November 4-7, 2008
Nov 04 10:49 Sen. Coleman Hope Tour Visits St. Cloud Nov 04 10:37 Franken Dives Head First Into Legal Hot Water Nov 04 18:24 Fobbe's a Moderate? Nov 06 01:00 Ridding the GOP of Egotists & Lawbreakers Nov 06 03:54 I Have a Theory On the Palin-Bashing Nov 06 10:15 The Candidacy About Nothing Nov 07 13:40 Forward-Looking Campaigning Nov 06 15:14 GREAT NEWS!!! Nov 07 06:02 Interesting Reading
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Sen. Coleman Hope Tour Visits St. Cloud
Tonight, Sen. Coleman was greeted by 125-150 of his closest friends in St. Cloud to a sustained chant of "Six more years. Six more years." When the chant finally died down, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis introduced Sen. Coleman as "a great friend to St. Cloud and to Central Minnesota."
What was initially an enthusiastic crowd quickly turned into a raucus crowd. First, Sen. Coleman spoke about helping a young couple through the adoption process of children in Guatemala, the crowd reacted with the appropriate seriousness. When Sen. Coleman spoke about helping out Southern Minnesota, people knew that that's who Norm is. He's the quintessential public servant. Then Sen. Coleman talked about how Minnesotans and people all across the country should customize their health care coverage to fit their needs rather than having government dictate what they have to include in their policies.
Later, Sen. Coleman talked about the importance "of not overburdening small businesses with overtaxation", much to the jubilation of the crowd.
Sen. Coleman said he's often asked about how we'll reach the next generation. His simple explanation was through technology, which he said proved that young people want to controll their destiny. He said that when his daughter was preparing for her graduation party, he asked how many invitations he and her mother would have to send out. Sen. Coleman's daughter said they didn't need to worry, that she could just contact them through Facebook and MySpace. He said he and wife Laurie sent out the invitations anyway.
Afterwards, I told Rep. Steve Gottwalt that Sen. Coleman had gotten people rocking when he started talking about keeping taxes low and clearing the path for people to customize their health care pakages. Steve agreed, quipping that "When Norm gets them rocking, it's guaranteed there won't be no Franken."
I've been to 4-5 of Norm's events here in St. Cloud. I've been utterly impressed with him in these settings. He's fantastic at connecting with everyone in the room. He's fantastic at it.
I talked with Dan Ochsner after the event and the people had cleared away. I told Dan that Norm in that setting has a gift much like Sarah Palin: they simply connect with people because they're real and they care about everyone around them.
Especially after tonight, I don't have any doubt that Norm will win re-election. That doesn't mean there aren't a ton of calls to make. If those calls get made, I'm certain that Norm will be re-elected by a solid margin.
The consensus at the event was that Michele Bachmann will be re-elected and that Steve Gottwalt would win a solid victory, too.
Posted Tuesday, November 4, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment 1 by Freealonzo at 04-Nov-08 12:39 PM
As stated in earlier comments, I think the race will be much closer with Franken winning because he's being dragged across the finish lines, barely holding on to Obama's coattails.
Face it Obama is going to win MN by over 10 points a lot of those Obama voters will vote Franken. Also the news over the last few days hasn't exactly been to Coleman's advantage.
So Franken wins by less than 2. If Coleman does win, it will also be less than 2.
I see it 43-41-16
No one knows for sure, but we can come back tomorrow and see who was right (er, correct).
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Nov-08 02:18 PM
I know from talking with numerous liberals who think that Obama walks on water will be voting for Barkley because they're disgusted with Franken.
Also the news over the last few days hasn't exactly been to Coleman's advantage.
Yes it has because Sen. Coleman is making his own news. Also, Franken is now in legal hot water for a discredited campaign ad that slanders Sen. Coleman.
I'll predict that Sen. Coleman wins by a minimum of 3 points. I submit that Sen. Coleman might even win by 4-6 points.
Comment 3 by Freealonzo at 05-Nov-08 04:33 PM
Looks like I was the better prognosticator on the Senate race. Clearly Obama having a 10 point lead on McCain was the key. If he had done a little better Franken would have won, had Obama done a little worse, there would be no runoff.
680 votes out of 3 million cast can easily be turned (or expanded upon), we won't know who wins this one until the recount is finished and certified.
Franken Dives Head First Into Legal Hot Water
Last night, the Coleman campaign released a statement on their lawsuit against Al Franken. Here's the text of their statement:
ST. PAUL - A Minnesota State Administrative Law Judge today decided that there is primae facie evidence that Al Franken and the Franken for Senate campaign may have violated Minnesota law by knowingly or recklessly making false statements in order to defeat Senator Coleman.Simply put, what this means is that Al Franken, the man who wrote Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look At the Right , is in legal hot water for a campaign ad that's filled with whoppers.
The Administrative Law Judge decided that there was enough evidence to proceed to a hearing for probable cause this Wednesday to further consider whether Al Franken and the Franken for Senate campaign violated Minnesota Statutes 211B.06 which prohibits knowingly or recklessly making false statements about a candidate for public office in order to injure or defeat that candidate.
"Everybody is entitled to their own views, but candidates for public office are not entitled to make up false statements about another candidate," said Cullen Sheehan, manager of the Coleman for Senate campaign.
"If the judge believed that there was no evidence that false statements were made by Al Franken and the Franken campaign, the judge would have dismissed the case," added Sheehan. "At the end of the day, we hope that this lawsuit will correct the record regarding the false statements made against Senator Coleman and set at least the minimum bounds of decency in future campaigns: that lying about another candidate is unacceptable."
The Coleman for Senate campaign filed the lawsuit on October 30 and amended its filing this morning. In the amendment, the Coleman for Senate campaign cited the KSTP-TV Truth Test, aired on October 29, that gave the Franken ads in question a D- for making false statements about Senator Coleman, and comments made by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director that clarified that CREW did not, in fact, assert what Al Franken and the Franken campaign asserted in their TV and radio ads.
