to adopt a rule that would require all 134 Representatives to vote for future "per diem" increases, while allowing an election to intervene after that vote before the higher payments could take effect. The DFL killed the A-19 amendment with a procedural motion by a 74-59 vote. By a 90-43 margin, the DFL also killed a request by Rep. Laura Brod (R-New Prague) to instruct the House Rules Committee to at least consider the Buesgens proposal.
I just thought of another question. Let's start by reminding people that a lawsuit has been filed contesting whether the $96 per day compensation is truly per diem. Court precedent says that it isn't because it isn't tied to any specific expenses. The lawsuit contends that it's compensation, not per diem. To pass a pay increase, a bill has to pass the House and Senate, then be signed by the governor.
Here's the question: If this constitutional amendment is ratified this November, would that render the lawsuit moot? I won't pretend to know the answer but I'd love hearing from any legal eagles reading this blog.
One observation I'd make is that this legislature wants to do more with constitutional amendments than any other legislature in history. This group is trying to tie future legislatures' hands, whether we're talking about compensation, universal health care or whatever.
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008 1:10 AM
No comments.
Rep. Bachmann on Earmarks
Michele Bachmann, my representative, has been unfairly criticized for signing a pledge that she wouldn't accept earmarks. Her political opponents didn't bother finding out why she made this pledge. Thursday afternoon, I got a mailing from Rep. Bachmann that explains her position on earmarks. It also tells about what she's doing to take the corruption out of the earmark process. First, here's Michele's explanation on why she took the pledge:
Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it's critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.Contrary to what her political opponents say, Rep. Bachmann isn't opposed to earmarks:
That's why I've taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.
In my first year in the Congress, I requested local earmarks for my district and was fortunate to secure funding for important local projects, including $803,600 for St. Cloud Metro Bus. I was able to stand confidently by each and every earmark request made, knowing they could stand on their merits withstand public scrutiny. Not all my colleagues could say that. Some sought millions of dollars in funding for golf programs, Christmas tree gift shops and the like.It's just a guess but I'm betting this is what turned Rep. Bachmann off about the earmark process:
What I saw last year opened my eyes to how corrupt the system had become. One Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman threatened another Representative on the floor of the House, telling him he'd never get an earmark in any billhe was responsible for crafting, all because of a difference of opinion.Unless I miss my guess, that subcommittee chairman is John Murtha. The representative he threatened was Mike Rogers, (R-MI). Rep. Rogers is a former FBI Special Agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago Bureau's organized crime unit. When Rep. Rogers was outspoken in saying that money spent on the National Drug Intelligence Center wasn't being spent efficiently, Murtha took it personally because it's in his district.
Here's what ABC News reported at the time:
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who for six years served as an FBI special agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago bureau's organized crime unit, says that Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense, violated House ethics rules Thursday for threatening to strip any funding for Rogers' projects after Rogers pushed for the elimination of a government center in Murtha's home district.John Murtha's threats against a former FBI special agent are despicable. Michele Bachmann's attempt to reform that corruption machine should earn her praise, not derision.
On the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday, Rogers alleges, Murtha, upset by Rogers' aggressive attempts the week before to kill the project in Murtha's home district, said something along the lines of "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."
Rogers said he replied by saying, "This is not the way we do things here" and "is that supposed to make me afraid of you?" "That's the way I do it," Murtha said, according to Rogers.
Minnesota's senior member in the House, Jim Oberstar, will likely fight her tooth and nail because he's in love with this corrupt system, too. Here's what President Bush said in chastizing Jim Oberstar:
"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."It's time to be realistic about true earmark reform, not the crap that passed last year. People like John Murtha, Jim Oberstar, Bill Young, Bud Shuster, Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens will fight hard to keep the pork flowing. Rep. Bachmann faces a steep uphill fight. That said, if anyone's got the ability to win that fight, it's Rep. Bachmann.
