November 4, 2009
Nov 04 02:02 Michael Brodkorb Interview Transcript Nov 04 06:49 Scariest Headline of the Night Nov 04 07:26 Election 2009: What Will Tim Walz Do Now? Nov 04 09:36 PelosiCare and the 2009 Elections Nov 04 14:47 They're Tone Deaf
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Michael Brodkorb Interview Transcript
Gary: Michael, Thanks for taking the time this Saturday to talk about KSTP's investigation into Mark Ritchie.
Michael: Thanks for the opportunity.
GARY: What was the most disturbing thing for you from the piece?
MICHAEL: It's clear from KSTP's report that mistakes were made regarding how absentee ballots were counted. Similar ballots cast in different areas were treated differently.
GARY: Is this a rule of law issue as well as an electoral issue?
MICHAEL: It's both - #1. SOS Ritchie had a responsibility to train local election officials and it's clear that mistakes were made. His training simply didn't work. #2. Local elections officials either didn't know how to count absentee ballots or they choose to ignore the law - either way there are still questions as to who was actually elected to the U.S. Senate - Al Franken or Norm Coleman...
#3. I found SOS Ritchie conduct in the interview with KSTP appalling.
GARY: He didn't take them seriously, did he?
MICHAEL: No. Let me elaborate...let me be direct...as I said in the press conference...his approach to enforcing election law is the "Alfred E. Neuman" approach - "what, me worry?" He has a responsibility to take these matters seriously and he didn't...he was combative and obnoxious...for him to tell the reporter from KSTP that "You would have had to tell me to bring my glasses" in response to evidence of problems with absentee ballots is complete abdication of his responsibilities as SOS...he simply doesn't care.
GARY: Michael, As you know, I wrote extensively about the Coleman-Franken Recount so I got fairly familiar with Minnesota election law...The criteria for what's required for a ballot to be accepted is quite clear.
MICHAEL: Correct Gary...and as KSTP's report showed, the law wasn't followed and mistakes were made. Local election officials agreed that mistakes were made.
GARY: My point, Michael Brodkorb, is to say that the problem wasn't that the laws were unclear. The problem is Mark Ritchie.
MICHAEL: You're correct. It's clear that his office didn't the proper training...look KSTP's report was filled with examples and local elections said mistakes were made...The responsibility lies with SOS Ritchie and his conduct and attitude in the interview with KSTP was the most disrespectful behavior I have ever seen by a constitutional officeholder in Minnesota...
GARY: Michael, I'd like for you to comment on the absentee ballots that weren't even signed. How could something like that get missed?
MICHAEL: They get counted by election officials who are not properly trained and by SOS who isn't concerned about enforcing Minnesota election law...
GARY: You're calling on Rep. Gene Pelowski & Sen. Ann Rest to conduct hearings into this issue. What things should they look into specifically?
MICHAEL: Specifically...Chairman Sutton and I asked for a "full accounting of the procedures and policies of absentee ballots as administered by the Office of Secretary of State..." We want to know why absentee ballots were treated differently depending on where you live...But we also need a new SOS...there is no greater threat to fair & open elections in Minnesota than Mark Ritchie...
GARY: I agree...If you won't obey clearly written laws, then you aren't doing your duty. What you're doing is disenfranchising people who followed the rules.
MICHAEL: Yes...and let me very clear for your readers...there is no greater threat to fair & open elections in Minnesota than Mark Ritchie...SoS Ritchie's "leadership" has likely created the largest collection of disenfranchised voters in Minnesota history...That's a great question Gary...that is why we need to have people show a photo id when they vote...
GARY: By not following Minnesota's election laws, which are the most clearly written election laws in the nation, Mr. Ritchie has given us a reason not to trust him. How can we be certain that the people whose names are on the envelopes are the people who voted?
MICHAEL: That's a great question Gary...that is why we need to have people show a photo id when they vote...
GARY: Last winter, after the DFL said that there wasn't proof that voter fraud existed, I wrote that it's impossible to find what you REFUSE to look for.
