October 5-9, 2012
Oct 05 05:55 Jim Graves interview questions Oct 05 06:53 Stephanie Cutter undercuts President Obama's tax argument Oct 07 10:20 Joe Biden is right Oct 07 11:22 President Obama's spin vs. economic reality Oct 07 12:25 Is Mike McBride a future star for the ABM? Oct 08 12:03 McCarter pushes state gov't shutdown storyline Oct 08 14:39 Harpootlian's stunning statements Oct 09 01:53 Bachmann vs. Graves Oct 09 10:04 Mika Brzezinski thinks Ryan is outmatched
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Jim Graves interview questions
Thursday afternoon, congressional candidate Jim Graves visited the KNSI studio to be interviewed by afternoon talk show host Dan Ochsner. During his interview Ochsner asked Graves for his take on Wednesday night's presidential debate.
Graves said that it was obvious Mitt Romney won, noting that "Romney was really on top of his talking points."
That's a rather condescending way of saying that Mitt Romney had a thorough understanding of everything President Obama threw at him. As I wrote here and here , Mitt's answers, whether it was on tax or regulatory policy, energy or Dodd-Frank, were outstanding and detailed.
Speaking of Dodd-Frank, Ochsner asked Graves about his thoughts on banking regulations and the role of government. Graves said his rule of thumb was that government shouldn't do anything that people can do for themselves, citing law enforcement, public safety and transportation as examples for things governmental responsibilities. Graves then said that Dodd-Frank added difficult capitalization burdens on smaller banks, noting that it's easier for bigger banks to raise capital than it is for smaller banks.
That's an accurate description of one of Dodd-Frank's onerous regulations.
What's odd is that Rep. Barney Frank, the Frank in Dodd-Frank, hosted a fundraiser for Mr. Graves in Minneapolis Wednesday night as part of a debate-watching party.
Frank is the man who infamously said that Fannie and Freddie, which caused the financial meltdown:
Here's part of what he said at a congressional hearing in 2003:
'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate the threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see -- I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound that could withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were a problem, the federal government wouldn't bail them out.
Why would a businessman who's touting himself as not being in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi then accept fundraisin'.g help from one of the chief architects of the financial meltdown?
It suggests that Graves' political policies wouldn't reflect his policy preferences as CEO in the private sector.
Michele Bachmann warned against Dodd-Frank. In fact, she'd like to repeal it, then get the regulations right. That includes eliminating the too-big-to-fail classification of the five biggest banks that are part of the bill.
Thanks to his associations with the architect of the financial collapse, we aren't certain Mr. Graves would eliminate those reckless regulations.
That's something Minnesotans, especially those who want to get a home loan, can't afford.
Tags: Jim Graves , Fundraiser , Barney Frank , Dodd-Frank , Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac , Too Big to Fail , Regulations , DFL , Michele Bachmann , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, October 5, 2012 5:55 AM
No comments.
Stephanie Cutter undercuts President Obama's tax argument
The morning after his disastrous debate performance, President Obama came out swinging against the 'real' Mitt Romney:
Under fire from fellow Democrats, Mr. Obama came out swinging, accusing Mr. Romney of lying to the American people about his plans for the nation. 'I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,' Mr. Obama told 12,000 supporters during a lakeside rally. 'But it couldn't be Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow onstage last night said he didn't know anything about that.'
In short, Presidential Obama had forgotten about his predictably disappointing performance by showing off his intellectual dishonesty. When CNN's Erin Burnett interviewed Stephanie Cutter, she took Ms. Cutter to task on taxes :
Erin Burnett, CNN host: So you're saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?
Stephanie Cutter: It's a $5 trillion tab.
[crosstalk]
Burnett: But then when you close deductions it's not going to be anywhere near $5 trillion , that's our analysis.
Cutter: Well, okay, stipulated . It won't be near $5 trillion but it's also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he's going to close. So it is going to cost someone and it's going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren't enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney's policy so you have to raise taxes on the middle class. As Bill Clinton said, it's just simple math.
