Showing posts with label Elwyn Tinklenberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elwyn Tinklenberg. Show all posts
4:45 PM | Posted in , ,
I knew that the entry of Tarryl Clark would make it difficult for Elwyn Tinklenberg to win the DFL endorsement but who knew that her entry would force Tink out so soon. The word is that fund raising woes may have led to the ultimate demise of the Tinklenberg 2010 Campaign. Yet, one has to wonder how many party insiders were telling Tink that it was a lost cause.

From the Star Tribune:

“I am terminating my campaign for Congress,” he said in a statement. “This is obviously not an easy decision for me, but I have come to the conclusion that it’s the right one.”

Statements quickly came out from both the Reed Campaign and the Clark Campaign regarding the decision made by Tinklenberg.

From Maureen Reed:

“First and foremost, I want to thank El Tinklenberg for his dedication to public service. He has worked hard on behalf of the citizens of the sixth district and this state as Mayor of Blaine, State Transportation Commissioner and as a Congressional Candidate. El is a tremendous public servant. I wish him the best in his future endeavors.”


From Tarryl Clark:

"From day one, El and I have shared the common goal of changing the 6th District's representation in Congress. El knows first-hand from his work just how much is at stake for the working families and small businesses across Minnesota. I thank El for his dedication and public service, and know he will continue to be a leader in our community."


Clark was given a second bit of good news today when AFSCME announced their endorsement of her candidacy.
10:30 PM | Posted in , ,
So I was on the Air America (AM 950) Tuesday for a short segment discussing the 6th District. While I was able to address a few things about the race, there are a couple of points I feel the need to point out.

Currently, we have three confirmed candidates for the DFL in Elwyn Tinklenberg, Maureen Reed, and Tarryl Clark. The last few days have seen quite a lot of chatter throughout the blogosphere about this district and this particular race. In that chatter and in the chatter from my personal sources there seems to be a few themes:

1. With Maureen Reed, every indication I am hearing is that apart from her large fund raising numbers she is dead in the water. Don't get me wrong, I like Dr. Reed and would have no trouble supporting her but for one reason or another the people I have contacts with have already counted her out of the endorsement. Does this mean that Reed is really gunning for the IP candidacy? Will she abide by the DFL endorsement? If she were to lose that endorsement, then will she run as an IP candidate or put her name on the DFL primary ballot?

2. Elwyn Tinklenberg appears to have two hurdles to overcome: First, to convince people throughout the district who recall that big blue paw print on his '08 campaign site touting the endorsement by the Blue Dog Coalition that he is NO LONGER a Blue Dog Democrat. Second, much like Reed, there are increasingly loud questions about why he has chosen to ignore the DFL endorsement and take this race to a primary. All of my sources who might have supported him before are abandoning ship because of this decision. Why would Mr. Tinklenberg tell the entire DFL establishment in the district that he will ignore their decision? Could I support Tinklenberg? Sure, but right now his answers to these questions concern me.

3. Tarryl Clark, from EVERYTHING I am hearing, is the early leader in the initial endorsement process. Her one disadvantage might be her initial fund raising which will have to catch up with her competitors. As she has not been very public yet I do not know what her stance is on honoring the endorsement process but given the questions surrounding Reed and Tinklenberg it would interesting to hear what she intends.

UPDATE: h/t to Blue Man on this one...

The Clark website is up with a youtube video message:



Clark makes it clear in the video that she WILL abide by the DFL endorsement which could be an indication that she has called around the district and all but locked up the delegates she needs to win.


At this point I refuse to endorse any particular candidate and would like to see an honest process with each candidate answering this simple question: What makes YOU the best DFL candidate to win the endorsement and win the district?
Eric Black reported this statement from Tinklenberg Campaign Manager, Dana Houle, in a piece about the seemingly imminent entrance of Tarryl Clark to the 6th District race:

[My question to Houle: Assuming Clark does get in, how does it change the race:]

“It would distract us from running full-time against Michele Bachmann, which would be unfortunate, but if we have to fight for the nomination, that’s what we’ll do.”