MICHAEL: The evidence is clear...KSTP's report show that there was fraud...and that mistakes were made...and what did Minnesota's chief elections officer do? Bury his head in the sand and complain that he didn't have his glasses...Remember...there is no greater threat to fair & open elections in Minnesota than Mark Ritchie...
GARY: I agree, Michael. Michael, do you know if anyone has looked to see if any of the absentee ballots that got accepted also voted in person on Election Day?
MICHAEL: No..I don't think we will ever know the answer...it's shameful.
GARY: Michael, Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. These are things that must be our highest priority this session. If election laws aren't followed, then public mistrust only grows.
MICHAEL: Gary - thank you for the opportunity...You are a true patriot and I thank you for your dedication to advancing Conservative principles & message. I look forward to chatting again!
Posted Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:02 AM
No comments.
Scariest Headline of the Night
Of all the headlines that a Democratic strategist didn't want to read this morning, this headline would top the charts:
Independents fuel GOP victories in Va., N.J.Whether this was a referendum on President Obama is essentially irrelevant to political strategists of all political persuasions. What's relevant is that independents registered their disapproval with the Democrats agenda. They did so in resounding numbers:
The independent voters who powered President Obama and Democrats to victory in 2008 fled to Republicans in Tuesday's elections, helping the GOP romp to a ticketwide sweep in Virginia and a stunning victory over an incumbent Democratic governor in New Jersey.This proves Scott Rasmussen's polling is accurate. Recently, Mr. Rasmussen's polling has shown Republicans with an advantage on each of the 10 most important issues, especially on the chief pocketbook issues of the economy, jobs, taxes and health care. The unmistakeable message that independents and conservatives sent last night is that the Democrats' agenda isn't a mainstream or main street agenda.
But the night wasn't a total loss for Democrats, as their candidate won a special election to fill an open congressional seat in upstate New York after a bitter civil war left Republicans divided between their party's nominee and a Conservative Party candidate. The seat had been in Republican hands for more than a century.
Nevertheless, in a sign that there's more trouble ahead for Democrats, voters in New Jersey and Virginia said they were driven by the economy and spending, and Republicans said their showing on Tuesday gives them momentum heading into the 2010 congressional elections.
Because independents and conservatives sent that message, GOP strategists were quoted saying things like this:
"For those out there who say conservatives can't win, this rejects that notion. This is a very conservative ticket," said Chris LaCivita , a Republican strategist who helped Virginia candidates this year and will be aiding congressional candidates in the state next year. "It's proof-positive that solid, committed conservatives can win, and can discuss and talk about issues in a campaign that people care about. The labeling aspect just isn't going to work."Mr. LaCivita is exactly right. Conservatives that talk about kitchen table or pocketbook issues like the economy, job creation and health care will win. They'll win because independents don't appreciate the Democrats' overreach. The AP's Liz Sidoti nailed it in this article :
His signature issue of health care reform was dealt a blow hours before polls closed when Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid signaled that Congress may not complete health care legislation this year, missing Obama's deadline and pushing debate into a congressional election year. Democrats in swing-voting states and moderate-to-conservative districts may be less willing to back Obama on issues like health care after Virginia and New Jersey showed there are limits to how much he can protect his rank and file from fallout back home .That observation, coupled with the Washington Times' headline, will give thoughtful Democrats pause the next time Jim Clyburn, Steny Hoyer or Speaker Pelosi try strongarming them in their attempt to pass Speaker Pelosi's health care legislation. The question that congresscritters like Heath Shuler, Tim Walz, Jim Matheson and Walt Minnick will have to ask themselves is whether they'll vote for wildly unpopular health care legislation or whether they'll vote in a way that helps them keep their seat in Congress.
Considering the fact that most politicians' strongest 'instinct' is their re-election instinct, I'm betting that swing-district Democrats will be voting to limit the reach of Speaker Pelosi's legislation.
There's a final observation that must be made about last night. Though Doug Hoffman was defeated in NY-23, TEA Party issues attracted independents to vote Republican. The economy, taxes and job creation are issues that Democrats haven't focused on but they are themes that TEA Party activists frequently talked about. Independents and conservatives bonded on those themes yesterday and in recent months to send an unmistakeable message to Washington, DC.
