October 24-27, 2010
Oct 24 06:56 BREAKING NEWS: Strib Endorses Tarryl Over Michele Bachmann Oct 24 08:32 Extreme Editorial Malpractice Oct 24 09:18 BREAKING NEWS: Duluth News Tribune Endorses Chip Cravaack Oct 24 19:34 Spinning Or Clueless? Oct 25 08:25 Factchecking Tarryl's Interview Oct 27 17:33 Bachmann Stays True to Character, Tarryl Not So Much Oct 27 19:33 The Weather Ate My Internet Connection
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
BREAKING NEWS: Strib Endorses Tarryl Over Michele Bachmann
I'm shocked and stunned to read that the Strib has endorsed Tarryl Clark over Michele Bachmann. This is a stunner for the ages. Who would've guessed this outcome? Listen to this pompous opening paragraph:
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has appeared at least eight times since January on Fox News' Sean Hannity Show. How many mayors or county commissioners in Bachmann's Sixth District swath of central Minnesota have had an equal number of conversations with her this year?
In the Strib's mind, taking care of mayors and county commissioners ranks as a higher priority than staying in touch with citizens and job creators.
That's because, in the Strib's and Tarryl's opinions, government is what makes things happen, not entrepreneurs, innovators and productive private sector workers.
In the real world, it's the small businesses and the hard-working private sector employees that create wealth and prosperity. In the Strib's and Tarryl Clark's eyes, they're just ATM's to fund government. This November, they'll find out that We The People think differently.
Then there's this blather:
Clark, an attorney and mother of two, is a respected legislator from St. Cloud who was first elected in 2005. Endorsed by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Clark has been a strong advocate for small-business owners and pushed for the development of angel investor tax credits in the state.
The Strib can't expect thinking people to believe them. That's the most insulting nonsense I've heard this century. Tarryl has voted repeatedly against small businesses. She's voted for job-killing tax increases on Minnesota's jobs creators. Her voting for the angel investment tax credit doesn't come close to her repeatedly voting to raise taxes on job creators.
What distinguishes Clark from Bachmann is her willingness to put common sense before rigid ideology to serve the Sixth District, which stretches from St. Cloud through Anoka County to the metro's eastern suburbs. Clark is well-versed in health care issues and committed to smoothing health reform for consumers and providers, not prolonging the uncertainties.
Here's yet another insulting paragraph. The full extent of Tarryl's understanding of health care is that she thinks we should implement a single-payer system ASAP. That's as rigid of ideology as it gets. That's the system that John Marty, Jim McDermott and Howard Dean prefer. That's as ideological rigid a trio as exists.
Tarryl stood in the way of common sense reforms like Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan, which would've saved Minnesota's taxpayers tens of millions of dollars per biennium. What would the Strib give Tarryl for that on the pragmatic scale? I'd give it a maximum of 2 on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the most rigid ideologically.
When it came to another key issue facing her district this year, the proposed tax on the medical device industry in the health reform bill, the self-proclaimed pro-business, anti-tax champion didn't take the lead.
What's the logic behind making a terrible bill slightly less awful? That's the type of thinking that helped Collin Peterson accept a couple trivial set asides on the Cap and Trade bill in exchange for his vote on an awful piece of legislation. That's doing the right thing? I don't think so.
Bachmann is in touch with Hannity and Glenn Beck but out of touch with her district.
What arrogance. We The People of the Sixth District vehemently disagree with the idiots on the Strib's editorial board. We The People of the Sixth District appreciate the fact that Michele consistently fights for fiscal sanity without raising taxes. We The People appreciate the fact that she's fought the good fight for energy independance by supporting an all of the above energy policy, a stark contrast with Tarryl's support for expensive green energy initiatives.
We The People appreciate the fact that she fought against the FinReg law that's given the executive branch the authority to bypass Congress before writing a bailout check. We The People appreciate that Michele fought hard to defeat the disastrous Obamacare bill that raised insurance premiums by 11 percent this year and that raised a slew of different taxes to the tune of $670,000,000,000.
