May 13-15, 2010
May 13 01:14 A Feisty Night In the House May 13 07:46 Forgotten No More May 13 16:41 Great Choice, Gov. Pawlenty May 14 05:23 Minnesota Politics And AZ Immigration Bill May 14 10:14 Introducing Tim Bridgewater May 14 13:28 Throwing CW Under the Bus May 15 07:57 Utterly Devastating
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
A Feisty Night In the House
I didn't watch Wednesday night's floor session but based on the DFL's and GOP's factchecking tweets alone, it must've been one feisty floor session. Here's one feisty exchange:
paulthissen Truth Check: Rep Brod, there are no cuts to adoption assistanceRep. Thissen didn't reply to Rep. Brod so I'm betting that he took the 'discretion is the better part of valor' approach to that particular article.
laurabrod Fact Check @paulthissen: look at line 328 of spreadsheet where it says "reduce adoption assistance Relative Custoday Child Services Grants "
Here's Tom Hauser's tweet from somewhere between 6:30-7:00 pm:
5hauser DFLers say they're no longer "pushing" governor for new revenue ie. tax increases.Although Tom Hauser is a pretty reliable reporter, I still verified the rumor with some of my contacts at the Capitol. After midnight, I got an email from a loyal reader of this blog. Here's the key portion of the email:
Rumor has it the Dems did some polling and found very little popular support for "new revenues."That information verifies what the KSTP/SUSA poll showed. That polling said that 64 percent of Minnesota likely voters thought they paid too much in taxes, 27 percent thought they paid the right amount and a mere 8 percent thought we're paying too little in taxes.
Right now, tax increases simply aren't popular. What's probably frightening the DFL most right now is that they're allegedly finding this out after voting for numerous tax increases.
In other developments, the legislature passed the HHS omnibus bill, sending it to Gov. Pawlenty's desk for his veto.
The bottom line is this: If the DFL has stopped pushing tax increases, which seems likely, then the legislature has taken an important step towards solving the deficit problem. There still are hurdles but they aren't the gigantic hurdles that taxes posed.
Still, I won't breath easier until I know that Sen. Pogemiller won't try pulling some last minute stunt that he's famous for. Once we're past that, then I'll breath easier.
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:14 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-May-10 07:22 AM
I wonder how much political gold can be mined from the inevitable DFL adoption of a budget that they could have signed a year ago except for their own court challenge to unallotment?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-May-10 07:27 AM
Jerry, I'm betting that that commercial is already in the can.
Forgotten No More
This Strib article encapsulates the tax fight perfectly in this paragraph:
At the core of the Capitol fight, and perhaps the coming battle in November, is the same question Republicans and Democrats have wrestled over for years: Do Minnesotans want to pay more for more services or shrink government and avoid higher taxes?Based on KSTP's polling, I'd say it's pretty clear that Minnesotans are tired of the DFL reflexively raising taxes as the answer to everything. People are weary of the reckless spending and the dizzying race to raise taxes coming from DC and St. Paul.
The KSTP/SUSA poll showed that 64 percent of likely Minnesota voters think they pay too much taxes while 27 percent think we pay the right amount and 8 percent think we don't pay enough taxes. Those figures are likely to jump if they read this WSJ article :
This Minnesota drama is typical of the fiscal battle taking place in at least a dozen state capitals, and soon to occur in Washington. Today's Democratic Party default is always higher taxes. Dominated by government-employee unions, they refuse to rethink government spending despite the steep recession. Last year six states raised income tax rates, and this year another five are attempting to do so.Democrats think that tax increases fix every budget problem. If they took an honest look at New York, New Jersey, Michigan and California, they'd admit that it doesn't. They won't do that because they're too influenced by ideology to admit this.
That didn't work so well in 2008 or 2009 in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey or Wisconsin-states that still have budget holes even after trying to soak the rich. Maryland lost revenue from millionaire tax filers after it raised rates.
If voters read this , they'll really hate tax increases:
Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day, the day they sell their house and buy a new one.This tax increase was buried in the Democrats' health care bill. I guess that's what Speaker Pelosi meant when she said that we'd have to pass the bill to find out everything that's in it.
Whether we're talking about Minnesota or other states, the tax increase regime in DC is hurting Democrats' chances of re-election. In Minnesota, the KSTP/SUSA poll showed that the voters trust Republicans on the biggest issues by wide margins. This is shaping up to be an historic year on both the state and federal level.