The only question that's still left unanswered is whether Democrats will heed that resounding message. Only time and official votes will answer that question.
Posted Wednesday, November 4, 2009 6:58 AM
No comments.
Election 2009: What Will Tim Walz Do Now?
Last night's GOP blowouts in Virginia and Chris Christie's win in ultra-blue New Jersey were fueled by independents fleeing the Democratic Party like Democrats were selling nuclear waste, people like Tim Walz will need to rethink things a bit.
If I'm Rep. Walz's campaign manager, I'm telling him that he can't vote for Pelosicare in its present form. He simply can't afford to alienate his district again, especially considering he's already voted for raising taxes on Southeastern Minnesota's farmers.
I'm betting that voting in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi on the two pieces of legislation that most adversely affect his constituents will earn him a retirement a year from now.
One thing that came out of this election is the unmistakeable message that kitchen table issues will swing elections in a powerful way. Can Tim Walz play the ostrich on this one?
I wouldn't bet on it.
In fact, I think this sends a message to Collin Peterson, too. He's voted for Cap and Tax, too. I'd bet that voting in lockstep with Pelosi isn't the brightest career move at this juncture.
Posted Wednesday, November 4, 2009 7:26 AM
No comments.
PelosiCare and the 2009 Elections
After Tuesday night's thumping administered by independents and conservatives, I'd think it'd be wise for Democrats living in swing districts to pay attention to their constituents, especially if they attended TEA Parties and townhall meetings. That goes double for those Democrats who are considering voting in lockstep with John Conyers and Maxine Waters, especially if they've already voted for Cap and Tax.
Dick Morris says in his NY Post op-ed that last night's thumping is a "A Deathblow for ObamaCare":
New Jersey is the quintessential blue state. If it goes Republican, blue state congressmen needn't worry. Their districts are likely still safe. But when a Republican in Virginia wins by 20 points, it sends a message to red-state Democratic congressmen to take cover.This should tell the 83 Democrats that serve in districts that John McCain won in 2008 that there's a limit to how much President Obama helps them. In fact, the message that last night's results tell us is that these red district Democrats had better tread alot more lightly, especially with Pelosicare.
Polls indicate a declining level of popular approval of the Obama policies (Rasmussen shows his job approval at 46 percent), but to see actual Democrats losing or barely squeaking out victories in solidly blue states sends a far clearer message to the Democrats in Congress.
Until last night, Democratic moderates, the so-called blue dogs, could bask in the light of their candidate's success in 2008. But now they must hear hoof beats behind them. The party discipline on which Obama depends to pass a health-care program that Americans reject by 42 percent for, 55 percent against (Rasmussen again) will only work if beleaguered Democratic incumbents can wrap themselves in Obama's cloak and tough out the popular criticism. But the limits of Obama's drawing power are readily apparent in the Republicans' 20-point victory in Virginia and the race in New Jersey.
Glenn Reynolds makes a great point about that in his NY Post op-ed :
The good news for Obama is that he doesn't have to run for re-election for three more years, so he still has a chance to get his feet under him. But for Congress members facing elections in a year, including but not limited to the famous "blue-dog" Democrats, the lesson of this week is that Obama can't save their seats if the public is unhappy (and, equally, that Obama probably can't hurt them much, either).In other words, swing district Democrats are on their own this election cycle. That isn't as good for them as it might sound. Prior to last night's elections, these swing district Democrats were likely counting on substantial political cover from President Obama after they voted for unpopular things like Cap And Tax and Pelosicare.
A year ago, that would've been a reasonable thing to count on. This year, it looks like a fool's bet.
The question now becomes more a question of whether swing district Democrats can afford to blindly follow Speaker Pelosi on controversial legislation like Pelosicare. I'm betting that that answer is no. With Speaker Pelosi's popularity tanking, these Democrats have to feel a little like a Minnesota deer hunter wearing blue jeans, a flannel shirt and a light vest on a stand left unprotected from a northwest wind. In other words, these Democrats likely are feeling more than a little chilly.