When Ms. Burnett got Stephanie Cutter to admit that Mitt's tax plan wasn't a $5,000,000,000,000 tax cut, Ms. Burnett undercut President Obama's message for the day after his disastrous debate performance.
He said the Mr. Romney of the debate wanted to put more teachers in classrooms and claimed not to know companies get tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. 'The man onstage last night, he does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney's decisions and what he's been saying for the last year,' the president said. 'And that's because he knows full well that we don't want what he's been selling for the last year.'
President Obama is accusing Mitt of lying about his tax plan and about companies getting tax breaks for outsourcing jobs to other countries the morning after Gov. Romney demolished that argument in the debate.
When political parties catch the other party lying, it's typical for them to issue a statement, complete with fact sheet showing the public specifically what they're basing their attacks on. Team Obama didn't issue that type of fact sheet because the tax code won't support President Obama's claims.
In short, President Obama is pulling this stuff out of thin air. That isn't the way to look presidential. In fact, it's a shortcut to looking like a spoiled brat who doesn't like being challenged for the first time in his political life.
In addition to President Obama sharpening his attacks, Stephanie Cutter tried pushing the tax issue to CNN while David Axelrod hosted a conference call:
David Axelrod, the president's strategist, called Mr. Romney an 'artful dodger' whose debate comments were 'devoid of honesty,' 'rooted in deception,' 'untethered to the truth' and 'well delivered but fraudulent.'
'Not surprisingly, what we learned is he'll say anything,' Mr. Axelrod said. 'That makes him effective in the short term but vulnerable in the long term.' He added, 'He may win the Oscar for his performance last night but he's not going to win the presidency.'
Having David Axelrod question a man's integrity is laughable. That's like having Baghdad Bob lecture the media about journalistic integrity.
Now they will have to make what Mr. Axelrod called 'adjustments' in the president's approach for the next debate on Oct. 16. The 'take-away from this debate,' he said, was that they 'can't allow someone to stand there and manhandle the truth.'
Like Stephanie Cutter and President Obama talking about $5,000,000,000,000 tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich? Is that the type of manhandling Axelrod is talking about?
The Obama campaign's flailing shouldn't be considered proof that they've forever lost their mojo. It's just a matter of time before they get their footing again. It's just a matter of time before the fawning press starts defending him again.
That's why it's important for Mitt's team to press their advantage while it's fresh, especially in states where early voting has started.
Tags: Taxes , Stephanie Cutter , David Axelrod , President Obama , Spin , Debates , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Early Voting , GOP , Erin Burnett , CNN , Election 2012
Posted Friday, October 5, 2012 6:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Oct-12 07:37 AM
You use the term "Mitt's team."
All we hear about is Romney and Ryan.
Who else?
What backgrounds?
Is there one good link, or a few you can give on that question? Is it worth a LFR post on its own?
Who in particular are his economists, and what credentials do they represent? Bain and finance people? Fed veterans? Supply siders? Who? ALEC veterans?
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Oct-12 07:40 AM
Along those lines, was Pawlenty "let go" and given a good job to cover a firing, or was it an abandonment for a paycheck with mere weeks to go?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-12 09:23 AM
All we hear about is Romney and Ryan.If you did your own research, you wouldn't be making that foolish statement. Believe it or not, Mitt Romney has a full campaign team. He's got a campaign manager & a communications staff. If you did for yourself like I do, you'd know this information.
As for whether some of these people are from Bain or ALEC, it's always amusing to see the left's insistence on using the same boogeymen even though they couldn't identify what people in those organizations do or have done.
The DFL, aka the phoney 'Party of Tolerance & Acceptance', reflexively criticizes organizations it knows nothing about. That's so rich.
Comment 4 by eric z at 05-Oct-12 10:26 AM
Gary. I'm asking you if you'd think it helpful to share.
If you see some GOP strategic advantage to saying a team exists, for me to know, you to find out, it's really not of that much interest to me. Hence, if you care to share, great; if not, great. No problem either way.
Why so touchy?
Comment 5 by eric z at 05-Oct-12 10:30 AM
Your guy, King B. -- He's ALEC. I saw his name listed among others, and it was news to me. ALEC is a bunch of thugs. Not physical thugs, policy thugs. Worse.