Mr. Franken is often characterized as an extreme example of liberal extremism, which I agree with. Mr. Franken is a hate-filled, bitter man.
Posted Tuesday, November 4, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment 1 by Aaron Landry at 04-Nov-08 01:11 PM
Oh, don't mind Coleman's legal problems.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Nov-08 02:18 PM
Aaron, Which legal troubles might those be?
Fobbe's a Moderate?
Last night, I heard an ad sponsored by the DFL touting Lisa Fobbe as a moderate who'd bridge the gap "between the two extremes." When I heard the DFL's claims that Lisa Fobbe was a moderate, I almost lost it.
What type of person would hire someone who was suspended for "inappropriate and unprofessional behavior between himself and an employee under his supervision" to the position of high school principle?
What type of person would hire someone who attended an inpatient treatment program in July 2000 for his sexual addiction problems?
Why didn't the Princeton School Board establish a monitoring program to make sure that Mr. Sleeper didn't relapse? His ex-wife claims that he relapsed in 2006 by having at least one extramarital affair with a subordinate. That's significant because that's after he'd been promoted from high school principal to superintendant of Princeton schools. Let's remember that Sleeper's promotion happened when Ms. Fobbe chaired the Princeton School Board.
I'd further submit that 2006 isn't an isolated incident. Because the Princeton School Board didn't monitor Sleeper, we don't know that he ever truly stopped his deviant behavior.
Why would the Princeton School Board hire someone with a sexual addiction to a position where he's around school children?
Frankly, Lisa Fobbe's decisionmaking abilities are questionable or irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. I've spoken with careeer educators from various levels of education, from middle school to high school to college. With near unanimity, they told me it's difficult to imagine someone with that type of history even getting an interview, much less getting hired and promoted. With unanimity, they said that such a person would be monitored for similar offenses.
In the end, I think that Alison Krueger will win. I hope that the voters in SD-16 reject someone with a shoddy decisionmaking record like Ms. Fobbe's. Most importantly, I hope the voters in SD-16 pick Alison Krueger because of the abilities that she'd bring to the table.
Posted Tuesday, November 4, 2008 6:24 PM
No comments.
Ridding the GOP of Egotists & Lawbreakers
There is much that needs to be done to rebuild the Republican Party, at the locaal, state and national levels. For the moment, though, I'd like to focus my thoughts on the misdirection provided by the SD-16 BPOU. Mark Olson's ego wouldn't let him simply retire. As a result, SD-16 will be misrepresented by a liberal whose decisionmaking is questionable at best. Based on Ms. Fobbe's list of questionable decisions, it's obvious that holding people accountable wasn't a priority for her. Specifically, I'm referring to Ms. Fobbe not holding Mark Sleeper accountable.
What's worse than Ms. Fobbe winning the election is the role that Mark Olson and Dave Wilson played in preventing Alison Krueger's victory. These spoiled brats didn't care that we lost that seat. This next part is part speculation, part verifiable fact on my behalf but here's what I think was Olson's and Wilson's motivations:
1) Dave Wilson told our BPOU that he didn't like the notion of outsiders, specifically the Senate Victory Fund, determining who their candidate would be. It was apparent that it mattered nothing that the Senate Victory Fund stayed within the restrictions placed on them by Minnesota state statute. Wilson and his SD-16 BPOU brethren cared only about maintaining absolute local control of the process.
I'm a huge proponent of local control. That's the basis for many of my policy beliefs. I'm not an absolutist, though, because there are laws on the books that limit how absolutist I can be. The Senate Victory Fund was well within its rights to get involved in the primary and general election fights. PERIOD. The only thing that matters is that it's their legal right.
We can't call ourselves the party of law and order or the party of strict constructionists if we selectively ignore laws we don't like. Wilson and Olson fought against a legally justified process. Their fight cost Alison Krueger the SD-16 Senate seat.
What's most damning is the fact that the SD-16 BPOU's own constitution should've prevented them from doing what they did. Here's what I'm specifically referring to:
Article VIII-Vacancies and RemovalsHere's the relevant portion of the Republican Party of Minnesota's constitution says on the subject:
Section 4: It is the duty of all Executive Committee members to support Republican endorsed candidates. Should any member of this body actively and publicly campaign against a Republican endorsed candidate, that member may be removed from the Executive Committee in accordance with the provisions of Article VIII, Section 2.
ARTICLE VHere's what Minnesota law says about endorsed candidates:
Conventions and Endorsements - General Provisions
SECTION 3: Endorsements .
3. Only one candidate may be endorsed per seat for a particular office .
204D.10 PRIMARY RESULTS; NOMINEES.Minnesota state law says that a political party's endorsed candidate is the one that wins the primary. Furthermore, the RPM Constitution states clearly that "only one candidate may be endorsed per seat for a particular office." The SD-16 BPOU's constitution must, and does, comply with the state party's constitution. The SD-16 BPOU is prohibited from changing their constitution because it then wouldn't comply with the state party's constitution, which means that it wouldn't comply with Minnesota state law.
Subdivision 1. Partisan offices; nominees. The candidate for nomination of a major political party for a partisan office on the state partisan primary ballot who receives the highest number of votes shall be the nominee of that political party for that office, except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2.
2) It's my belief that Mr. Olson was determined to play the role of spoiler after Ms. Krueger defeated him in the primary. He's been in enough campaigns to know that it would take 20,000+ votes to win the general election. (This year, Ms. Fobbe's winning total was a little over 22,000 votes. Mark Olson's write-in campaign fell a paltry 21,122 votes short of winning.)
That's important because Dave Wilson is the SD-16 BPOU Executive Board chairman. From a legal standpoint, the only Republican on the SD-16 Special Election ballot was Alison Krueger. That's the only thing that matters. As stated earlier, the SD-16 Constitution mandated that their executive board members support Republican-endorsed candidates.