The Democrats' appetite for tax increases will be used against them during the campaign. They'll be painted, rightly, as the party that reflexively raises taxes during this year's campaign. Their unwillingness to say no to their special interest allies will be highlighted as proof that they're willing to make decisions based on what their special interest allies want, not on what their constituents want.
Forgotten no more should be our battle cry in fighting this fight. That or "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore."
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:51 AM
No comments.
Great Choice, Gov. Pawlenty
Gov. Pawlenty couldn't have picked a better jurist to be the Chief Justice of Minnesota's Supreme Court than picking Lorie Gildea. That's an inspired pick.
"During her time on the Hennepin County bench and Supreme Court, Justice Gildea has exhibited common sense, a strong intellect, and a commitment to the idea that judges should fairly and appropriately interpret the law, not create it themselves," Governor Pawlenty said. "She is known for her professionalism and fairness and will be an excellent leader for our Supreme Court and the judicial system."I wrote in this post that I found her explanation of the unallotment more compelling than the majority opinion. There were two things that I appreciated most about her opinion. One was that she didn't impose new provisions in the bill like the majority did. The other was that she said that the statute wasn't ambiguous, which it isn't. The statute is so straightforward that I understood it the first time I read it.
Gildea, 48, grew up in Plummer and resides in Minneapolis with her husband, Andrew.
She is a member of the Minnesota State Bar Association and serves on its Council and its Assembly.
Gildea is also a member of the Hennepin County Bar Association and served on its Board of Directors.
She has been a member of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, MINNCOR Industries Advisory Board, and the YWCA of Minneapolis Board of Directors.
The majority opinion isn't a judicial opinion. It's a political opinion. The Supreme Court, at any level, isn't supposed to be about making political decisions. That's the responsibility of the legislature and the governor.
By reading the statute and ruling on what it said rather than ruling on what she thought it should say, Lorie Gildea showed that she's a jurist first, last and only.
Here's what Gov. Pawlenty said about David Stras, the man he picked to replace Chief Justice Gildea:
David Stras has been a member of the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School since 2004.Gov. Pawlenty's picks will be a lasting legacy. If Stras is as good a jurist as Gildea is, Minnesota will be well served.
He teaches and writes in the areas of federal courts and jurisdiction, constitutional law, criminal law, law and politics, and law and economics.
Stras is co-director of the Institute for Law and Politics and is faculty advisor for the Minnesota Law Review.
"Professor Stras is recognized as one of the brightest legal scholars in Minnesota," Governor Pawlenty said. "He is extremely well-versed in appellate matters and is currently of counsel at Faegre & Benson, LLP, specializing in assisting clients in cases before the Minnesota and federal appellate courts. I am impressed with his tremendous intellectual and legal abilities. He will be a strong presence on the Minnesota Supreme Court for many years."
Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:41 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-May-10 12:29 PM
Sure he could have picked a better one. One not married to a GOP party insider-operative. For instance.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-May-10 12:38 PM
I know Andy well. You don't get better than Andy.
Minnesota Politics And AZ Immigration Bill
Gov. Pawlenty's pastor, Leith Anderson, weighed in on Arizona's immigration law . Blogger Hart van Denburg then highlights the positions of gubernatorial candidates Tom Emmer and Speaker Kelliher and the National Association of Evangelicals:
The Republican who wants to succeed Pawlenty in the governor's mansion, Tom Emmer, calls the law a "wonderful first step."My first impression of the NAE ad is that it's their right to say whatever they want but it isn't particularly relevant to Arizona's law. The Arizona law was signed into law because of Arizona's frustration with the federal government's unseriousness about enforcing existing border enforcement laws.
The DFL-endorsed candidate, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, opposes the law.
The mayors and chiefs of police in both Minneapolis and St. Paul have also come out strongly against the measure. Congressman Keith Ellison of Minneapolis calls it a "fascist, racist" measure.
The NAE has purchased a full-page ad set to run in tomorrow's edition of Roll Call that declares a need for federal legislation providing "dignity for each person, unity of families, respect of the rule of law, secure borders, and the establishment of a path to legal status for those who wish to become legal residents."
The NAE ad talks about the importance of "providing dignity for each person" and keeping families unified, certainly respectable positions. What it doesn't talk about is the fact that, as of January, 2009, Phoenix trails only Mexico City in kidnappings or that the kidnappings are being committed by violent drug cartels.
I'd simply ask the NAE whether they're equally concerned with protecting Arizonans, which is a much more pressing issue at this time. I suspect they care about enforcing the law. I'm just not sure they're as concerned about protecting Phoenix residents from the drug cartels as they are with comprehensive immigration reform.