And remember, Gary, this Boogyman is real in the ALEC case. It exists, and has infiltrated Minnesota politics, the Kiffmeyers seeming the tip of the spear.
Why so dismissive of legitimate concerns. You dislike and jump all over Dayton's former wife, your own personal Boogyman, but ALEC is sacrosanct?
Talk about a double standard. Why so? How can you justify such a pose?
Joe Biden is right
Conservatives didn't disagree with Vice President Biden when he told a gathering in Council Bluffs, Iowa that the middle class had gotten squeezed the past 4 years. Gas was $1.84 a gallon when President Obama took office. It's now at $3.79 a gallon. That's the direct result of President Obama's tightfistedness in granting permits for new drilling projects.
Electricity and natural gas prices have jumped, too, thanks in large part to President Obama's EPA restricting coal mining and fracking. Other EPA regulations are causing coal-fired power plants to shut down or to announce that they're shutting down.
This picture tells another important story:
It's incredible seeing a picture showing gas prices at almost $6.00 a gallon. Those prices aren't squeezing the middle class. They're demolishing the middle class.
While other factors are driving up California's gas prices, including a statewide cap and trade system, President Obama's policies still strongly contributed to this expensive energy trend.
President Obama's energy policies are one of the biggest contributors to struggling families' plight. While President Obama's policies can't be blamed for California's $6 gas and closed stations, they're certainly the chief cause for the nation's high gas prices.
Had President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Senate passed their cap and trade law, which was high on their list of priorities, it's indisputable that the nation's gas prices would mirror California's. They certainly would mirror California's prices.
It's time to flush this administration's policies from our system. We can't afford 4 more years of rising gas prices, electric bills, high unemployment, explosive deficits and falling household incomes.
We can't afford the sight of pictures fo $6 a gallon gasoline.
Tags: California , Gas Prices , Cap and Trade , Environmentalists , EPA , War on Coal , Fracking , Natural Gas , President Obama , Joe Biden , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, October 7, 2012 10:20 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Oct-12 11:35 AM
Gary:
Keep in mind the only reason why gas prices nationally haven't broken four is the record oil production because of fracking on private lands which the environmental will stop in a heart beat if they had their way.
Take out oil production for North Dakota and the other fracking states and the price will be something like $8 or more. That's how important those couple of millions of barrells of day is.
As you highlighted our prices will be a lot lower with a couple of million more barrells of oil per day which we can do, a bunch more coal fire power plants, a new oil refinery or two (not to mention one gasoline fuel standard so gasoline can easily be moved from one market to another), etc.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 08-Oct-12 09:13 AM
"While President Obama's policies can't be blamed for California's $6 gas and closed stations, they're certainly the chief cause for the nation's high gas prices."
Gary, it's undeniably true that liberal policies are responsible for what California is gong through at the moment. Refineries are switching to the "winter blends" and not as many are producing "summer" gasoline.
Several refineries are shut down, a problem that would not be as great if liberals would allow more construction.
It is both useful and instructive to note that the problem California faces is from the supply side. Liberals know this, and they also know that supply-side economics is the true and correct way to drive economic growth. That's why they oppose it.
So while 0bama's policies may not be to blame in this particular instance, the blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of people who think almost exactly like he does.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 08-Oct-12 09:16 AM
As a follow up, it should be noted that California law prohibits the sale of "winter blend" gasoline prior to October 31 as I understand it. Hence the supply-side pinch.
The whole issue of "blend" gasoline comes straight from the environmental left.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 08-Oct-12 09:24 AM
Bob, that's the point entirely. President Obama's policies have affected the national average gas prices. Militant environmentalists' policies are responsible for California's highest-in-the-nation gas prices.
Comment 5 by Bob J. at 08-Oct-12 10:27 AM
Do I get a gold star, Gary? :D
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 08-Oct-12 12:04 PM
You bet. They're good for the ego & I can't afford more in this terrible Obama economy.