By supporting Mark Olson, Mr. Wilson supported a man who ran as an independent. It's that simple because that's how the law reads.
3) Mr. Olson showed an egotistical attitude in defying the primary voters' will. After they spoke, he didn't listen. It was as if he believed that he was either the only candidate entitled to run or the only candidate capable of winning. If that's what he thought, he's wrong. Alison Krueger is extremely qualified. As I've said before, she's dealt with environmental regulations, taxes, health care and energy issues.
My friend Andy Aplikowski summarizes things in a couple thousand fewer words here . I wholeheartedly agree with Andy's appraisal. It's time the GOP started pulling in the same direction and working as a team. If we don't, we'll continue getting drubbed in midterm and presidential elections.
It's a time for new leadership at the local, state and national levels. Those new leadership teams must have good communications skills. They also must set aside personal preferences. Ronald Reagan once said something that's worth noting here:
"It's amazing what we can get done when we don't care who gets credit for doing what."TRANSLATION: Leadership and accomplishment are welcome. Egos aren't. We can't afford to ignore the Reaganite model for success.
Posted Thursday, November 6, 2008 1:00 AM
Comment 1 by Carl at 06-Nov-08 09:47 AM
The bottom line is that this was about Mark Olson's selfish, arrogant, ego.
It is the same condition or malady that allowed him to smack his wife around.
And now, for everyone in the district and party who is Pro-life, it is Mark Olson's fault there is a pro-abortion Senator.
For everyone in the district and party who is pro-tax-cut, it is Mark Olson's fault there is a tax-hiker Senator.
For everyone in the district and party who believes in traditional marriage, it is Mark Olson's fault, personally, if the new Senator votes against putting a Constitutional DOMA on the ballot.
I'm for local control too, and that's what we have in the GOP. Even if outside interests weigh in, market a message and point out a candidate's flaws, locals still have control.
The locals voted for Krueger in the Primary, and Mark Olson cried about it and took just enough votes away in the general to give the race to a leftist.
Thanks Mark. I hope you sleep well knowing you, personally, are a tax hiking, gun grabbing, abortion proponent.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 06-Nov-08 09:21 PM
No the Republican leadership in Senate District 16 was just as responsible. They should've backed Allison right after the primary and they should've had an "intervention" with Mark to get him to go away. Instead those leaders need an "Intervention". Gary thanks for giving them a public "Intervention"
If David Wilson had any honor he would've resign already and talked the rest of Senate District's 16 leadership for the crimes they did to the Republicans through out the whole state for what they did.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 06-Nov-08 11:04 PM
Part of the blame for this should fall on Governor Pawlenty, who put Betsy Wergin at the PUC - without giving some headsup to the local party leadership so they could find good candidates. Krueger was a very weak candidate.
On this:
"For everyone in the district and party who believes in traditional marriage, it is Mark Olson's fault, personally, if the new Senator votes against putting a Constitutional DOMA on the ballot."
Carl, if you are concerned about "traditional marriage", are you concerned about Norm Coleman's "unconventional marriage" (described as such by Mitch Berg)?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-08 01:44 AM
Eva, Giving the local party a heads-up wouldn't have made a rat's petutie of a difference. The SD-16 BPOU is packed with Mark Olson's cronies.
I Have a Theory On the Palin-Bashing
Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit have posted on the McCain aides trashing Sarah Palin story. I have a theory about what's happening with that.
It's my theory that these trashtalking Palin-bashers are the same people that kept trying to undermine McCain's campaign by having Sen. McCain pick Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. I further suspect, though it's just a hunch, that some of these
They should be part of the coming purge. After talking with several reputable bloggers, both here in Minnesota and across the nation, I'm more convinced than ever that our first priorities must include getting rid of the Beltway strategists who are afraid of their own shadow. They're too prevalent. If we want a healthy, vibrant GOP, we need people who aren't backstabbers like these
The
While I don't agree with Gov. Palin 100 percent of the time, I certainly agreed with her 90 percent of the time. She's articulate. Her connection with voters was as unprecedented as were the crowds that attended her rallies. I'd bet the ranch that 70 million viewers wouldn't have tuned into the VP debate if not for Gov. Palin.
The elitist wing of the GOP hates her because she isn't the least bit interested in their opinions. They also hate her because of her self-confidence. The Beltway pundits and strategists don't like the fact that she isn't a poll-driven, finger-in-the-wind politician.
When the dust settles and cooler heads analyze the data, it'll be clear that Gov. Palin was the best possible choice for Sen. McCain's running mate.
It's that obvious.
Posted Thursday, November 6, 2008 3:54 AM
Comment 1 by Carole at 06-Nov-08 06:57 AM
It seems to me that Sarah Palin is what kept McCain in the race--and that he came through with 46% of the popular vote is nothing short of amazing with the MSM serving the ONE as his personal PR machine.
Comment 2 by Dan Maloney at 06-Nov-08 07:07 AM
Sarah Palin was a godsend for this campaign, about the only thing that could have saved it.
Many people were unhappy with John McCain. His past actions, his liberal tendencies, his ability to piss off conservatives with every speech.
Sarah Palin changed that for many of those because they saw a future in her. Maybe it wasn't enough, but it was way more than any other selection could have done.
She performed admirably under the worst media/democrat abuse ever heaped upon a candidate. She comes away holding her head high because she has to know, as we do, that she gave her all, and then some, to this campaign.
There can be no one who has not drunk the media Kool Aid who can think anything different. If you are dependent on the MSM for your views on conservative candidates you have no business being in any position in the Republican party.
Comment 3 by MarkJ at 06-Nov-08 07:31 AM
Absolutely dead on. I've never volunteered for a political campaign before, and Sarah Palin is the reason why I got involved this year.
Purge these backstabbing jerks as quickly as possible. If they want to stay in politics, let'em go knocking on The Anointed One's door. I've sure he'll have some entry-level positions available.