Speaker Pelosi has run her caucus like a ward boss. That might get results early on but it's a great way to earn enemies for future battles. Right now, I'd think that there's an abundance of Democrats thinking that disobeying the Speaker is a great thing to re-establish their political viability for 2010.
The best way for Democrats to re-establish their independence from Speaker Pelosi is by voting against Pelosicare. Now let's see if they're smart enough to make this major adjustment.
Posted Wednesday, November 4, 2009 9:41 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Nov-09 11:03 AM
One of the radio talkers has said that Pelosi doesn't care. She figures she can lose a whole bunch of blue dogs and still continue her reign of terror on those left, of the FAR Left. Easier for her to manage, actually. So expect her to be carrot-and-highsticking the whole D caucus until she gets her way. Or not. Any Democrat wanting to keep his seat needs to grow a pair of what Nancy's pants lack. Immediately.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 04-Nov-09 02:36 PM
A quick diversion. Congrats to your forces in NJ and VA.
I think the NY 23 result is interesting given how outsiders poisoned the GOP well there.
Also, given the "too liberal" litmus test, Drew Emmer, he's too liberal, so who are your people going to pick.
Remember you have to do it without a primary so you can crossover and do mischief among the DFL primary contestants.
Have a nice one today, and remember Gary, Pelosi is no Palin, and that means different things to each of us.
Now, you and the others can have the thread back - just that I was surprised you had not yet run any direct election result thing [or is there something later, lower in the new posts?].
They're Tone Deaf
I just finished interviewing Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, (R-GA). The first thing I asked during the interview was whether he'd seen proof that last night's elections had an impact on the DC Democrats' behavior. To my surprise, he said that it didn't appear that the elections had had much of an impact whatsoever.
He said that Democrats filed the manager's rule so they could vote on health care this week, possibly as soon as Friday or Saturday. I was astonished to hear that. Rep. Westmoreland said that it's his impression that this might be the most tone-deaf congress in history.
I asked for Rep. Westmoreland's opinion on something that I wrote in a post earlier this morning. I wrote that knowing President Obama couldn't help or hurt red district Democrats would leave them feeling "like a Minnesota deer hunter dressed in blue jeans, a flannel shirt and a thin vest". In other words, they'd feel chilled to the bone.
Rep. Westmoreland said that, for him, the key part of that opinion would be that President Obama couldn't exercise authority over red district Democrats the way he could've a week ago. He said that knowing that might allow those Democrats to vote their conscience more often than they're currently allowed to.
Rep. Westmoreland said that Speaker Pelosi "is acting like August didn't happen", that the townhalls and the TEA Parties didn't happen. When I said that that's foolish, Rep. Westmoreland agreed.
Last night represents irrefutable proof that the TEA Party movement has staying power and that common sense conservatism has the ability to attract independent voters without sacrificing conservative principles.
The other thing that Rep. Westmoreland said that caught my attention was that the Pelosicare legislation's cost is $1,200,000,000,000 BEFORE adding in the $245,000,000,000 for the now infamous Doc Fix (infamous is my word, not Rep. Westmoreland's), bringing the real total up to almost $1,500,000,000,000. According to my trusty calculator, that price tag is 67 percent higher than the $894,000,000,000 price tag that Speaker Pelosi is touting.
When I told Rep. Westmoreland that I'm represented by Michele Bachmann, he said that she's one of the GOP's stars in Congress. He then said that the rally that Michele organized promises to be a great event.
Finally, I was impressed with Rep. Westmoreland. To be honest, I didn't know much about him prior to this morning's interview. After the interview and after examining his positions on the most important issues of the day, I can confidently say that Rep. Westmoreland is a solid conservative. Count me as one of his fans.
Posted Wednesday, November 4, 2009 2:49 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Nov-09 06:14 AM
Did you discuss NY 23?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Nov-09 06:55 AM
Eric, I didn't because I think it didn't send a message. Had there been time to go through a primary process, the GOP would've had a stronger candidate & it wouldn't have been on the radar.