President Obama's spin vs. economic reality
John Daly's article highlights something that hasn't gotten the emphasis it needs:
Flash-forward to Friday of this week when it was reported that the national unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8%. President Obama proudly stood before cheering supporters and announced the news in a way that suggested he had just scored a major achievement, perhaps even comparable to Joe Montana's MVP trophy which was won at the Super Bowl that year. With his chin held high, Obama declared that our nation is heading forward, and that we can't turn back now.
President Obama knows that we haven't turned a magical corner. Mort Zuckerman's column makes that case powerfully:
The real unemployment rate is 15 percent, measured by what is called U-6, which includes people who are working part-time on an involuntary basis. We have 4.7 million fewer jobs than the peak reached at the end of 2007. And indeed much of the improvement in jobs has been through dubious "seasonal" adjustments, such as the July seasonal bump of 377,000 jobs - the largest such adjustment for July in the past 10 years. The labor participation rate has dropped to a 30-year low, and if not for that development, the unemployment rate would be much higher.
Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, although the population has grown by 31 million since then. A worker between the ages of 50 and 61 who has been unemployed for over a year has only a 9 percent chance of finding a job in the next three months. A worker who is 62 years or older and similarly unemployed has about a 6 percent chance. And 50 percent of this year's college graduates are without jobs or are underemployed. What a waste.
Mr. Zuckerman's recitation of important statistics is reminiscent of Mitt Romney's presentation Wednesday night. It's possible that President Obama can dispute the wisdom of Mitt Romney's policies. It's impossible for President Obama to credibly dispute the success of President Obama's policies.
Lefty pundits said that President Obama was off his game, that he didn't look prepared and that he didn't use some key ammunition. There's some truth to that but that isn't why Mitt Romney looked presidential and inspired.
Mitt Romney ripped this administration's storyline that yes, we aren't creating enough jobs and the economy isn't growing like we'd like it to but we're still on the right track. In the opening moments, Mitt Romney demolished that storyline, saying that the economy is terrible because 23,500,000 people are still unemployed, underemployed of have quit looking for work.
Romney then cited the fact that there were 32,000,000 people on food stamps when this adminstration took office, compared with 47,000,000 on food stamps today. Couple that with the fact that gas prices have doubled, electric bills are more expensive and the median household income has dropped by $4,300 since this administration took office.
There's nothing in those realities that suggests the economy is heading in the right direction. Considering the fact that President Obama has essentially said that it's imperative that we stay the course without announcing new initiatives says that he's telling We The People to expect four more years of the same failed policies.
The only thing that's imperative is that this nation must change horses or suffer through another 4 years of disappointing economic outcomes.
Tags: Unemployment , President Obama , Median Household Income , Gas Prices , Electric Bills , Chronic Unemployment , Food Stamps , Recession , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Presidential Debate , Tax Reform , GDP Growth , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, October 7, 2012 11:22 AM
No comments.
Is Mike McBride a future star for the ABM?
Friday night's Almanac Roundtable provided more than ample humor for conservatives. Thanks to McBride's statements, I was able to enjoy an unusual lineup of roundtable guests. Ryan Lyk represented the Minnesota CRs, with McBride representing the DFL. The Libertarian and Green parties were represented, too.
Lyk was clearly bouyed by Mitt's debate performance. Filled with that confidence, Lyk said the confidence in the room at the CR's debate-watching party visibly increased as the debate wore on.
Here's how McBride responded when Cathy Wurzer asked what happened to President Obama:
MCBRIDE: Um, I guess the president has been busy trying to be president of the United States and, uh, has been working really hard for us.
If I'd been interviewing Mr. McBride, I would've asked when President Obama paid attention to the Operation Fast & Furious investigation or the FBI investigation into the bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi or reviewed the regulations causing coal-fired power plants to shut down or announce that they're shutting down. After that, I would've asked him if President Obama was working for us when he attended more fundraisers in the last 18 months than his two predecessors attended in their re-election campaigns.
After that, I would've asked McBride if President Obama was working for us when he insisted on raising taxes on small businesses by $1,000,000,000,000.
As entertaining as that answer was, it doesn't compare with McBride's reply about the economy President Obama inherited:
MCBRIDE: Well, it's important to remember that President Obama inherited an economy that was losing millions of jobs per month.