Rep. Bachmann is the polar opposite of John Murtha and Jim Oberstar. I've said, half-kiddingly, that they should 'retire' John Murtha's office when he's no longer there. If they don't choose that option, then I've suggested that they rename the office to "The Corporate Welfare Headquarters".
I'm proud to call Michele my representative in the US House of Representatives. I'm thankful that she cares about spending our tax dollars efficiently.
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008 2:40 AM
No comments.
Franken Should Be Applauded?
According to some metro legislators, Al Franken should be applauded for responding so quickly to the tax problems. According to several quotes, the fact that he didn't run from his responsibility points out what an honorable man he is. Here's one such quote:
It's always a big deal politically when the unpaid taxes issue crops up for a candidate, said Rep. Shelley Madore, DFL-Apple Valley. "It's unfortunate that this wasn't vetted out before (by his campaign)," said Madore.The problem with Ms. Madore's claim that he didn't respond quickly :
"But now that it's been vetted out, he took responsibility quickly, didn't hide behind the, 'I didn't understand,'" she said. "I still believe that he's a truthful, honest person and that was an oversight," she said.
April 2005: New York Officials Begin Contacting Franken About His Nearly Three Year Failure To Pay Workers' Comp; Franken Still Living In New York. "The Workers' Compensation Board began sending Franken notices in April 2005 after discovering that the insurance hadn't been paid for nearly three years." (Kevin Duchschere, "Franken Faces Penalties For Lack Of Workers' Insurance," Star Tribune, March 5, 2008)While it appears to be true that Franken "responded quickly to put out the fire on these state tax issues, it certainly can't be said that he responded quickly to his not paying his workers compensation taxes in New York. In fact, he avoided that like it was radioactive.
June 2005: New York Officials Send Penalty Notice; Franken Still Living In New York. "Officials first sought an explanation. Receiving no response, they sent a penalty notice to Franken in June 2005 that outlined rights to appeal." (Kevin Duchschere, "Franken Faces Penalties For Lack Of Workers' Insurance," Star Tribune, March 5, 2008)
September 2005: Franken Votes In New York Primary; Franken Still Living In New York. (Minnesota Democrats Exposed Blog, Accessed March 13, 2008)
November 2005: Franken Votes In New York General Election; Franken Still Living In New York. (Minnesota Democrats Exposed Blog, Accessed March 13, 2008)
Here's what Rep. Tom Tillberry, DFL-Fridley, thinks about Franken's tax problems:
Rep. Tom Tillberry, DFL-Fridley, also opined Franken reacted quickly to the tax issue.What it points out to me is that Franken either (a) isn't bright enough to keep his financial house in order or (b) doesn't put a priority on keeping his financial house in order. Is that the type of person we want in Washington where money is doled out in the billions of dollars?
Tillberry views Franken as moving ahead politically undamaged. "I mean, if he is, if people think that, I can't agree with them," he said. "What it points out to me is how well someone can take care of problems when they come up," said Tillberry.
"If a person steps up and says, 'This is my fault this is happening and I'm going to take care of it,' isn't that the type of integrity we want," he rhetorically asked.
Don Betzold thinks that it's time to get back to the issues:
Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, isn't mulling over his endorsement of Franken. "No. I think he's a good candidate," said Betzold. If Franken's accountant made mistakes, Franken signed-off on the taxes, true, but then Franken shouldn't be held completely responsible, he opined.Franken's supporters are attempting to use the same 'We should be talking about the issues' dodge that Sen. Obama's supporters are attempting to use. Here's why that won't work. People don't tune into your message if they think your credibility doesn't exist.
Talk issues and move on
"I think we should talk about the issues and move on," said Betzold. "No. I'm not rethinking it (his endorsement) at all," he said.