Comment 4 by mike123 at 06-Nov-08 08:26 AM
After McCain Fiengold, Amnesty, and $700B of Socialism, there was no way that I would have voted for McAmnesty. Sarah was the sole reason that I did. I was hopeful he'd fill his cabinent with people like her.
Obama doesn't scare me. His approach will be no different that W's. Big government socialism.
I read a joke on the internet that explained alot to me ... George Bush came to office as a social conservative. He turned out to be a conservative SOCIALIST.
Want to know why Reps are so disrespected? When things got tough the first solutions jettisoned were the conservative solutions. Republicans are not conservatives, they are democrat-lite.
Comment 5 by Gary Ogletree at 06-Nov-08 09:05 AM
I had been hoping Palin and Biden would get picked. Amazed that John was that sharp and Barry that stupid. First thing I sent $90 to campaign, first time I ever sent a Repulican a dime, first time I ever voted for a Repulican, did the whole ticket (somehow we have great R candidates in OK). I don't believe the smears Campaign Carl gave credence to and reported last night on Fox. A low point for good ol' Carl. After all, it's The Queen who curtsies when she meets Sarah Palin.
Comment 6 by Kathy at 06-Nov-08 09:07 AM
Whenever I saw Mitt Romney on TV, he was defending Sarah Palin . . . unlike many, many other Republicans who thought she was unprepared and unqualified to be on the ticket.
I'm also not aware of any of Romney's staffers serving in senior roles in the McCain campaign.
Comment 7 by austintx at 06-Nov-08 09:44 AM
One thing I know for sure: Sarah Palin brought this former life-long Democrat to the Republican Party. Once my mind was opened to conservative thought by the Palin pick, I will never go back! Thank you, Sarah Palin, and thank you conservatives, for not being afraid of women!
Comment 8 by speedstan at 06-Nov-08 11:18 AM
Sarah Palin may be far from perfect, but she handled herself quite well for being pulled from the political backwaters to the front lines, DESPITE the efforts of the McCain camp, which ran one of the more pathetic campaigns of recent note.
Regarding the embarrassing efforts and performance of the GOP, and their criminal incompetence in misusing, then losing control of the Executive Branch AND Congress in the last 4 years, there seems to be a fundamental contrast between the way that liberals and conservatives view war and politics. Conservatives treat politics the way liberals treat war, and vice versa. Conservatives seem to have no problem in believing that the way to win a war is by going all-out, soundly defeating the enemy, and getting it over with, but when it comes to politics, it seems that most of them are way too squeamish to pull off the gloves, roll up their sleeves, and confront their opponents. OTOH, the same liberals who want to appease and negotiate with the enemy during times of war have no problem with manning the trenches and fixing their bayonets in a political campaign. Liberals are quick to disarm at the end of every conflict, but never give up their political efforts. Will the feeble mainstream Republicans ever figure that out, and are conservatives going to depend on that for their own political survival?
Comment 9 by dad29 at 06-Nov-08 02:50 PM
Some other commentators have guessed that the Jeb Bush people are also involved in Palin-Bashing.
Comment 10 by Freealonzo at 06-Nov-08 03:51 PM
No doubt that Romney supporters and maybe Jeb Bush supporters are pushing some of the anti-Palin stuff but come on guys (and gals) she just wasn't qualified to become VP. Once the American public (not just the small conservative crowd) got to know Palin that's when her numbers came tumbling down.
Sure she energized the base but under that criteria, Al Gore should have had Paul Wellstone as his running mate. That would have energized the Dems, but would have it made for a good VP candidate?
Ask yourself this question. If Palin had been a Democrat and had as much experience, demonstrated as little knowlegde about issues as the real Sarah Palin, gussied up her family in DNC-purchased fancy clothes, what would your reaction have been?
Believe me, Democrats go to bed each night praying Republicans nominate Sarah Palin in 2012.
Comment 11 by Nonce at 06-Nov-08 05:37 PM
You're delusional. She's not qualified to run anything, much less the country, and thank God, many Americans saw that.
But by all means, keep pumping her up -- it only serves to highlight the disaster that the GOP (my party, BTW) has become.
Comment 12 by Okay at 06-Nov-08 08:16 PM
She's articulate.
WHATS U SAY????
Comment 13 by Bluce Tatewinner at 06-Nov-08 08:16 PM
Sarah Palin is being bashed because she represents the problem with American politics. All face and attitude and nothing to back it up. Her complete lack of any grasp of issues, her inability to communicate what she does believe, her backwards approach to modern social issues and embarassing lack of knowledge are wat cause people to poke at her.
Comment 14 by Jules at 06-Nov-08 08:39 PM
Palin can barely string a complete, grammatically correct sentence together. She has a journalism degree, and thinks the First Amendment should protect her from media criticism, which is almost exactly the opposite of what it really says. It wouldn't surprise me if she did think Africa was one nation. But whether that's true or not, the fact that she was so unable to inspire loyalty in her campaign aides is the most damning proof of her lack of leadership.
Comment 15 by non at 06-Nov-08 08:42 PM
I think the real reason why the GOP is bashing Palin is that they don't want her gaining even more momentum with the party base. Look, she is not the embodiment of the GOP. She is dangerous to the party. They know she is a horrible candidate to win the presidency or gain ground in any future elections. If they can wreck her momentum, then come 2012 they can elect someone that actually can lead.
Comment 16 by todd at 06-Nov-08 08:44 PM
Wow. Looks like it really will be an ugly fight for whatever is left of the soul of the GOP party.
If you genuinely believe that Palin represents what's best for Republicans, then by all means, support her.
But its pretty darn clear that all that will do is alienate everyone in the middle: independents, moderates of both parties and the intellectual undecideds of all political stripes. This was demonstrated pretty conclusively on Tuesday. And no party can win anything in this country without the middle. Period. (And if you are not sure about this, just look at the new Blue states of Indiana and Missouri).