Tarryl Clark is nothing more than a union thug in high heels. There's nothing moderate about her. Saying that she'll fight for the people of the Sixth District is saying that she'll ignore the collection of special interests who've supported her political career.
On the first Tuesday in November, the voters of the Sixth District will reject the Strib's endorsement just like we'll reject Tarryl Clark's attempt to be Nancy Pelosi's rubberstamp.
Posted Sunday, October 24, 2010 6:57 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Oct-10 12:37 PM
Oh, don't be so hard on Taxin' Tarryl. She's so /cute/! :->
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-10 02:28 PM
Gary:
I think the headline of your piece should've been "Expected" news.
What might be breaking is the insane logic of the editorial. So if a politician talks to the media they aren't doing their job. Wow that means Amy K and Al are out of touch since they talk to the meida all the time. Maybe the Star Tribune is jealous that Fox wants to talk to Michelle and not Amy K or Al.
Of course didn't Michelle get in trouble in 2008 because she was willing to do an interview on MSNBC.
The simple fact is that the people at the Star Tribune don't understand that people throughout the state of Minnesota to make their budgets work have had to cut their spending! A concept which the Star Tribune, Amy K, and Tarryl don't know.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by eric z at 24-Oct-10 03:50 PM
Gary. Thanks for the heads up.
I will post about it on my blog.
After they endorsed Horner over the other two - did you not think they might endorse Bob Anderson in MN 6?
He's a good person, a good candidate.
Comment 4 by eric z at 24-Oct-10 03:53 PM
Forgot to say - If endorsements are to be minimized, attacked and discredited, why exactly should we note that one Duluth paper picking Chip What's his name, the GOP candidate in MN 8?
How's there a difference?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-10 06:25 PM
The difference is that the DNT endorsement came after they LISTENED to BOTH candidates. The Strib didn't pretend to come into the endorsing process with an open mind. In fact, the Strib's endorsement of Tarryl read like a hissy fit more than anything else.
Comment 5 by Gretchen Leisen at 24-Oct-10 04:53 PM
I can answer Eric's last question - vis-a-vis the endorsements for Tarryl by the Strib, and the Duluth paper endorsing Chip C.
Newspapers are almost entirely controlled by liberals - that is a fact. The Strib is as universily derided for their leftwing bias as is the NYT. Since Oberstar is a liberal fixture in the 8th Cong. District and has always been the endorsed candidate of the Duluth newspaper, it really is "news" because it deviated from the expected behavior of the paper. This is not rocket science; just a fact that can be readily verified, and therefore is BIG NEWS.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 25-Oct-10 12:29 AM
Gary:
I thought commonsense was admit that the stimulus bill didn't work. Lets see Clark supported that and Michelle opposed it.
I thought commonsense was that if you have over a trillion dollar deficit you cut spending. Yet Clark (just like Amy K) supports federal spending being at $4 trillion dollars instead of under $3 trillion. Michelle wants spending to be cut.
Um it sounds like Michelle has commonsense not Clark.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Extreme Editorial Malpractice
The only thing more disgusting than Tom Plombon's paranoid rant in this morning's St. Cloud Times is the total nonexistence of objective editorial scrutiny. Here's the totality of Mr. Plomdon's fact-free rant:
With the elections almost here, it may be difficult for some voters to decide which candidates and party to vote for. Based on past political policies and practices and current beliefs, the Republican Party's candidates should be the people's choice as they offer the following ideas:
1. Privatize Social Security and the VA hospitals.
2. Work to eliminate Medicare, the federal minimum wage and the Civil Rights Act.
3. Engage in endless wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
4. Support the constitutional amendments, except those they don't like, i.e., the 14th.
5. Ship American jobs overseas.
6. Remove federal regulations so that oil spills, coal mine disasters and Wall Street meltdowns are regular occurrences.
7. Continue homophobic policies.
8. Provide tax relief to the wealthiest 2 percent of our citizens while conning low-information voters into believing they will be supported in this economy.