To me, the most stunning reaction to Franken's troubles comes from Rep. Sandra Masin:
Rep, Sandra Masin, DFL-Eagan, echoed some of her DFL colleagues' sentiments. "I'm not considering it (the tax issue) a major thing. It's unfortunate," she said. "When it comes to certain things you place a lot of confidence is somebody and it seems it was a little misplaced (in this case)," said Masin.It's interesting that a freshman DFLer thinks that credibility and integrity aren't "a major thing." What does she think is a major thing? Why shouldn't voters think that a man who hasn't kept his financial house in order will contribute to keeping Washington's financial house in order? This isn't unimportant stuff.
But do voters feel the same?
"I haven't had a lot of comments contrary to this point," said Masin.
It's time that Al Franken showed he has the aptitude and ability to keep up with the complexities of being a senator. If he thinks that being an entertainer is complicated, he doesn't belong in the United States Senate.
Originally posted Friday, May 2, 2008, revised 03-May 3:20 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-May-08 02:18 PM
If you want a list of DFL lawmakers not qualfied for office I guess the list starts with Franken and these three nuts!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
What They're Saying About Michael Brodkorb
This week, many a story has been written about Al Franken's tax troubles. It's time something got written about Michael Brodkorb, the man who exposed Franken's tax troubles. Here's what My Pet Jawa said about Michael:
Hmm why is it that Democrats are always calling for, "Higher taxes on the wealthy", but at the same time they try and evade those same taxes?Here's what Kevin Williamson at NRO's Media Blog wrote :As each month passed this year, new revelations pushed a governor under siege deeper into his bunker. Prosecutors began scrutinizing real estate dealings of Blagojevich's wife, Patricia. Christopher Kelly, a second member of his inner circle of political advisers, was indicted on tax evasion charges.Like I aways say, if you want to see what the US will look like if the Democrats hold the presidency and majorities in the House and Senate just look at Illinois. Not very pretty is it?
Great work by Michael Brodkorb exposing al-Franken for the tax for thee but not for me liberal hypocrite he is.
This is a beautiful story: A Minnesota blogger has beat the professional media to the punch on Al Franken's tax problems. Mr. Franken, the unfunny funnyman who wants to make an even bigger joke of the Senate, seems to owe some state tax. In 17 states. And it's not just taxes:Here's what the American Thinker wrote:Brodkorb wouldn't reveal how he first got the notion to check up on Franken's business dealings in New York and California, but said simple searches on government Web sites delivered the goods: New York had levied a $25,000 judgment against Franken's private corporation for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance, and the corporation was in forfeiture in California.Imagine, if you will, that Trent Lott had been fined for failing to carry workers' comp insurance or that John McCain had a private corporation in forfeiture. New York Times and Washington Post, above-the-fold, is where you'd see that.
Michael Brodkorb, whose site Minnesota Democrats Exposed has dogged Franken, doing the work the mainstream media won't do. Even more than most laces, the media in Minnesota is dominated by liberals who generally refuse to expose liberals to unfavorable publicity. Perhaps that is why Minnesota is home to so many outstanding conservative bloggers.Well done, Michael. You've done Minnesota voters a great service. This man shouldn't be a politician. Franken's frequent dishonesty disqualify him from elected office.
MDE has exposed Franken's serious problems with paying taxes. Patrick Duncan of AP writes-up Brodkorb's extraordinary work:...in the last two months Brodkorb has scored two direct hits that have the Franken campaign reeling. Brodkorb scooped the traditional media by detailing extensive bookkeeping problems in New York and California that ultimately prompted Franken, this week, to pay about $70,000 in back taxes to pay about $70,000 in back taxes to 17 states. A typical Brodkorb scoop is splashed across his Web site under bold-faced banners like "Shock!" or "Breaking News!" The items are often followed soon after by a news release from the state Republican Party on the same subject, and many of his themes find their way into Coleman's talking points.
The gene pool for politicians needs lots of chlorine to clean things up. This week, Michael poured a few gallons of chlorine into Al Franken's pool. Though I don't think it'll disinfect Franken, I'm certain that it's had a positive effect on Minnesota politics.
For that, we should thank Michael.
Posted Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:08 PM
No comments.