So go ahead and rally behind her. But know that this is the best way to insure that the GOP remains irrelevant for the next 3 or 4 elections cycles.
Comment 17 by Trace Whitworth at 06-Nov-08 09:02 PM
Missouri is still a red state, doofus.
If you idiots who think Palin has no experience, what did you think of Obama who has never done anything or worked anywhere? Oh yes, he (or Ayers) wrote 2 books about himself.
I am not as depressed today as the Obama voters will be when they realize that they're getting nothing from their boy. The tax cuts are on hold.
Comment 18 by Walter hanson at 06-Nov-08 09:17 PM
Boy is there lots of misinformation being given out by Sarah's critics here.
One person commented that Sarah thought the first amendment guaranteed her protection from criticism. She was happy to answer what people thought will be tough questions. Towards the end of the campaign who was the candidate who was actually holding press conferences. It was Palin.
One person commented about her lack of experience and if she was a democrat would we be having a different reaction. Excuse methe Democrats were the one that was saying that Obama was experienced while Sarah wasn't.
Bluce when gasoline shoots up to over five dollars let alone six during the Obama administration remember it was Palin who was giving the most accurate talk about energy issues. Obama thinks that if you have a coal fire plant it should be bankrupt, we can't use nuclear, and we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by not drilling for oil in the United States.
I can go, but Sarah saved this ticket by at least 5% and we were as close as were in the states we lost because of Sarah and the excitement she generated.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 19 by Maryanna at 06-Nov-08 09:30 PM
Are you kidding me? This woman couldn't find her ass with both hands, which is why so many people tuned in to watch the VP debate. That was her best moment in the campaign, which isn't saying much. She couldn't handle Katie Couric's softball questions and she certainly couldn't handle it if Sarkozy were to actually call her.
Give it a rest: The woman needs to go back to Alaska and obscurity and let the Republican party heal.
Comment 20 by ErnestPayne at 06-Nov-08 10:48 PM
Those Quebec radio announcers did what the American media could not do. The showed the world how pitifully incompetent Palin really is.
Comment 21 by realist at 06-Nov-08 10:59 PM
70 million people tuned in to watch this train wreck of a person say something stupid! To her credit, she didn't. She also failed to answer any of the questions, but neither did Biden. In the end 70 million people were dissapointed. We'll always have those great CBS interviews on YouTube though.
Comment 22 by Jayhoo at 06-Nov-08 11:44 PM
The sad truth is Sarah Palin is a lucky idiot,who had no business being nominated for anything much more demanding than file clerk.let alon VP.The fact that she git the "base" so excited just goes to show that the "base" is nothing more than a herd of mouthbreathing,inbred trailer trash that should all be sterilized so that eventually we will be free of pickup truck driving,wife beating lardasses who think Jeff Foxworthy is some kind of firgging philosopher and that beating up gay guys will hide the fact they really crave a little bit O' pecker now and again and get back to being a partyu that's about fiscal responsibility,small government and low taxes and not a collection of Jesus freaks and fearmongers.
Comment 23 by Patrick Tribett at 07-Nov-08 01:08 AM
keep huffing paint.
Sarah Palin, as popular as she might be, has a hard time boiling water.
if the GOP is going to recapture their flavor, they're going to need to realize that intelligence, poise, and vision is important in a candidate. Governor Palin is none of those. She's merely photogenic. And if that was the only criterion for nominating a president, how come Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt, or some swimsuit model hasn't been tabbed?
Dumb as the country is, they're smart enough to recognize when they sense someone who's not at the wheel.
Comment 24 by Freealonzo at 07-Nov-08 08:22 AM
To that dude who implied that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book:
Keep thinking that way. It's guys like you that focus on these stupid, irrelevant, untrue figments of some 13-year olds fervent imagination (Obama's birth certificate is another) instead of addressing real issues that affect real people is what keeps conservatives from winning elections.
Comment 25 by G. at 07-Nov-08 09:59 AM
"Reputable bloggers".
LOL!
Comment 26 by Fred Harris at 07-Nov-08 10:14 AM
Yes, Sarah Palin increased viewership of the convention. Yes, Sarah Palin increased fund raising for the McCain campaign.
You're forgetting that she caused a greater increase in fund raising for the Obama campaign. You're forgetting that she cost McCain votes.
She cost McCain my vote. I had to vote for an independent candidate for the first time because of her.
Comment 27 by Walter hanson at 07-Nov-08 10:21 AM
just curious how many of you Palin bashers are democrats?
The difference we have is that the media wanted to destroy Palin immediately because she's a threat. They were immediately sending reporters to Alaska. She was being more vetted in just the three months she campaigned than during the whole of Obama's campaign.
Only Sean Hannity was seriously raising the issue of Wright and how can Obama have him for a role model until the tapes showed up and the media couldn't ignore that story.
Nobody ever challenged Obama on his claim that he was reformed when his history in 2006 was to support the corrupt Cook County machine.
The media did it's best not to try to make Obama look bad. When it was discovered just a couple of days before the election that Obama had made a comment about bankrupting the coal industry the media pretended that didn't come out.
A lot of people's bad preception of Sarah Palin was negative media coverage and a lot of Obama's positive image was his positive media coverage. Hillary Clinton was right why didn't the media examine Obama the way she was being examined!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 28 by WYD at 07-Nov-08 10:27 AM
I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment. I know I voted for the first time because the two words - "President Palin" - scared the bejesus out of me ... She's a living embodiment of what the GOP has become: a walking, talking train wreck ... you betcha!
Comment 29 by JCC at 07-Nov-08 10:36 AM
"I had been hoping Palin and Biden would get picked. Amazed that John was that sharp and Barry that stupid."
Yup.. "Barry" was so stupid that he went out and blew "sharp" John right off the electoral map.
And "Barry" has Sarah to thanks for a lot of that blow-out.