Van Denburg then cites this paragraph from an NAE position paper :
Discussion of immigration and government immigration policy must begin with the truth that every human being is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Immigrants are made in the image of God and have supreme value with the potential to contribute greatly to society. Jesus exemplifies respect toward others who are different in his treatment of the Samaritans (Luke 10:30-37; John 4:1-42).As an evangelical Christian, I can appreciate and agree with the things that the NAE is citing. In fact, I'll agree that the verses cited from Genesis form the basis for the pro-life argument.
What I find interesting is that van Denburg didn't cite this paragraph, too:
The Bible does not offer a blueprint for modern legislation, but it can serve as a moral compass and shape the attitudes of those who believe in God. An appreciation of the pervasiveness of migration in the Bible must temper the tendency to limit discussions on immigration to Romans 13 and a simplistic defense of "the rule of law." God has established the nations (Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26), and their laws should be respected. Nevertheless, policies must be evaluated to reflect that immigrants are made in the image of God and demonstrate biblical grace to the foreigner.We should also note this paragraph:
Our response to immigration must include an understanding of this immigrant history and an awareness of the positive impact of multiple cultures on national life over the last 250 years. The challenge today is to determine how to maintain the integrity of national borders, address the situation with millions of undocumented immigrants, devise a realistic program to respond to labor needs, and manifest the humanitarian spirit that has characterized this country since its founding.In other words, the NAE is stating the importance of achieving a balance between maintaining a civil society and addressing humanitarian issues.
I won't put words in Tom Emmer's mouth but I'm guessing that when Tom Emmer, whom I enthusiastically support, said that the Arizona law "is a wonderful first step, I'm betting that he meant that there's a need to first restore order to a chaotic, violent situation. It's clear to me that Tom Emmer's position is totally defensible.
I repreat. This is just my speculation.
As stated here, Gov. Pawlenty's position is both reasonable and balanced:
"It's OK for states to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enforce the laws, and I think that's what Arizona is trying to do," he told The Daily Caller . "I think what you're seeing here is a frustration by Arizona, an understandable frustration, that their concerns haven't been addressed by the federal government."It shouldn't be surprising that La Raza and other organizations that advocate for open borders immigration policy oppose the Arizona law. It's disappointing but it isn't surprising.
Until we control the violence, other facets of immigration policy must be put on hold because that's the cornerstone of maintaining the proper balance between law enforcement and addressing humanitarian issues.
Contrasting that with Rep. Keith Ellison's recent immigration statements , it's clear to me that Ellison's positions are the truly radical positions:
"We must have immigration reform, humane immigration reform this year, right now," he told the crowd. The fact is we have to fight against this repressive law in Arizona," he added, as the crowd cheered. "We have to stop these fascist, racist laws."It isn't a respectable position to characterize the Arizona law as fascist or racist, especially with Phoenix residents dealing with daily kidnappings and frequent murders. I'd also ask Rep. Elllison why we need new laws when we aren't enforcing existing laws. Is Rep. Ellison advocating for a new set of laws for the federal government to ignore?
Rep. Ellison's position isn't reasonable because he looks at the situation from a perspective that ignores the need to enforce existing laws. Rep. Ellison's racist statement isn't surprising his penchant for making reckless incendiary comments. Based on a spate of recent polling, both inside Arizona and nationwide, Rep. Ellison's position doesn't represent mainstream American thinking.
Considering the fact that Rep. Ellison has questioned law enforcement in the past , it isn't surprising that he'd make such over-the-top statements.
Based on the sitation in Arizona, the text of Arizona's law and the importance of stopping the violence that the drug cartels are committing, it's clear to me that the positions staked out by Gov. Pawlenty and Tom Emmer are both defensible and reasonable.
The same can't be said about Rep. Ellison's position.
Posted Friday, May 14, 2010 5:23 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-May-10 08:05 AM
Seems to me there is a simple solution for those illegal immigrants concerned about living under the repressive, racist laws of the State of Arizona. Go home.
I, too, used to be concerned that it was inhumane and unChristian to send these people home. Then Oklahoma (I think) passed a law which suspended business licenses for six months for any business which failed to check its new employees against the federal Everify citizenship system. Within days, most illegals left the state, many of them going into Mexico. It can't be that bad.