9. And finally; the most important reason to vote for the Republicans. They brought our country to the edge of financial collapse and ruin, and this will give them the opportunity to finish the job and finally take us over the cliff to another depression.
Which LFR reader can link to a Republican running on the privatization of Social Security this year? Which candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate are running on the issue of eliminating Medicare?
BTW, I can point to the Democrats who voted to cut Medicare payments by $500,000,000,000. They're the senators who voted for Obamacare and the Pelosi rubberstamps who voted for Obamacare in committee or on final passage. They're easily identified on Election Night. They're the ones with 43-45 percent of the vote that night.
Frankly, it's embarrassing to see Randy Krebs do this shoddy of a job of editing. The statements that he left in this LTE, especially those I've highlighted, originated in the Democrats' talking points. A simple Google search would expose Mr. Plombon's statements as lies or myths within seconds. This shouldn't be that difficult for Mr. Krebs. It's something bloggers do every day.
The quality and accuracy of the Times' editorial page has gone down each year. It's at a very low ebb as this election nears. What's most disappointing is that the shoddiness of the editing points in one specific ideological direction.
I've submitted a couple of LTE's that've been rejected because Randy said I hadn't documented my claims properly. I found that insulting at the time. After reading this trash, I'm infuriated. The bias shown by Randy Krebs is stunning.
From this point forward, Randy should know that I won't be silent when he lets his liberal bias show this blatantly. If Randy wants the Times from becoming the laughingstock that the Strib has become, he needs to slap aside the misstatements made by liberals. He can't play favorites.
Posted Sunday, October 24, 2010 8:32 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-10 02:32 PM
Gary:
Maybe you should write the following letter.
Dear Editor:
As a reader who hasn't had his letters published because you have demanded documentation can I come over to your office today to examine the truck load of documents which you demanded from Mr. Plombon to support these ridiculous charges.
By the way since 2006 when Democrats became in charge of Congress the deficit has gone from less the $200 billion to over a trillion dollars (source New York Times).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 24-Oct-10 03:48 PM
Gary, you yourself have said Medicare payment policing and policies need attention. And I agree.
I also agree it was a stupid item that caught your attention.
I would not say that the writer has any kind of monopoly on stupid ideas.
And I know, you will agree.
Everyone, mostly everyone, wants a better nation and a better world, and disagreements are only on how that's done, and on the definition of better.
Bottom line - voters probably are not better informed by that particular item that drew your focus.
BREAKING NEWS: Duluth News Tribune Endorses Chip Cravaack
Earlier tonight, I sarcastically titled a post BREAKING NEWS. This time, I'm posting an endorsement as truly breaking news. This morning, the Duluth News Tribune is endorsing Chip Cravaack over 18-term incumbent Jim Oberstar:
The brake pedal of fiscal responsibility is needed in Washington now as much as ever. Although Oberstar voted in 1993 for the biggest debt reduction in post-World War II history, the 17-term incumbent is hardly the embodiment of financial restraint and new direction.
His opponent, on the other hand, Republican Chip Cravaack, represents what Congress, including Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, needs at this critical crossroads in American history. A pro-business, fiscally conservative, former Navy captain, with a master's degree in education, Cravaack has smarts. He is articulate, reasoned and composed. More critically, he has specific and promising strategies to pull the nation out of its financial funk.
"This is clearly unsustainable," Cravaack said last week of our nation's mounting debt and free-spending ways. "The best thing to correct the situation is to create a business-friendly environment where the private sector creates jobs."
Clearly, Jim Oberstar isn't a fiscal conservative. Clearly, Rep. Oberstar will vote for any tax increase that reaches the House floors. He's certainly been on a 4-year spending binge.
As awful as his record on fiscal responsibility is, that isn't the biggest strike against Rep. Oberstar:
At the candidate forum last week at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center Auditorium, Cravaack's character shone. Not once did Cravaack respond to the unruly crowd.