First, what do you mean by running "full-time against Bachmann"? As far as I can tell and as far as I have seen the only thing that Tinklenberg has been doing is sending out fund raising emails. In fact, there hasn't even been any official announcement that he is running for 2010. Now I recognize that I am not in the upper echelon of the DFL and you may be doing some networking of which I am not aware but at this point what I see is a nationally driven campaign without much local support.

Second, you already have competition in Dr. Maureen Reed so I am not sure I understand how one can claim that a third competitor makes your path to the DFL endorsement any more distracting. Are you planning to ignore Reed?

I see, apparently you are...

Finally, as a voting member of this district I find it somewhat offensive to suggest that choice is somehow a bad thing and that we ought to just all get out of the way and let the person who has previously lost the endorsement once and lost the general election once to try for a third time.

As I have indicated previously, I am not getting behind any candidate right now but if an attitude of entitlement is what Tinklenberg and his people are going to portray when it comes to the DFL endorsement then we can quickly cross him off the list.
With yet another election cycle upon us, it is time once again to choose a candidate for the 6th District that can compete and win against one of the more infamous conservative representatives anywhere in the entire country today.

If the rumors I am currently hearing are true, we will find ourselves with a three way race between perpetual candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg, Dr. Maureen Reed, and current Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark. So, who would you choose?

With Tinklenberg you have a candidate who received national attention and loads of national money after Bachmann opened her mouth and denounced Obama and "certain members" of Congress as Anti-American. Couple that with what appears to be the addition of a big name campaign manager which Tink hopes will seal the deal and you have an organization which could be tough to beat for the DFL endorsement. Yet, for all of his national attention I am not hearing a lot of local excitement about another Tinklenberg v. Bachmann race. Are the rank and file interested in a different direction?

In Dr. Maureen Reed you have a moderate former Independence Party candidate who has been bringing in staggering amounts of campaign cash since she announced her candidacy. With all of that cash, can Reed overcome the advantages currently held by the Tinklenberg Campaign? Given the support in the DFL community for health care reform which includes a public option, how will the Reed noncommittal stance play throughout the caucuses?

Finally, there is the potential entry of Senator Tarryl Clark. At this point it is all hearsay but my anonymous sources tell me that at a recent Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation meeting she was asked and said that she "hadn't announced" but this source also said it was "pretty clear". Clark has proven that she can compete and win having been elected twice. More importantly, she won handily in the more conservative half of her district whose current representative is the ultra conservative Steve Gottwalt. With all of these electoral advantages, could Clark overcome the current money disadvantage she would have coming into the race?

At this point in the process I am not putting my endorsement on ANY candidate (I made that mistake before). So, 6th District DFLers, what are you looking for in 2010 that will defeat Michele Bachmann? Have you decided on a candidate? If yes, what makes your choice the answer to flipping the district blue?

After Liberal in the Land of Conservative broke the news two days ago that Maureen Reed will enter the race to take on Michele Bachmann in the 6th District, the news has trickled across the internet. Reed made the news officially official with a press release today.
“We are living through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with staggering numbers of people unemployed, health care out of the reach of many folks, and thousands of Minnesotans losing their businesses and homes,” said Dr. Reed. “While these problems are tough, I’m running for Congress because I know two things are true. First, Americans can solve tough problems. Second, a bright future is not accidental. We create a bright future when we put rhetoric aside, focus on the real problems, and work hard together. This is exactly what I’ve done all my life. The future I see is one of business expansion, job growth, home ownership and lower health care costs.”