Comment 30 by Laura at 07-Nov-08 11:03 AM
After the dust settles, indeed.
It'll be interesting to see what stories are true and which ones are trumped up lies.
A couple of questions, though:
How can Palin be a "godsend" for Republicans if so many left the party specifically because of her nomination? I understand that the higher-end Republicans weren't her target audience, but aren't they important too? Without them, Democrats took over both houses AND the presidency.
Stories are starting to come out now, and it'll be interesting to see if Palin really was told to only get three suits and a stylist for the convention, but then continued to buy thousands of dollars of clothes, even beyond the reported $150,000 amount. Or if the ultra-volatile "Obama is friends with terrorist" campaign, which turned even more Republicans off from their party, was begun prematurely by Palin- before McCain had a chance to even see or okay the strategy. Or if she really did think that Africa was a country unto itself rather than a continent of countries.
Maybe the four-eight years will be good for Palin to perfect her image and prove the stories false... or true.
I think there is Kool-Aid available for both sides.. and it's time for all of us to quit it cold-turkey and get back to the basics of fixing this country.
Comment 31 by xaos25 at 07-Nov-08 03:04 PM
You speak of the coming purge, and I'm curious. Would that be the purge of people who want to open other people's minds to conservative ideas and win elections, or of the people who would throw their support to an intellectually incurious, unqualified woman that can only "energize" the minority of the party that is inclined to hating everyone who is not a Republican?
I think a purge is coming, all right. I just think it will be folks such as yourself that will be forced out. If I'm wrong, so be it. But if that's the case, I hope you enjoy being out of power for the next 20 years.
Comment 32 by Steve at 07-Nov-08 04:28 PM
You said..."While I don't agree with Gov. Palin 100 percent of the time, I certainly agreed with her 90 percent of the time."
Really? You know who else agreed 90% of the time??
The Candidacy About Nothing
First, let me say that I greatly admire John McCain's heroism and his integrity. Nonetheless, it's time to critique his campaign and candidacy. Monica Langley nails it with this WSJ article :
But in a strategy session of five McCain advisers, campaign manager Rick Davis, pollster Bill McInturff, strategist Steve Schmidt, ad-maker Fred Davis and strategist Greg Strimple, the back and forth revealed a fundamental problem. Fred Davis posed a question designed to give the campaign a central focus: "Why should we elect John McCain?" Tellingly, after several hours of debate, the five couldn't reach a consensus.This is the biggest reason why senators shouldn't be our presidential nominee. Executives make decisions. They monitor things that affect the big picture. Senators don't think that way. PERIOD. Legislators think in terms of nuts and bolts of sausage-making rather than paying attention to the big picture.
"Without an overriding rationale, our campaign necessarily turned tactical rather than strategic," one adviser recalls. "We focused more on why Obama should not be president, but much less on why McCain should be."
The only time when Sen. McCain had a coherent perspective of the big picture was right after Russia's invasion of Georgia. That's when he didn't just look presidential. That's when he was presidential.
I wrote here that "without a vision, the people perish." Here's the most pertinent portion of that post:
If we follow the blueprint of low taxes, sensible spending priorities and protecting Americans from terrorist attacks from neighborhood to neighborhood,from city to city, one state to the next, election victories will be plentiful for the GOP in 2008. You can take that to the bank.That's still my belief. I'm confident that that's still the path to victory. The biggest mistake Sen. McCain made was that he didn't spell out his economic agenda. He didn't create the image that he'd be the people's advocate in a sea of corruption. Here's what Sen. McCain should've done:
1) Sen. McCain should've enunciated daily his plans for re-invigorating the economy. He didn't tell people every day that he'd drag the GOP back to its first principles of limited government.
2) Sen. McCain didn't sufficiently drive home how he'd achieve energy independence. Sen. McCain should've ridiculed Sen. Obama's shifts on drilling daily. We remember when Sen. Obama told one crowd in Missouri that the GOP's plan for drilling was "a hoax" just like we remember Sen. Obama's statement about how filling up "your car's tires and getting regular tune-ups" would save as much oil as we'd get from drilling on the OCS. Finally, we remember that Sen. Obama told people in Florida that he'd consider drilling on the OCS if it was part of a comprehensive energy policy.
It isn't enough to issue a white paper or to post your plan on the campaign website. It's something that he needed to talk about passionately day after day.
Had he laid a detailed economic agenda, he could've pointed to it as proof that his agenda was dramatically different than President Bush's. It would've provided legitimate separation from President Bush.
3) Sen. McCain pulled too many punches. Sen. McCain didn't realize that campaigns are about highlighting differences. He seemed permanently stuck in 'governing mode', which, to some, means being cordial.
This needs to be explored in depth. The reality is that Senate Republicans didn't pick enough ideological fights the last 6 years. Activists want to know that our lawmakers will fight for good policies and against destructive policies. If we had 2 healthy political parties, then agreeing with our opponents would make sense.
In conclusion, it's time that we put the conservative movement back together. It's time that we had reasons to be inspired about being conservatives. That means setting smart priorities, then adopting policies that provide solutions to our biggest problems.
If we don't do that, we'll deserve to be the minority party. I have no intention of staying in the minority party. In fact, I plan on changing that direction ASAP.
There's always room for 1 more person in this movement. Feel free to climb aboard this bandwagon with a purpose.
Posted Thursday, November 6, 2008 10:17 AM
Comment 1 by rey makabali at 06-Nov-08 03:55 PM
he could have nailed the guy just on the economic issues ALONE. if he had sided with the house republicans on the bailout issue instead of arranging a compromise, this election would have ended then and there.maybe his next move is to switch parties.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 06-Nov-08 09:04 PM
Gary keep in mind on a couple of issues where we wanted to pick a fight with the democrats such as ending the filibusters on judges (lets starts filibustering some of Obama judges and look at how the Democrats scream bloody murder) it was Mccain that ended it. We want to take a strong position on immigration who is trying to lead the efforts to be like the Democrats John Mccain.