Oberstar, meanwhile, retorted at least eight times to some of the rudest of the 1,800 in attendance, provoking even more catcalls. Among the things Oberstar said: "I gather they don't like to hear the truth." "I read the bill!" "There they go again." "Come on." And, "My goodness, no civility at all." At one point, when a moan went up over global warming, Oberstar said, "I'm sorry if the flat-Earth society over here doesn't believe it."
If you haven't watched the video from Tuesday morning's debate, you've missed pictures of a man unhinged. Rep. Oberstar was totally unhinged.
Meanwhile, Chip Cravaack was the picture of poise. He made his points in a concise, efficient manner. Chip Cravaack looked like the poised veteran, Oberstar like the rattled lunatic.
The stunning point came when Oberstar called people who called him out on global warming "part of the Flat Earth Society." People in the audience gasped in amazement. They couldn't believe that they'd just seen a meltdown of that magnitude.
As much as I could rattle off other things that Eighth District voters should hold against Rep. Oberstar, that would be a disservice to Chip Cravaack. This paragraph from the DNT endorsement states the case for Mr. Cravaack nicely:
Speaking at a candidate forum in a packed Duluth Entertainment Convention Center Auditorium, Cravaack vowed to lower taxes paid by businesses, especially smaller businesses, and to remove government regulations and restrictions that impede economy-stimulating private-sector activity.
"You have to get rid of the gridlock," he said. "What we need to do is invest in business in the United States , so they can invest in themselves and create this great thing called jobs. Then we have money in our pocket and we create further demand and it is a great spiral and we get a robust economy."
People in the Eighth District have come to learn that Chip Cravaack will be their advocate in Washington, DC. They can't be certain that Rep. Oberstar will represent anyone other than his cronies and lobbyists.
Eighth District voters need more than just a porkmeister. They need a full-time advocate who looks out for their interests 24/7.
The only man who fits that profile is Chip Cravaack.
Posted Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:18 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-10 02:33 PM
Hopefully if the newspaper realizes this than hopefully 50.1% of the voters will realize it.
Walter Hanson
Minnepaolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 24-Oct-10 03:43 PM
Wow.
It looks like a movement.
Jesse endorses Horner, with the Strib article implying Jesse has never met and spoken to Horner, "I probably have," was Jesse's answer.
Endorsements are strange and many are uneventful.
At least having Ritchie as Secretary of State, whatever the voters do, the votes will be honestly counted. We can rest assured that way.
Spinning Or Clueless?
I DVR'ed this morning's edition of @Issue With Tom Hauser as I do each Sunday morning. Each week, I'm amazed at how oblivious Ember Reichgott-Junge is towards that week's news.
This week, Chip Cravaack had about as good a week as anybody in politics could expect to have. His opponent, 18-term incumbent congressman Jim Oberstar, insulted his constituents, called them "part of the Flat Earth Society" and exposed himself as an out of touch angry man who isn't interested in what his constituents want.
Ms. Reichgott-Junge's stated opinion on the state of this race: He got 68 percent in 2006 and 62 percent in 2008. Chip Cravaack has run a good race but he's gonna lose.
HINT TO MS. RICHGOTT-JUNGE: There are races all over the United States where incumbents won in 2008 with 70+ percent of the vote and who are now in deep trouble. People really hate Obamacare. People really think that the stimulus is a gigantic waste of money. People really think that the bailouts were excessive, the spending too monstrous.
There's another thing Ms. Reichgott-Junge is foolish to ignore, namely Cap and Tax. Miners know that Cap and Trade will cripple their industry, not because of the price they'll pay for exceeding their carbon credits, but because the coal-fired power plants that supply mines like Minnorca will have to charge 40-50 percent higher for their electricity if Cap and Tax is implemented.
Jim Oberstar knew this and he voted for it anyway. Oberstar and Reichgott-Junge think that they're fine, that people won't get upset by Oberstar's vote. WRONG. He voted to kill the biggest industry on the Range. Now he thinks he'll skate because he's always brought home the bike trail bacon.
That's a fool's bet, one which I wouldn't take if my life depended on it.
Ms. Reichgott-Junge is saying that a candidate will always win once they've won with 60-65 percent of the vote. Dynamics change. Votes matter.