Along with many of these stories has been a healthy dose of analysis on what it is the DFL, or the Independence Party for that matter, can win in the 6th District. Some of these "plans" are realistic while others border on the deceptive. With all due respect to Mr. Immelman, it is a virtual impossibility to organize enough people to cross over and defeat Bachmann in a Republican Primary. In addition to that, I refuse to participate in something which at its very core is deceptive. If we are reduced to interfering in the primaries of the other party rather than defeating them in a contest of ideas then we don't really deserve to win.

A couple of items caught my eye and really should be the driving force of our campaign to win the 6th Congressional District of Minnesota. The first comes from the comments of "Taxpaying Liberal":

1. The 1st thing the Dems have to do is quit blaming every loss on the Independent candidate. Bachmann‘s margin of victory was 3 points less than in 06 against a much better funded candidate in 06. Tink gained 2 plus points over the 2nd Wetterling race. Anderson gained 3 plus points over Binkowski. The only person who lost points to the IP candidate was Bachmann and trust me, most of those people will NEVER vote for a democrat. You would have to assume that 71% of the people who voted IP would have voted for Tink in order to be correct that the IP had something to do with the Bachman victory.

2. If you are going to ignore the central part of the district and settle for less than 40% of the vote in Wright, Sherburne and Benton counties then you are going to have to get Mpls type of numbers out of the rest of the district. You simply have to put more boots on the ground in these areas. If you are going to put offices in St. Cloud , Stillwater, Blaine then you also need headquarters in Buffalo, Big Lake, Ham Lake etc..

I am as guilty as the next person for trying to pin last year's loss on the spoiler candidate but the reality is that if 10% of voters were willing to vote for someone who did little more than file for a place on the ballot then that is a failure of the challenger to get their message out. Additionally, I would wager to bet that most of those IP voters would have held their nose and voted Bachmann if only given two options.

The other bit of advice that should be heeded by candidates comes from a post written today by Blue Man. The whole thing is a must read but one part stands out:

So here's an idea...perhaps even a bold one.

So instead of posting photo shopped pictures and edited You Tube videos putting orgy and government wads together, why don't we actually work in a grassroots effort to organize our communities.


Again, I have been known to put together edited youtube videos. However, this cannot be the crux of our strategy to defeat Bachmann!

Seriously, I'm I the only one who looked at the Bachmann tax day video and noticed that orgy/government wad portion of said video was spliced together like a 3 year old playing Operation?

Mocking Michele Bachmann gets us nowhere.

EXACTLY! I have been driven from some sectors of the anti-Bachmann world for not being willing to automatically call her a "nut, liar, bigot". It is entirely unhelpful to continue using this inflammatory language. If the entire basis of our argument is these three words, we lose.

Running an "anyone but Bachmann campaign" gets us nowhere.

Attacking the "soccer mom" gets us nowhere.

It only gets us 2 more years of Bachmann.

Bachmann will continue to do damage to herself in the mainstream media.

While we should ensure that her insane comments are disseminated, we have no need to doctor them to make them even more "juicy". She does that well enough.

We should talk about Bachmann's voting record and how her values are not congruent with her rhetoric.

Last but not least, leadership needs to get off its ass. I caught this wonderful quote earlier in the week.
The district is the most Republican in the state and will be an extremely difficult race for any Democrat. But Schumaker believes Tinklenberg would have won in 2008 if not for the presence of another (non-endorsed) IP candidate on the ballot, Bob Anderson, who garnered 10 percent of the vote. “For whatever reason the information was not put out there that El Tinklenberg was endorsed by both parties,” she says.
"For whatever reason..."

Really? WTF?

Tinklenberg was endorsed by the IP on June 22, 2009. You mean to tell me that neither Tinklenberg nor the 6th CD DFL took the time over the remaining 4 1/2 months from the IP endorsement to stress the endorsement.

"For whatever reason...?"

Maybe if...now this is a big maybe...they hadn't spent the waning weeks of the campaign still introducing Tinklenberg to voters, they would have known he was endorsed by BOTH the DFL and the IP.