If Carrie Lucking or Denise Cardinal were listening, it's almost guararteed that they hired Mr. McBride this weekend. With that ability to say things that don't bear a resemblance to the truth, McBride's perfect for ABM, ABL or ProgressNow, though they'd have to compete with CREDO for his services.
This wasn't a fair fight. Ryan Lyk looked confident and well-informed. Mike McBride looked like a perfect fit for the DFL's spin machine.
Tags: Mike McBride , Community Organizer , Youth Vote , Spin , Carrie Lucking , Denise Cardinal ABM , ProgressNow , DFL , Mitt Romney , Ryan Lyk , Presidential Debate , Enthusiasm Gap , CRs , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:25 PM
No comments.
McCarter pushes state gov't shutdown storyline
Jerry McCarter is challenging State Sen. John Pederson in SD-14. A substantial part of McCarter's message is anchored in the state government shutdown. In fact, he's told SC Times political reporter Mark Sommerhauser that it's a major reason why he ran :
McCarter, who's running against Sen. John Pederson, R-St. Cloud, says the shutdown was part of what spurred him to run for Senate.
Based on what I've seen of him in interviews and debates, McCarter appears to have ingested the entire ABM/DFL talking points playbook. Here's an example:
'Like a lot of people, I found [it] unnecessary, politically motivated, and I think it damaged the state's image long-term,' he said.
I wrote here that Gov. Dayton shut state government down. Included in the post is the link to the negotiation documentation showing Gov. Dayton and the GOP legislature had agreed to sign an agreement limiting the June 30 special session "to passing a 'lights on' extension of funding for all current operations and obligations of state government until 11:59 of July 11, 2011."
The GOP legislature didn't reject signing that agreement. Gov. Dayton did. Whatever DFL candidates say, the indisputable fact is that Gov. Dayton and the DFL rejected the GOP's plan to keep the state government open.
Gov. Dayton's arbitrary decision to shut state government down hangs on his head and on Rep. Thissen's and Sen. Bakk's heads.
On his campaign website , McCarter says that he's experienced at bringing people together. FYI- That's a standard feature on DFL candidate websites. That's DFL happy talke, something that they're attempting to exploit.
The problem with that in McCarter's situation is that, as a conservative freshman GOP legislator, Sen. Pederson got Gov. Dayton, the most liberal DFL governor in Minnesota history, to sign 21 bills that Sen. Pederson authored.
For all of the DFL's happy talk about bringing people together, the GOP have the history of accomplishments.
More important than bringing legislators together is the fact that GOP legislators have listened to their constituents and kept their promises.
The state government shutdown apparently isn't resonating with people. It's equally important to note that GOP legislators keeping their promises, creating jobs while balancing the budget without raising taxes is resonating with voters.
If Mr. McCarter sticks with this strategy, which is likely, he'll have difficulty connecting with voters.
Tags: Jerry McCarter , Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Tom Bakk , State Government Shutdown , Special Session , Lights-On Bill , DFL , John Pederson , Bipartisanship , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, October 8, 2012 12:03 PM
Comment 1 by Colin at 09-Oct-12 01:07 PM
If they did not want a shutdown, why did Republican legislators include politically-charged non-budget items in the 2011 budget?
Gerrymandered redistricting and stem cell research bans had no business being tacked onto our budget by Republican legislators.
Not only is it unethical and bad policy, it also outright violates our state constitution. The single subject rule is Article IV, section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution, which states: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-12 03:28 PM
Colin, it was included in 1 proposal, then removed. As the documents prove, the final budget proposals didn't included any "politically-charged non-budget items."
If you want to argue that Gov. Dayton is justified in shutting state government down after some "politically-charged non-budget items" in the GOP proposal were removed, have at it.
If you think it's smart to shut down government over past history, you're entitled to fight that fight. Let me get you a louder megaphone for that argument.