It was Mccain who pushing global warming during the campaign.
Our problem was in the primary month of January before Minnesota had a say at all we had people voting for Mccain because he was tough on the war, they saw the polls that showed he was the only candidate who could beat Hillary, because he was liberal which Democrats in open states came in and voted for Mccain. Where were those votes in New Hampshire to help Mccain win let alone John S.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Forward-Looking Campaigning
One glaring weakness that the GOP has, both nationally and locally, is their indifference towards the Internet as a tool. Last night, I was channel-surfing when I spotted Shep Smith interviewing Frank Luntz. They were talking about a study that Dr. Luntz did. Here's the question they discussed and what Luntz's study found:
Q: Where do people get their political information from?Shep Smith went on to praise President-elect Obama's use of the Internet. Having visited Obama's campaign website, I know that President-elect Obama used it for everything from fundraising to GOTV operations to event planning. President-elect Obama's online fundraising was unprecedented. While this study is sobering, it also highlights the fact that we need to find solutions to our problems. Fortunately, some very talented people are working on this. The principles and ideas at this website are this week's must reading. Here's an example of how we reform the party:
1) Internet--28%
2) Cable TV--27%
3) TV News-- 23%
4) Radio-- 7%
5) Newspapers-- 6%
What's Wrong -- And How to Fix ItThere's one way to guarantee that this goal is met. This link talks about how the goal can be met:
Hold campaigns and local parties accountable. As important as it is that we invest in new technology at the national level, we must remember that the RNC's primary objective is to win races state by state and district by district, not build up its own brand.
To pursue this essential mission, individual campaigns must be held accountable for the number of emails they collect and the money they raise online. As much high-level attention must be paid to candidates' online strategy as with the number of voter contacts made into a particular district or if the right media strategist is working the race. We must end a sense of dependence on the RNC at all levels, in which the RNC simply turns over its lists, and set goals that the campaigns must find creative and aggressive ways to meet:
In target 2010 Congressional races, we recommend setting a standard of at least 5,000 in-district online activists recruited, and a minimum of $100,000 raised online.
In target 2010 Senate races, we recommend a standard of 7,500 in-district online activists recruited and $150,000 raised online for each Congressional district.
The word among GOP insiders here in Georgia is that Newt Gingrich is considering throwing his name in the hat to be the next Chairman for the RNC.Newt wouldn't drag the RNC kicking and screaming into the 21st century. He'd just fire all of the strategists and parasites from the RNC payroll. His next step would be to dramatically upgrade the technology at RNC headquarters.
Newt is best known for leading the charge for the Contract with America. It is this famed Contract that has been credited for the Republican take-over of the US House and Senate in 1994. It is also well believed among traditional Republicans that it has been the abandonment of this contract by elected Republicans that has lead to their downfall.
Newt's qualifications as a technician are impeccable. His ability of putting an appealing agenda together is unquestioned. Just look and see how popular the items on the Contract With America remain with the American people. Here are the underlying principles behind the Contract:
FIRST, require that all laws applying to the rest of the country also apply equally to Congress;Reform is something that must happen if we hope to attract younger voters. If there's one thing that's undeniable, it's that the young people brought into the system by President-Elect OBama, it's that they're idealists. Idealists, by nature, are reform-minded. The combination of returning to the underlying principles enunciated in Newt's Contract and communicated through the technology recommended by Patrick Ruffini, Erick Erickson and others will attract idealistic voters of all age cohorts.
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing
zero base-line budgeting.
I strongly encourage activists serious about regaining electoral relevance to join Rebuild the Party ASAP. Complacency isn't an option. Achievement isn't the most important thing. It's the only thing.
Posted Friday, November 7, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 08-Nov-08 11:56 AM
"FIRST, require that all laws applying to the rest of the country also apply equally to Congress;" seems in line with Obama saying you can keep the health coverage you have or if you have none or want to change you can have "the same coverage as Senator McCain and I have, with no preexistant condition or other exclusion, same pharmaceuticals access." It's the same principle, isn't it? What Newt meant?
So, the Newts in Congress, salamanders too, will all support the Obama healthcare plan?
Or am I missing something.
I sure don't think I am any better than Barack Obama or John McCain, so that I would be satisfied, even happy, with the same healthcare coverage program as they enjoy.
Wouldn't you, Gary?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-08 06:01 PM
Eric, What Newt talked about had nothing to do with health care. Newt talked about how laws like OSHA applied to private companies but that Congress exempted themselves from OSHA laws & inspections.
There were numerous laws that Congress exempted themselves from prior to 1994. Thanks to Newt, Congress no longer is exempted from those laws.
GREAT NEWS!!!
I just got this email from the Pence office:
WASHINGTON, DC-US Congressman Mike Pence announced his candidacy today for House Republican Conference Chairman for the 111th Congress. Pence informed his colleagues of his intentions via the attached "Dear Colleague" letter. Excerpts below:It's time for Mike Pence to have a high-profile leadership post. He was the driving force behind the House GOP oil party this summer. His conservative credentials are impeccable. He's a man of integrity.
"As we choose who will lead us in the days ahead, it is essential that we learn the lessons of 2006 and 2008 with an eye toward 2010. We must be forward thinking, develop winning conservative strategies and communicate them effectively to the American people."
***
"If you elect me as your new Chairman, I would take a page from the playbook of President Ronald Reagan who taught us that it is not enough to believe great things, we must effectively communicate great things to the American people."
In addition, Pence received the following endorsements:
Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
"Mike Pence is a gifted communicator and a principled conservative who played a key role in helping House Republicans win the energy issue this year, an effort I believe must serve as a model for our Conference as we build a majority coalition issue by issue. I've encouraged Mike to run for the job of Conference Chairman because there is no one in our ranks who does a better job of articulating the GOP message of freedom and smaller government, and he's also proven himself to be a team player with the ability to bring our members together. We need him at the leadership table in the 111th Congress."