It's to the point where I don't know if Ms. Reichgott-Junge is that clueless or if she's constantly spinning things in the DFL's favor.
One thing I'm certain of is that Jim Oberstar's desperation is showing following his losing the DNT endorsement. His desperation showed in this statement :
Oberstar immediately shot back, blaming the endorsement switch on the paper's owners, Forum Communications. "They have dictated this outcome. It is one that fits their philosophy. It does not represent that of the Northland," Oberstar said in a statement.
There's just one major problem with Oberstar's statement. It isn't the truth:
Worth noting: DNT has endorsed Oberstar twice since Forum bought the paper in 2006.
That isn't the sound of a confident incumbent. That's the sound of someone who's losing it.
Posted Sunday, October 24, 2010 7:34 PM
Comment 1 by Bill Poulos at 25-Oct-10 01:39 AM
Now the DNT has responded to Jim's wild claims of being "dictated" to by management.
http://theuptake.org/2010/10/24/duluth-paper-says-owners-did-not-dictate-cravaack-endorsement/
Factchecking Tarryl's Interview
This morning, Tarryl Clark took her whopper tour to WCCO studios for what's likely to be the last time this campaign season. Here's what she said in her first response to Esme Murphy's reading the Strib's editorial:
TARRYL: Well, that's certainly what we're hearing around the district. The St. Cloud Times endorsed me earlier this week as well. The ECM papers have as well. A number of papers around the district have endorsed me. Veterans and Military Families for Progress , firefighters, police officers, the Committee to Protect Social Security , they all agree that Michele Bachmann's not working for the Sixth District. They know I'm going to go out and fight for people every day.
If a person wasn't a good listener, they wouldn't have caught Tarryl mentioning 2 national organizations, the Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare and Veterans and Military Families for Progress.
The board of directors and other prominent members of NCPSSM are staffers from the biggest progressives in DC. For instance, Barbara B. Kennelly, the president and CEO of NCPSSM, is a "former ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security." She "was Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus", too.
Catherine Dodd "currently serves in San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's cabinet as Deputy Chief of Staff overseeing Health, Human Services, Workforce Development, Aging Services, Community Courts and Civic Engagement. Prior to joining the Mayor's staff, she was District Chief of Staff to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
The point is this: What would a high level staffer for Gavin Newsom know about Minnesota's Sixth District? What would any of these board members from NCPSSM know about Minnesota's Sixth District?
The Veterans and Military Families for Progress is another national progressive organization. Again, what would they know about Minnesota's Sixth District?
It's worth asking Tarryl why she cites these organizations as experts of this district. It might sound impressive as she's rattling their names off but they're clueless about Minnesota's Sixth District.
Here's Tarryl's response to Esme Murphy's next question:
TARRYL: Well, first off, I can't tell who that person is on TV. I just know it's not me...$187,000 she's spending a day to attack me, to make up false and misleading things.
Tarryl, did Michele tell the truth that you cast the 67th vote on a $435,000,000 tax increase? Did Michele tell the truth that the vote was tied at 33-33 before you cast your vote? Did Michele tell the truth that it was your vote that passed that tax increase?
In case you forgot or don't want to admit it, the answer is Michele told the truth in each of those instances.
The next question was about taxes. Taxin' Tarryl talked herself in circles on this one:
TARRYL: I have always fought to keep taxes down for over 97 percent of Minnesotans. And, ironically, while Congresswoman Bachmann's going to come up here and tell you some false and misleading things about me, she ironically voted against tax cuts for those very same people. So I think the real question the people of the Sixth District should be asking what the heck she's done for them.
First off, Tarryl voted twice for increases in the most regressive taxes in the state when she voted for the Transportation bill. That's hardly always fighting "to keep taxes down for over 97 percent of Minnesotans."
Second, Sen. Clark's saying that she's worried about shrinking the deficits doesn't ring true in light of the fact she's a huge proponent of the stimulus bill, which added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficits the past 2 years.