As for the "impossible" task of identifying 12 million illegal immigrants, it should be noted that the SSA knows where 9 million of them are right now. Start with denying them continued employment, and they will have little incentive to stay here. They will self-deport. Add to that the simple "amnesty" which says to them when they try to cross BACK into the US, legally, "hello, there, stranger. I hear you speaking passable English. Do you have a job waiting for you, by chance, and an idea where you would live? Great, sign here as a temporary guest worker, we can talk about a more permanent status after those in line ahead of you are considered." Simple, clean, orderly, effective.
Introducing Tim Bridgewater
Until this morning, I've been watching the Utah Senate race from an arm's-length distance. After reading Tim Bridgewater's Washington Post op-ed , I'm 'coming off the sidelines'. From this day forward, I'll try to keep closer track of this seat. What Mr. Bridgegwater's op-ed tells me is that he's a great conservative. Here's what I'm basing my opinion on:
Much has been made of the Tea Party movement and its impact in Utah. The original Tea Party, in 1773, was a rejection of a government too far away, too detached and insufficiently attuned to what was happening in this country. It led directly to the formation of "committees of correspondence" in the 13 colonies.God bless all federalist-thinking candidates. Let's hope that there's a huge influx of them into Congress in time for the 2011 session.
In 1787, the Founding Fathers crafted a free system of government built on the principle that individuals have God-given rights. The Founders protected those rights with the horizontal separation of powers among the three branches of government and, most important, by a vertical separation of powers between the federal government and the states. The national government would manage external affairs and keep the states on a level playing field; state governments were to do the rest.
Over time, that vertical separation of powers has almost disappeared. Today, the federal government feels it can manage even the details of personal health care and education. States have been relegated to administrative units of a central leviathan, in a system of plunder in which each state tries to live at the expense of the others.
In such a system, experience in Washington is valuable. But Utah Republicans rejected that model of governance and so rejected the Washington veteran. The delegates seek a return to the earlier system, with Washington supreme in its limited fields (as enumerated in the Constitution) and the states responsible for the rest. I believe that not just in Utah but across the country, primary and general election voters will prefer the older model.
It's apparent that Mr. Bridgewater understands the federalist system and approves of it. Anyone that can explain the vertical and horizontal nature of the federalist system certainly understands it. For me, there's no doubt that he'd be guided by federalist principles if elected.
Let's remember that Utah is the birthplace of the Patrick Henry Movement. These people understand the libertarian/conservative nature of our Constitution. After talking with the Lady Logician , it became apparent that the question wasn't whether Sen. Bennett was conservative enough. The question was whether Sen. Bennett put a high priority on federalist principles.
I'm betting he didn't because he co-sponsored a health care bill that includes an individual mandate, something that's questionable constitutionally on its best days.
The new benchmark is whether you follow the Constitution. Following the Constitution tells people you're principled because it's the most principled governing document this side of the Bible.
Today, individuals nationwide are looking closely at the documents that led to and came out of our founding and comparing them to what they see around them. The Founders, of course, were much better read in the philosophy of government and the history of nations than most of those in Washington today who are trying to instruct the poor rubes in the states in the art of statecraft.Overstepping the Constitution is wrong. PERIOD. As King likes to point out, there's no halfway point between right and wrong. Statesmanship is fine as long as it's done within the construct of the Constitution. These days, there aren't any Constitutionalist progressives. Ergo, there isn't a starting point for statesmanship.
Here's a healthy dose of Tim Bridgewater's common sense thinking:
The Permanent Ruling Class in Washington tells us that Congress is capable of managing the fast-growing telecommunications industry, that it knows how credit should be allocated and that it has the expertise to decide which financial institutions are too big, which are too small and which are "just right."That's a man after my own heart. I've said before that the government, whether it's the federal or state gov't, has a terrible track record of finding the next Microsoft, the next Fedex, the next Dell.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Washington's track record stinks. Congress has given us more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers encouraged a housing bubble and then took hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers when it burst. There is no reason to think Congress can do a better job this time than when it tried to manage energy in the 1970s and '80s.
The point of this post isn't to pick between Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee. From what I've seen, Utah primary voters are facing a win-win situation. The point I'm making with this post is to highlight the fact that, across the nation, there's a wealth of Constitution-loving GOP candidates.
Conservatives have complained, rightly, the last 2 election cycles that we needed more fiscally responsible candidates. Because we've made our voices heard, our demands are being met. It's time that we briefly celebrated the fact that we're getting what we want. (After that brief celebration, though, it's time to get back to work so we win this November.)
Posted Friday, May 14, 2010 10:20 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 14-May-10 06:34 PM
gary:
You might want to double check your research. Basically everyday I look at red state and your site along with others.