Going back through the Blueman history of Tinklenberg campaign ads, none of the ads I found had any mention of Tinklenberg's cross endorsement of the DFL and IP.

So, stop blaming the IP for Tinklenberg losing in 2008.

We lost because we gambled and lost. We ran shitty campaigns in Wright and Sherburne Counties and could not capitalize on the cash cow caused by the pandemic known as the Bachmann 2008 virus.


I couldn't have said it any better myself. If we are going to win the 6th District, then we better start organizing in EVERY part of the district to show that OUR ideas are better...
Recently my good friend Hal over at Blue Man in a Red District was reading the tea leaves and came to the conclusion that we will once again see Elwyn Tinklenberg run against Michele Bachmann in 2010.

Reading the tea leaves, it's pretty obvious that Elwyn Tinklenberg is going to take another shot at Congresswoman Bachmann.

I like Elwyn personally and supported him once he received the DFL nomination. However, there is little reason to believe that he can defeat Bachmann. He ran a weak kneed campaign with little presence in the areas of the district that needed him most. In fact, from talking to union friends who were even stronger supporters than I it was clear that even though Tink was asking "Where is Michele?" these Tink supporters were asking, more importantly, WHERE IS TINK?

Given that Bachmann received less than 50% in the '08 election she is beatable. However, it can only happen when members of the DFL and Independence Parties work in unison. That means more than an empty cross endorsement. It means an all out diplomatic effort from the leadership in both parties to run a unity candidate. DFLers may need to realize that this unity candidate might mean stepping aside to allow this person to run as an Independence candidate. The reason I say this is because there remains a large enough group of people in this district who do not like Bachmann but will NEVER vote for a DFL candidate that it makes winning nearly impossible.

Blue Man suggests Representative Larry Hosch and I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I don't know that it is very likely as Hosch appears to enjoy his family life too much to jump into a stressful district campaign. Yet, Blue Man also makes this cryptic statement:

I know of one dark horse at this time, someone not on our collective radar's who might take a shot at this...and I could definitely support him/her.

Who is this dark horse? Hopefully he/she will be powerful enough to go toe to toe with one of the most adept campaigners we have in the state.

All right, I know of whom Blue Man speaks and we will see how it works out...
Republican spokesperson and publisher of Politics in Minnesota, Sarah Janecek, is on record with some predictions for Tuesday and they don't look good. If these predictions come to pass, then there will only be two Republicans left in the delegation Minnesota sends to Congress. Only Norm Coleman and John Kline will remain in this post 2008 election world.

On the race in the 3rd District:

DFLer Ashwin Madia narrowly bests GOP former Rep. Erik Paulsen mostly because the 3rd District Republican party scared better, more ideologically moderate GOP candidates out of the race. This is a painful loss for the state GOP which has proudly held this seat for decades with strong, smart, social issues-moderate leadership in Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad.

This is a clear shot at the choice of Erik Paulsen who is clearly not in the mold of moderate, Jim Ramstad. Paulsen represents the continued race to the right that has so damaged the Republican Party in Minnesota. Talking to people that know Ramstad well, it is clear that it is the race to the right which drove Ramstad to leave.

Janecek adds this caveat:

The good news for Republicans going forward is that because the Democratic National Congressional Committee spent so much time and effort on this race, Madia will be beholden to casting liberal party-line votes, making 2010 an attractive run for Republicans who opted out in 2008.

Not to bust the chops of Ms. Janecek but I believe it is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

On the race in the 6th District:
DFL challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg beats one-term GOP incumbent U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and sends Chris Matthews a bottle of Dom. What were Bachmann's advisers thinking by allowing her to go on MSNBC with Matthews? What was Bachmann thinking by using "anti-American" in her words? Channeling former GOP WI Sen. Joseph McCarthy was red meat on a platter for the left. Let the 2010 GOP fun begin on who will run against Tinklenberg in a seat he should never have won.
I make no predictions but Republicans appear to be bracing for another bad night in Minnesota politics!
Chris Cilizza at his Washington Post Blog ("The Fix") examined the Bachmann non-apology ad and coins a new word, "Bach-pology".