RSC Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
"The Conference Chairman is responsible for the message and communications effort of the Republican Conference. House Republicans have no better communicator or Member with communications expertise than Mike Pence. He is one of the most respected conservative leaders within our conference and the nation and I am proud to call him my friend. I am even prouder to support him as our next Conference Chair.
"Mike Pence was always my first choice for this position; I asked him to run several times, and pending his final decision I was prepared to run for Conference Chair should he have chosen not to. If we are to begin the process of rebuilding a bigger, better, and stronger Republican Conference, we must make decisions based upon the good of the team rather than ourselves. I believe that Mike Pence will make an excellent Conference Chairman and will make all House Republicans proud."
U.S. Congressman Steve LaTourette (R-OH)
"If there's one thing I constantly hear back home from Republicans it's, 'When are you guys going to start telling your story?' From working with Mike Pence on the 'Stolen Vote' issue, I firmly believe he's the guy that can message the Conference back to the Majority."
U.S. Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA)
"With his background in broadcasting, Mike has the experience and talents needed to effectively communicate our conference's goals and ideals. He brings a strong work ethic and will meet the challenges of the job with unquestionable integrity."
That's all that needs to be said, isn't it?
Posted Thursday, November 6, 2008 3:17 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 06-Nov-08 08:57 PM
Hopefully Mike will make sure we have a contract with America in 2010. We needed one in 2008 to try to limit the losses.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Interesting Reading
This post provides a great explanation why the GOP should focus on shoring up the base first. Here's the part I agree most with:
5) It's conservatives, not moderates, who contribute the money, work on GOP campaigns, and are generally going to vote Republican, if they vote at all.Our 'alphabets' fundraising has stunk the last 2 election cycles. That's because the activists have refused to support candidates that would be as comfortable in the Democratic Party as they'd be in the GOP. The Democrats hire their GOTV machine. The GOP doesn't. That's why we need enthusiastic activists. The perfect example of this is in Minnesota's 2nd District.
Although it's fine to reach out to moderates, if you go too far and alienate the conservative base, it will hurt your fundraising, leave you without enough campaign volunteers, and may depress turnout amongst your most loyal supporters.
John Kline has impeccable conservative credentials. As a result, Rep. Kline had a big base of volunteers this campaign season:
John Kline and his supporters have turned out in force, in numbers ranging the low 30's to over 70 per parade, and expect to continue such turnouts through the fall. Sarvi has missed a number of parades, and the number of his supporters has been much smaller when he has shown up.John Kline gives CD-2 activists reason to volunteer. The above paragraph is proof that people will volunteer if our politicians are steadfast, principled conservatives.
John's on the right track but he isn't the only person on the right track. Erick Erickson of Redstate, Patrick Ruffini of the Next Right and others have started a project called Rebuild the Party . Here's a little teaser of what they've come up with:
The time is now to set in motion the changes needed to rebuild our party from the grassroots up, modernize the way we run campaigns, and attract different, energetic, and younger candidates at all levels.Patrick Ruffini is one of the brightest political minds in the conservative movement. Having spoken with Erick Erickson from time to time, I can vouch for Erick's vision for the conservative movement and for his impeccable conservative credentials. I'll enthusiastically fight this fight with Erick and Patrick. I encourage every conservative to join in this effort.
We must be conservative in philosophy but bold in our approach. We don't need a slight tweak here or there. We need transformation. We can't keep fighting a 21st century war with 20th century weapons.
What's needed now is principled leadership. There isn't a minute to waste if we we want to stay relevant. It's imperative that we commit to this project. Liberalism can't defeat principled, well-enunciated conservatism. It's just that simple. On October 27, 1964, Ronald Wilson Reagan delivered his famous " Time for Choosing " speech. Forty-four years later, it's still a time for choosing. It's also a time for action.
Let's get started.
Posted Friday, November 7, 2008 6:03 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Nov-08 09:54 AM
Glad to see somebody else recognizing that conservative ideas alone do not win elections, and effective tactics are not enough, either. You have to have all three-- solid conservative principles, well-articulated, AND a powerful political campaign process. It's as much about Get Out The Message (GOTM) as it is Get Out The Vote (GOTV). Maybe more so.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 07-Nov-08 10:11 AM
J. The point of the post was that good real conservatism inspires the volunteers and the money.
Obama got his volunteers and money (okay some was just because he was black) because he was very liberal to the base of the party (anti war, pro labor, pro environment, etc.)
The reason why Mccain lost was that he had an enthusiasm gap which allowed Obama to build up a ground attack in Virginia, Indiana, etc. The Palin pick helped there.
A reason why Mccain lost was that support for him financial was weak because our base wasn't excited for him. Palin once again helped close the money gap.
In 2012 the Republican candidate will have to raise I say more than a billion dollars to win in part because they will have to do a real national campaign.
Mccain lost in part because the Republican base wasn't excited to vote for him. Norm may still lose because Republicans weren't excitd to vote for him.
Mccain lost in part because he wasn't articulating a set of beliefs to the voters. If it wasn't for Joe the plumber Mccain could've easily lost by fifteen points. The reaction to Joe the plumber got Mccain the most excited and consistent he was the whole campaign.
And most importantly you got to campaign like you want to win. The Democrats go after Republicans like they think they are horrible terrorists who will destroy the country (to bad they don't recognize the threat of terrorism).
That's why we lost. In 2004 we had people who wanted to win, but didn't govern the way we wanted them to win. That's why we got the butt kicking we did in 2006 and 2008.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 07-Nov-08 10:30 AM
Walter, I have to remind you that we fielded 8 strong conservative Congressional candidates in MN this year, and only 3 of them won. Being conservative is not enough. Being conservative and articulate about it (as I believe all eight were) is not enough. We need still more, and, while I think "Rebuild the Party" has some good ideas, I'm not convinced THAT is enough, either.