According to red state:
Bridgewater is a big supporter of no child left behind.
Bridgewater was in favor of the medicare expansion. Thus he is less likely to be supporting repeal of Obamacare.
Red State which has basically been accurate in pointing out the most conservative candidates was supporting the other candidate Lee.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-May-10 06:00 AM
Waler, Tim Bridgewater will vote to repeal Obamacare in a heartbeat.
Based on his federalist beliefs, I'm confident that a Sen. Bridgewater would have serious problems with NCLB.
Redstate zeroed in on Mike Lee right at the outset. Once they made that determination, they attacked everyone not named Mike Lee.
I take their opinions on this race with a shaker of salt.
Comment 3 by John at 15-May-10 08:37 AM
Don't trust redstate. Erickson endorsed Lee early on and hasn't even looked at anyone else. He posts whatever the Lee camp sends him. He does not support NCLB, in fact he led the charge for the state of Utah to fight against it. He does not support medicare expansion he wants to repeal Obamacare. Redstate is wrong on this one. Don't trust the lies from Bridgewater's opponent. They are sure to get worse now that Lee has hired the nastiest campaigners in Utah and fired his old staff.
Comment 4 by The Lady Logician at 15-May-10 04:23 PM
Walter,
Erick Erickson has been attacking Tim with that knock for some time but he is not here in Utah and he is no expert on the race.
Like many in the GOP, Tim Bridgewater WAS for NCLB but as we have all seen it is HORRIBLE policy and he is now (like John Kline and Michele Bachmann) in favor of repealing it.
Tim is DEAD SET against ObamaCare and is going to work to repeal it.
Both Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater are very very GOOD conservatives and would represent Utah and the country very well.
LL (who would be ecstatic with either man representing her)
Comment 5 by Cynthia at 19-May-10 09:57 AM
Gary,
Red State is not an unbiased source. Erick Erickson was busted for posting pre-convention lies about Bridgewater (claims of a non-existent Bridgewater-Bennett deal) in an attempt to help his preferred candidate, Lee. Now that he's publically made a fool of himself, he's really going after Bridgewater to try and 'fix' his own reputation. I have tried to post comments on Red State but my posts are never published- Erickson only allows comments of those who agree with him.
Red State has intentionally posted both untruths and half-truths about Mr. Bridgewater and is NOT a credible source of information.
Throwing CW Under the Bus
Mark McKinnon's column suggests that we throw CW out the window the next few cycles. I wholeheartedly concur with one exception:
Early betting had focused largely on Republican front-runners Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty (both of whom would instantly be challenged by the favored filly, Sarah Palin, if she runs). But given the political environment we are in now, and likely will be for awhile, conventional wisdom should be tossed out the window.Tim Pawlenty has made a career of people underestimating him. I won't be foolish enough to write him off just because of Mr. McKinnon's column. He's too good at retail politicking to do that.
So who is likely to gain traction and interest, and perhaps ultimately the nomination? The odds increasingly favor someone like Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels or South Dakota Senator John Thune.
That said, John Thune and Mitch Daniels would certainly be formidable adversaries if they ran. Here's the part that I wholeheartedly agree with:
Let's face it, Romney is old news. Been there, done that and passed already. He's going to have a hell of time explaining to the GOP base how his Massachusetts health care plan is different than Obama's.I've repeatedly said that Mitt's health care problem is his undoing. It's his personal millstone, a millstone that will bury his presidential ambitions. Here's the part of Mr. McKinnon's column that I disagree with:
And Pawlenty just isn't getting any firm footing. His candidacy, at this stage, is not seen as viable. He tacked rightward out of the chute and made himself look like this cycle's Mitt Romney flip-flopper, prostrating himself before the right wing of the party-even though it was his independent, reform-minded approach that made him an interesting prospect in the first place.Calling Gov. Pawlenty a flip-flopper is BS. Yes, he signed the Health Impact Fee to end the 2005 government shutdown. That's the only blemish to his fiscal conservative credentials. He's got impeccable credentials in reforming Minnesota's health care system.
Mr. McKinnon's saying that Gov. Pawlenty "tacked rightward out of the chute" isn't reality. He didn't "tack rightward." It's who he is. Unlike Romney, he didn't start off pro-choice, then change for expediency sake to pro-life, then flip-flopped again later.