That's where the 'tax cuts' that Tarryl's talking about come from. Tarryl can't have it both ways. She can't say that she's for cutting the deficit while voting for a bill that explodes the deficits.
Tarryl is noted for trying to have things both ways. That won't work this year. That won't work this year.
Posted Monday, October 25, 2010 8:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Oct-10 02:31 PM
But look at who Tarryl Clark is running against. (NOT an attack at all against Bob Anderson, he's okay.)
The Strib editorial said it well, about which of the three is the most hard-working and promising in terms of being a sound representative of the district and attuned to helping the many distressed people in the district that the carnival barker has simply ignored.
The incumbent had so little regard for local media attention that she stiffed the editors of ECM Publishing and Strib. If it's not FOX and BECK, does she care?
Bachmann Stays True to Character, Tarryl Not So Much
I could've recited much of Tuesday's Michele Bachmann-Tarryl Clark debate in my sleep. It was that predictable. Three things shined through though. Two of the three items were said by Tarryl.
Tarryl denied that she'd vote for EFCA, aka Card Check. She's been endorsed by every alphabet union imaginable. Ditto with organizations like EdMinn and the Teamsters.
Should I believe that the biggest item on the unions' priority list isn't a priority anymore? Should I believe that Tarryl told a great big whopper? It isn't that she's stood up to the unions before.
The other thing that stood out was Tarryl's repeating her contention, which I've debunked before , that she's kept taxes low "for 97 percent of Minnesotans"? I debunked that myth in this post .
If Tarryl voted for tax increases that increase progressivity and tax increases that reduce progressivity, doesn't that mean that she has't "consistently kept taxes low for 97 percent of Minnesotans"?
The other thing that stood out for me was that Michele mostly stayed on offense without engaging Tarryl. In fact, at one point early on, Tarryl said that Michele "isn't running against Nancy Pelosi."
Michele stuck with talking about how she'd voted against Obamacare, the stimulus and other reckless spending initiatives. When you're part of a small minority, the best you can do is prevent bad things from happening. That's what Michele has done.
I said months ago that Tarryl's biggest problem was that she's a terrible fit for this district. I haven't changed my mind.
Tarryl needed a game-changing slip from Michele. Tarryl didn't get what she needed.
Posted Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:33 PM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 27-Oct-10 09:41 PM
After 23 hours and 45 minutes without power, I am finally back in business. So, I can now testify that Gary's evaluation of Tarryl Clark's performance was spot on. Listening to her responses to the very clearly enunciated questions required an exercise that plastic man would have envied.
In nearly every response Tarryl meandered through descriptions of conversations she has had with people in the district. I would give her an "A" for evasion and obfuscation. After she finished answering, the listener had to really reach back into the memory bank to recover the actual question that she was supposedly responding to.
Michele clearly won the day.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Oct-10 10:21 PM
You people. Power down and complaining.
Think of all those candidates, of every party, for every office; relying on yard and highway signs for influencing voters.
Out in the wind and cold, pounding rebar. Reattaching those plastic ties. I was out in the yard this morning bending all the yard sign wires back from the 45 degree or steeper slant they ended at overnight.
I had to chase one Tarryl sign a half a block down the road, in a now leafless lilac hedge row.
Anyway, we had no outage, so you have my sympathy. How dependent we become on being online.
Again, I really sympathize with the rebar-and-tie-down armies out now in the field. Bless them all, especially the volunteers.
Comment 3 by King at 28-Oct-10 03:48 AM
Eric, thanks. We're out tomorrow doing just that, decided to let the weather pass.
I actually think it would be fairer to say that Tarryl didn't answer the question on EFCA, even after being given a second chance to clarify her position. She didn't deny or affirm. She simply avoided giving a direct answer. I understand her plight given the audience, but her non-answer was all people I spoke to talked about after the debate.
The Weather Ate My Internet Connection
And it might eat it again.
With all the treacherous weather we're experiencing, it was predictable that I'd have connection difficulties. MOBsters experiencing similar difficulties should blame them on Cindy of Ladies Logic since that's where the storm hit first.
Posted Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:33 PM
No comments.