Why does the ad feel strange? Because Bachmann is trying to do two very different things at once. For those people who are aware of the "Hardball" incident, she wants to express remorse for what she said. For those people who have no idea about the "Hardball" imbroglio, Bachmann wants to make sure it stays that way and so makes no direct reference to why she would be apologizing for not always using the right words to explain herself.


With all due respect to Mr. Cilizza, what feels strange about this ad is that Bachmann doesn't even come close to an apology for calling Barack Obama anti-American nor did she come close to an apology for calling on the media to investigate members of Congress to find out which are pro-America or anti-America. Furthermore, the implication of her statements in this ad are that Democrats are opposed to freedom and liberty given that they believe government can be used as a force for good. It is the continued black/white fallacy that Bachmann and other conservatives tend towards. The fallacy that they and only they represent freedom and anyone who goes against their beliefs is therefore against freedom.

Bachmann is currently caught between two worlds: The first is that of moderates and Democrats who see her comments for what they truly are (hateful & divisive) and the second is her base of support. They are proud that she has made these remarks and a full apology would cast her as a traitor in their eyes.

On a lighter note, we need a more detailed explanation of this new term coined by Mr. Cilizza. So, use the comments thread to properly define a "Bachpology".

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
8:10 PM | Posted in ,
SurveyUSA will be coming out with a poll tonight of the 6th District for KSTP-TV.

Let's call this a prediction thread. Will Bachmann tank? Do the inherently conservative leanings of the district keep her alive?


How many more of these could she earn? Perhaps, if we are lucky, this will be her parting gift...
Given that her political world is crumbling around her, Michele Bachmann is trying desperately to dig herself out of the hole she currently finds herself. The new meme is that she was first trapped by that gosh darn gotcha media and second that she was completely misunderstood. If Michele wants to parse, I would be more than happy to play the parsing game. While I cannot hit all of her new excuses, let's take a look a few:

Bachmann is now making the claim that she did not use the term "anti-American" first and was only repeating the term presented to her by Gotcha media man Chris Matthews. Fine, let's parse:

It is true that Matthews was the first to use the term "anti-American". However, moments before that Bachmann is discussing various people who she claims have NEGATIVE views of America. Are the phrases, "negative views of America" and "anti-American" the same? Well, in the world of synonyms they cannot be far apart. The only way to divide them is to make the case that holding negative views of America means that you believe there are areas in which America could use improvement. Does anyone believe that Bachmann would claim that holding "negative views of America" makes them less than "anti-American"?

The second issue is that Bachmann is claiming that she did not MEAN that Barack Obama or members of Congress are "anti-American". Fine, let's parse:

Michele Bachmann said, "“Absolutely. I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That’s what the American people are concerned about."

Obviously, she is hiding behind the qualifiers CONCERNED and MAY. With those words she can plausibly say that she didn't MEAN that Barack Obama IS "anti-American". However, she cannot take back that she is CONCERNED about his views and that those views MAY be "anti-American". So, the question needs to be asked, what happened between Friday when you were CONCERNED about his "anti-American" views and today when you made the claim that "He loves his country, just as everyone in this room does."?

Finally, and the most important reason for the tidal wave of support for Elwyn Tinklenberg, was her statement about an investigative report on the views of members of Congress. It is far more difficult for Bachmann to take this one back but she sure is going to try. Fine, let's parse:

Today, her claim: “Nor did I call for an investigation of members of Congress for their pro-American or anti-American views. That is not what I said.

Well, Michele, this IS what you said: “What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating exposé and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an exposé like that.

The only possible parse to be made here is that she called for an expose and never did say the word investigation. So, what is the difference? The only plausible difference that can be used by Bachmann is that an expose would be little more than a story while an investigation connotes some sort of solution to a problem would be put forward.