This is why I consider Mitch Daniels such a formidable opponent:
Daniels will be hard to match when it comes to substance, detail and record of accomplishment. He inherited a state hundreds of millions in debt and since taking office has balanced every budget. And he's done it while enacting the largest tax cut in state history, ethics and telecom reform, and a fully-funded tax- and debt-free transportation plan.People are looking for principled leadership, especially if it's principled leadership with results. Mitch Daniels has that in spades. He's got a great track record with real health care reform, having reduced costs and premiums in Indiana. Balancing the budget while cutting taxes and keeping the budget balanced is something impressive, especially considering the current economic environment.
Daniels' blunt, plain-spoken and results-oriented approach will be viewed by the GOP faithful as strong assets against an incumbent president perceived as the opposite.
And Daniels does it his own way. He runs refreshingly positive campaigns absent the usual consultant-driven trappings and sound bites. Indiana is a heartland, bell-weather state that generally reflects presidential outcomes and broader electoral trends. So who better to run for president than an Indiana governor with a stratospheric 69 percent approval rating.
It's important that people realize that campaign style matters. Days upon days of gotcha attacks on opponents don't work like they did 20 years ago. People want to be inspired. That's what drives volunteerism on the GOP side. That's what's got people excited about this year's elections.
Putting a principled pro-growth capitalist conservative in the White House, accompanied by a principled capitalist conservative majority on Capitol Hill would fix alot of the damage being done by this administration. Picking between Gov. Pawlenty, Sen. Thune and Gov. Daniels would put a smile on my face.
Posted Friday, May 14, 2010 1:32 PM
Comment 1 by Faye at 14-May-10 08:58 PM
Gov. Daniels looks very interesting for a good candidate to run for the GOP in 2012. We need someone who is real and Gov. Daniels sounds like he is the real deal.
Comment 2 by R-Five at 16-May-10 06:56 AM
What is "CW"?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 16-May-10 01:04 PM
Conventional Wisdom
Comment 3 by TitanTrader at 16-May-10 03:05 PM
Brian Lamb interviewed Mitch for an hour about a year ago on Q&A.
Mitch stated he would never subject his family to what he considers the savagery of Presidential Politics.
I sure hope this current debacle in Washington is enough to change his mind.
Utterly Devastating
The best way to describe this Bachmann campaign video aptly titled May 10th is "devastating":
When I found out that Tarryl had literally cast the last and deciding vote to increase taxes, I wrote that Tarryl would regret Zach Rodvold's issuing this statement :
"Time after time, Michele Bachmann's agenda is about promoting herself instead of doing anything to help her constituents," Zach Rodvold, Clark's campaign manager, said in a statement Monday. "And this time, Congresswoman Bachmann's constituents are footing the bill for 'jobs forums' aimed at glossing over her dismal record on the most important issue in her district. So rather than paying for a series of forums to create or save jobs, her constituents are paying for a series of forums designed to save just one job: Congresswoman Bachmann's."First off, the video shows, as does King's post , that these meetings were serious meetings that addressed important issues that stand in the way of these entrepreneurs creating jobs.
Instead of helping small business owners create jobs, Tarryl cast the deciding vote to hurt small businesses. In voting to hurt entrepreneurs, Tarryl gave entrepreneurs another reason to leave Minnesota.
I knew the minute that Rodvold issued that smartalecky statement that Tarryl would regret it. If there's one thing that's as certain as the DFL voting to raise taxes, it's that Michele will jump all over Tarryl's votes like Justin Morneau jumps all over a belt-high hanging slider.
The video showing an actively engaged Michele conducting meetings with business leaders is devastating enough. Following that with video of Tarryl casting the deciding vote for the tax increase is adds to the devastation. Thanks to this video, Tarryl was effectively tagged as the politician who raised taxes on the job creators while running in a conservative district in a bad year for liberals.
Rodvold's mischaracterization of Michele won't stick because people understand that she's committed to creating great paying private sector jobs. If the Clark campaign wants to spend money on ads telling voters that Michele isn't committed to creating jobs, they're free to waste the money they've raised. I just wouldn't expect a good return on that investment.
For what it's worth, this is likely the only path Tarryl can take. She's forced to tell voters that Michele doesn't stand for the things that she's fought for all her political life. If Tarryl doesn't discredit Michele, Tarryl can't win. She can only keep it (relatively) competitive.
The effect of this web video is devastating. That's what happens to candidates running from a position of weakness. That's what happens when the campaign spokesman shoots his mouth off when he shouldn't.
Both the video and Mr. Rodvold's careless statements are devastating to Tarryl's campaign, though it's apparent that the video will have the greater negative effect against Tarryl's campaign.
Posted Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:57 AM
No comments.