Comment 3 by eric z at 09-Oct-12 05:11 PM
Colin - The Republicans did that because they wanted to be obstructionist turkeys; and most people in the state realize that and support Dayton over that bunch of dissembling fools. And if they had any respect for the Minnesota Constitution their divisive amendment proposals would not be on this year's ballot. The bunch. They would rather fire torpedoes instead of legislating in a statesman like fashion. That fashion is alien to them, since, primarily, they talk to one another and that's where they get their ideas. We need better heads in the majority. Democrats.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-12 06:36 PM
Eric, King was at the Capitol waiting to be called into session at 9:30 pm on June 30 so he could vote on a lights-on bill. The details of the bill had been agreed to.
Then Gov. Dayton withdrew from the negotiated deal.
At 10:00 pm, Gov. Dayton called a press conference to say that the GOP was shutting the government down. The documents show the opposite.
If you choose to lie, Eric, that's your choice. I've got proof that verifies my account. You don't. If you want me to reprove that you're a partisan without regard for the truth, that's your option.
Just don't whine when I prove you wrong.
Harpootlian's stunning statements
Each Monday on America Live with Megyn Kelly, Brad Blakeman, an assistant to GWB, debates Dick Harpootlian, the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. For the most part, Harpootlian is an inoffensive buffoon. This afternoon, that changed during a debate about why the terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate succeeded. First, here's a little background into what's caused the latest stir:
Lt. Col. Andy Wood participated in this interview with CBS national security correspondent Cheryl Attkinson:
It's stunning and disheartening to hear Lt. Col. Wood say that he felt like they were asking them "to play the piano with 2 fingers."
That clip was the introduction to an explosive debate, including this exchange between Mr. Harpootlian and Mr. Blakeman:
BLAKEMAN: You guys don't want the American people to know the truth. You just want to ride this out and hope that the American people will pay attention to something else when this administration was either grossly incompetent or willfully lying to the American people. And now it's substantiated by an American military person...
HARPOOTLIAN: We don't know what his (LT. Col. Wood) axe is to grind, Brad. All I'm saying is why scour this days before an election...
BLAKEMAN: Because the American people deserve answers...
HARPOOTLIAN: Oh, the American people. The American people don't want an answer.
Remember that Harpootlian is the dirtbag that compared Gov. Nikki Haley to Hitler's mistress .
It's disgusting that Mr. Harpootlian would argue that "the American people don't want" an explanation for why President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens' repeated requests to beef up security before the anniversary of 9/11.
Arguing that the American people aren't interested in this administration's weakening the Benghazi Consulate's security isn't stupid. It's their attempt to hide the fact that this administration's decisions led directly to the deaths of 4 Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
As the campaign heads into the home stretch, President Obama's questionable decisions are coming home to roost. His decisions have needlessly gotten high-ranking officials killed, including the first American ambassador killed since 1979.
Tags: Investigation , Benghazi , Terrorist Attacks , Lt. Col. Andy Wood , Whistleblower , 60 Minutes , Media , President Obama , Hillary Clinton , National Security , Dick Harpootlian , Eva Braun , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, October 8, 2012 2:39 PM
No comments.
Bachmann vs. Graves
Monday night, Michele Bachmann celebrated the grand opening of her St. Cloud Victory Office with 75-100 of her most passionate supporters. After Rep. Bachmann's brief speech, several veteran activists were asked about the growing storyline that Rep. Bachmann is losing support.
The Bachmann supporters unanimously said that they haven't seen proof that that's happened. They did say, though, that they've seen the stories. One supporter said that he enthusiastically supported Rep. Bachmann because "she's never abandoned her principles." Another supporter said that it wouldn't surprise anyone if this was part of a DFL whispering campaign.
Another supporter identified himself as a local businessman. He said Mr. Graves hurt himself badly by attending a fundraiser hosted by Barney Frank. This businessman said that that event would probably cost Graves 5 points of support with Sixth District voters.
The businessman said that Graves' biggest selling points prior to the Frank fundraiser were his claim that he isn't a cookie-cutter Democrat and his business background. Those vanished when he attended Frank's fundraiser because Franks, in the minds of most businessmen, is the man who caused the credit crisis that's still hurting the housing market.
He's also seen as one of the most liberal congressmen in DC.
Neither of those things will help Graves with Sixth District voters. Bachmann defeated a liberal Tarryl Clark in 2010 by a 53%-40% margin. This year, Jim Graves is portraying himself as a moderate, just like Sen. Clark did. This year, the Sixth District is more conservative than in 2010, keeping this an uphill climb for Michele Bachmann's opponent.
That was a plausible argument prior to his fundraiser with Frank. Now that argument isn't plausible.
During her brief rally speech, Bachmann touted the campaigns of local legislators like Sen. John Pederson, Rep. King Banaian and House District candidates Jim Newberger and Jeff Howe. Howe is a retired military veteran running in an open seat created by Rep. Larry Hosch's retirement. Newberger is running in a new district created by this year's redistricting.
Rep. Bachmann wasn't bashful about her goal of making the Sixth District a "DFL legislator-free district."
Newberger and Howe are expected to help with making Rep. Bachmann's goal a reality.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Sixth District , Jeff Howe , Jim Newberger , John Pederson , King Banaian , MNGOP , Jim Graves , Barney Frank , Tarryl Clark , DFL , Election 2012
Originally posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012, revised 10-Oct 2:41 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Oct-12 04:59 PM
Do you have the debate schedule. I could not find it.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-12 06:37 PM
I don't have it but I'll check into it.
Mika Brzezinski thinks Ryan is outmatched
Jim Hoft's post about this morning's Morning Joe focuses on Joe Scarborough's "Emperor has no clothes" moment. While that's noteworthy, it's worth talking about what Mika Brzezinski said about the vice presidential debate. That section starts with Mike Barnicle laughing while saying that Vice President Biden "will be great. He's gonna be great." That's when Brzezinski said "And his decaded in Congress will help. I think Paul Ryan is outmatched."
First, it's noteworthy that Ms. Brzezinski thinks that the smartest man on policy in Congress is outmatched intellectually by the most gaffe-prone politician of the last half-century. That's laughable. Paul Ryan is quick on his feet. He isn't gaffe-prone. He knows the budget thoroughly. He was taught pro-growth economic policy by Jack Kemp.
What part of that resume says Ryan will be outmatched?
This leads to a second point, a point that the pundits aren't making. The vice presidential debate is far more important than they're admitting. It isn't important because people are deciding whether they'd rather vote for Vice President Biden or Congressman Ryan.
It's important because a strong debate performance by Congressman Ryan a) makes him acceptable as the man 1 heartbeat away from the presidency and b) would sustain the momentum created by Mitt Romney's performance.
When Paul Ryan debated President Obama at the Health Summit , Ryan administered a thorough butt-whooping to President Obama's ego. Now we're supposed to believe that Vice President Biden has Ryan's number, that he's Kryptonite to Paul Ryan?
That's a stretch even a double-jointed 15-year-old gymnast couldn't make.
Tags: Morning Joe , Mika Brzezinski , Mike Barnicle , Joe Biden , Paul Ryan , Debates , President Obama , Mitt Romney , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment 1 by The War Planner at 09-Oct-12 12:29 PM
Mike Brzezinski == Mika Brzezinski..
..otherwise excellent points.
You/we WANT Biden to mention the 7.8% U-3 number, by the way, because that would invite a sober discussion of the underlying math and faultiness of the components that go into yielding such a bogus result.
Exit question: have you ever toured an abattoir?
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Oct-12 04:58 PM
"... smartest man on policy in Congress ...".
If you say so, it must be so. I'd have never guessed, listening to the man.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-12 06:40 PM
Then take off the blinders & stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm a partisan but I know political talent when I see it.
The only other politicians that I've ever seen that are in Ryan's league are Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bill Clinton, Jack Kemp & Steve Forbes.
Comment 4 by eric z at 10-Oct-12 06:49 AM
Jack Kemp, yeah. Mediocre quarterback. Mediocre politician. Cookie Gilchrist would not block for him, he was that awful back in early AFL days. Your talent spectrum is a strange mix. I would put Nixon in Ryan's league. Agnew.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 10-Oct-12 07:53 AM
If you think that Jack Kemp was a mediocre politician, you need your head screwed on straight. He was a well-respected, brilliant man.