So, Bachmann can parse and backpedal all she wants but these are the undisputable facts:
  • She began the implication of "anti-Americanism" even if she didn't explicitly begin the use of the word.
  • On Friday, Bachmann was at the very least CONCERNED about Barack Obama being "anti-American". So, what changed?
  • She wants someone to define who is "anti-American" and who is "pro-American".
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
5:40 PM | Posted in ,
The Tinklenberg Campaign rolled out their first television ad:

In 2006, Michele Bachmann won a majority in the 6th District by a slim 308 votes. However, the minority was split between Patty Wetterling (D), John Binkowski (I), and various write in votes giving Bachmann a nearly 8% (24,104 actual votes) advantage over her nearest opponent.

This year, there are two factors that are significantly different than 2006 that could spell trouble for Bachmann more than any foolish statements ever could by themselves.

First, the Independence Party cross endorsed Tinklenberg over several other inside the party contenders. Bob Anderson won the Independence Party primary by default as he was the only person on the ballot and Tinklenberg was not allowed to be listed under both labels. Anderson has, as of yet, run a much quieter campaign than his predecessor, John Binkowski. This means, in all liklihood, that Tinklenberg will pick up a far larger percentage of people who voted for Binkowski last time which closes the 8% gap Bachmann enjoyed in the last election cycle.

Second, is the new write in candidacy of Republican Aubrey Immelman. This factor may hurt Bachmann even more than the lack of a viable Independence Party candidate as there is a large contingent of party line voters in the 6th District as expressed by the research of Jeff Rosenberg. In the primary, Immelman drew over 3,000 voters despite a relatively underground campaign and could potentially draw an equal number as a write in candidate. It is exceedingly difficult, especially with a less than commonplace name, to actually get votes to properly register in his favor but Immelman could still cut seriously into the base of support held by Bachmann. His hope is to have a referendum on the Bachmann tenure from a Republican perspective:

Immelman lost to Bachmann in the Republican primary in September. He says the one thing he will not do is ask Democrats to vote for him. He says he wants his candidacy to be a Republican referendum on Bachmann and the direction the party has taken the country.

The party line tendencies of the district make Immelman dangerous to Bachmann as those Republicans unhappy with her and the party in general have a party label candidate whom they can support.

Obviously, this all represents conjecture and theory but the recent statements made by Bachmann appear to have people on the right and the left lining up against her. It will take a ton of work on the part of the Tinklenberg Campaign to translate their cash flow into votes but the stars appear to be aligning themselves in his favor and against Michele Bachmann. If Anderson continues to run a relatively non-existent campaign and Immelman can get the word out that there is a less crazy Republican alternative out there the 6th District of Minnesota there is better than average chance that we will have Bachmann DUMPED.

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
Back in August, my friend Jeff Rosenberg who writes Twin Cities Daily Liberal ran a series of posts about each of the congressional districts in the state with fantastic mapping of voting patterns and thoughts on the state of each race. He brought back his 6th District analysis and I would encourage anyone interested in this race to give it a read.

The district voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2006, and has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+5. Almost all of the precincts in the district, except those in the southeastern corner, voted Republican in 2006. However, less than half voted heavily (60% or more) for Republicans, which may indicate an opportunity for Tinklenberg to pick up some votes. Bachmann’s diatribe may very well have neutralized the Republican edge in less-than-staunch precincts.

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
Within hours of making her divisive comments about liberalism equating to anti-Americanism, local Minnesota bloggers Blue Man and Ollie Ox have been asking the next question: Do other Republicans in the state (notably, Brian Davis in the 1st District and Erik Paulsen in the 3rd District) share the views of the Representative of the 6th District?

While this question remains unanswered, it is clear that other Bachmann apologists are coming to her defense. Andy Aplikowski of Residual Forces has decided to wade into the waters and implicitly support the views of Bachmann:

Don’t fall into the meme that the media and Obama campaign are desperate to have you bite on. Barrack Obama and many fringe liberals do not like what America is all about. Most just passively whisper it, some exercise free speech and protest, but others like Ayers and Wright, cross a line.

According to Aplikowski, liberals are either whispering about, openly protesting about, or crossing a line into anti-Americanism. It is unclear on what research his claims are based but his defense of the Bachmann attacks are perfectly clear. Furthermore, he tries to turn the tide and attack DFL Chair, Brian Melendez, for making the connection between Bachmann and McCarthy.

While Aplikowski is now on record as supporting the vitriol of Michele Bachmann, we have yet to hear from prominent Republicans in Minnesota who have long supported the rise of Bachmann nor have we heard from the McCain Campaign.

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
With her hateful remarks reverberating throughout the net and causing an amazing spike in the fundraising for her opponent, it appears as though Bachmann is prepared to defend her remarks. A story in the West Central Tribune taken from the Associated Press has a spokesperson giving this comment:

Michelle Marston, spokeswoman for Bachmann's reelection campaign, said it's "perfectly legitimate for the American people to want to know how all this informs his policy positions and what direction an Obama Administration would want to lead the nation."

It is perfectly legitimate to question the "Americanism" of a candidate based upon an association he had with a man who had 40 years earlier committed despicable acts? While it 's bad enough that she chooses to defend an attack that has been debunked time and time again but she goes further to suggest that liberal itself is tantamount to "Anti-American" even calling for an investigation of these liberals. How long will the Bachmann Campaign defend these remarks before issuing an apology? I will not hold my breath...

Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
Michele Bachmann displayed her hateful nature on Hardball with Chris Matthews by claiming that both Michelle Obama and Barack Obama are "anti-American" due to the thoroughly debunked claim of William Ayers. She took it a step further by connecting liberals to "anti-Americanism" and suggesting that an in depth investigation should be conducted to discover who in Congress is "anti-American".

This is the result of an ongoing effort by many on the far right to demonize anyone with whom they disagree. I call on all conservatives to denounce this hateful rhetoric and to demand an apology from Michele Bachmann for sowing the seeds of hate.



Further, I put in a call to the Bachmann for Congress office ((651) 735-7512) and spoke with a young lady about these comments. She danced around the issue and finally took down my name and address. I encourage everyone to call her office and politely, I repeat POLITELY, ask if they too would be considered anti-American. Finally, you can help defeat this hatred by contributing to her opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg.
Posted below is the entire unedited version of the debate held this morning at the St. Cloud Library. I will have more commentary on the various pieces of this debate over the next few days but for now, you be the judge:

Opening Statement


Economy (Financial Crisis)


Foreign Oil (Energy Independence)


Employee Free Choice Act


Taxes (Bush Tax Cuts)


Immigration Reform


Health Care Pt. 1


Health Care Pt. 2


Oil Drilling


Closing Statements


Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
Unfortunately, I was unable to get to Michele Bachmann after the debate to ask her questions as she was quickly surrounded by reporters and then promptly left. However, my initial reaction to this debate is that there was no clear winner. Bachmann, for all of her ideological faults, is an adept debater and came out swinging hard. I will have the debate up on my youtube page soon and you can be the judge.

Additional Thoughts:
  • Throughout the entire debate you saw an utter disinterest on the part of Bachmann. She rarely looked up unless answering a question and appeared preoccupied with a document in front of her. Towards the end of the debate you will see her check her watch and become nervous about the fact that the event might run over the schedule.
  • Either Michele is one of the most disciplined and on message politicians we have ever seen or she truly knows only a few talking points and repeats them ad nauseam. Nothing she said during this debate deviated even one word from previous statements she has made. Also, the same old attack lines of "tax and spend liberal" and big government is evil were heard to describe Elwyn Tinklenberg who by any honest assessment is not a liberal.
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann