Those that have received an e-mail from me may have noted I end each message with:
It’s just before the privacy disclosure; it’s also at the bottom of my comments to others on threads at MnBlue, too.
And it came from an old saying back when I served on active duty; a saying that we repeated proudly when the duty was cold, or wet; when we were miserable, tired, hungry and hadn’t slept for God knows how long; when we were low on supplies, outmanned or outflanked, or any and all of the above – “It’s a great day to be a soldier.” It served as a motivation tool – that when the going got tough, the tough got going.
I thought of this after Erik’s “Veterans for Paulsen” rally, yesterday. In a room full of veterans, Paulsen addressed the crowd and whined:
“They’re lying about me; they’re smearing me!”
Cry me a river, Erik.
Paulsen started his campaign denying who he is – a far right extremist. Even the right-leaning Star Tribune didn’t buy that one:
“Paulsen was a fiscal and social conservative in the Legislature, voting for measures that this newspaper opposed. Why he’s casting himself as a moderate in this race is unclear. His conservative credentials are solid; he should have run on them.”(Star Tribune Editorial)
Paulsen started his campaign distorting his record:
“Paulsen launches this bid after years of working in bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to get results in the business world and in the Minnesota legislature.”(PaulsenForCongress)
Yeah, “right.”
If anyone knows someone that thinks Erik Paulsen rose within Republican ranks to the role of Majority Leader in the State Legislatute during this decade by “…working in bipartisan fashion, across the aisle…” send ‘em my way – I got some swampland “waterfront property” I’d like to sell ‘em.
All this, and more, yet Paulsen has the nerve to run a TV ad, whining “My opponent is LYING about me!”??!?
Seems like Paulsen’s been doing some lying himself, about himself.
Not just content to distorting who he is and what his record is, Paulsen reached a new low with a recent ad: according to an October 29th Twin Cities Public Television (“TPT”) press release, Paulsen’s campaign was using TPT copywrited video footage in a different campaign ad. TPT reports they twice asked the Paulsen campaign to essentially cease and desist; the campaign didn’t – which necessitated the press release. From that release:
As a non-partisan public television station, tpt has never consented to use of our copyrighted materials by any political candidate or party. In previous campaigns, we have requested that candidates – Democrats, Independents and Republicans – cease use of similar material, and all have complied.
Twin Cities Public Television has sent two formal requests to the Paulsen campaign to remove all tpt footage from their ad; as of today, that request has not been honored.
We are therefore issuing this statement, taking appropriate legal action, and would like to alert all stations broadcasting the ad that it represents a clear copyright violation. We furthermore request that broadcasters cease airing the spot until our proprietary footage has been removed.
City Pages notes:
We would show you the ad, but TPT’s tenacity has paid off. After notifying YouTube of the copyright violation, the website pulled down the ad. “Since the Paulsen site was using an embedded version from YouTube, the ad was effectively removed from their site as well,” says TPT spokesman Stephen Usery.
And I’m not going to bother to detail the disgusting spectacle of Republican Party Chair Ron Carey’s nor Republican Geoff Michell’s thinly vieled bigotry concerning Paulsen’s opponent, the honorably discharged Marine, Ashwin Media. Suffice it to say Paulsen didn’t have the spine, nor guts, to do the despicable himself; he hid behind others doing his dirty work.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of Erik Paulsen, but that’s only because I’ve followed his political career since he first doorknocked me in 1994. For fourteen years I’ve watched Paulsen and followed his record, so I’m not surprised at the shenanigans he’s pulled this during this election cycle.
But I was surprised to see and hear him whine in front of veterans. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
Erik Paulsen, on the other hand, whines.
(cross posted at MnBlue.Com)
(originally posted at MnProgressiveProject.com)
Well, it seems that John Kline is outraged – OUTRAGED! – that a candidate is taking footage of Marines in uniform, and using said Marines in an ad. And he’s outraged. Here’s what Blogger Michael Broadkorb is reporting Congressman Kline said, over on M.D.E.:
I am outraged that Ashwin Madia would exploit uniformed Marines to advance his political ambitions. … He should immediately pull down the ad and issue an apology to the drill team and the brave men and women of the U.S. Marine Corps.” (M.D.E.)
Well, one would think, by Congressman Kline’s outrage, that he, himself, would never have used the military, or military veterans, to further HIS “political ambitions”, wouldn’t one? Or, if he HAD used the military, or military veterans, to further HIS “political ambitions”, Congressman Kline would have apologized, right?
Yeah, “right.”
Let’s take a look at a John Kline incident, from just two years ago.
On August 12th, 2006, John Kline attended an event with the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), in St. Paul. Randy Pleva, National President of the PVA, sent Congressman Kline a letter on August 28th, thanking Kline for showing up.
Now, it’s important to remember, that the PVA is a 501(c)3 not for profit.
So, what did Congressman Kline do, with that letter, from a not for profit Veterans Organization?
If you guessed Congressman Kline shamelessly used that letter to further Kline’s political career, you would be correct.
Here’s the entire verbage from the SECOND letter the PVA sent to Congressman Kline, dated 31 October 2006:
Dear Congressman Kline,
I write to you regarding a recent campaign flyer distributed by the Kline for Congress campaign (copy attached) that implies my endorsement, as President of Paralyzed Veterans of America, of your reelection. As a 501(c)3 not for profit organization we are precluded by law from endorsing or opposing any candidate for office. Not only was this language taken out of context and used without our knowledge, the fact is that this may put or organization’s good standing in jeopardy.
The language contained in the flyer comes from a letter (attached I sent you August 28, 2006 thanking you for your attendance at a fund raising event conducted by PVA’s Outdoor Recreation Heritage Fund. I find the selective editing for use in the flyer disingenuous at best.
I would appreciate that you and the campaign cease using this implied endorsement.
Thank you.Sincerely,
Randy L. Pleva, Sr.
National Presidentcc: Federal Election Commission, Office of General Counsel
Here’s the first letter, that John Kline disingenously took out of context:
Here’s the second letter, that the PVA essentially said “cease and desist”:
Now, fastforward to yesterday, and remember Kline demanding someone else issue an apology. Ask yourself this: do you think John Kline ever apologized to the PVA, for shamelessly and disengenuously using Paralyzed American Veterans to shamelessly advance Kline’s career?
If you think Kline did NOT apologize, you would be correct; I know – because I called Randy Pleva, National President, and asked.
John Kline – as usual – is acting like the shameless and disengenuous hypocrite that has caused “GOP” to now stand for GreedOverPrinciples.
“Hypocrisy, thy party is GOP”
(cross posted at MnBlue, originally posted at MnProgressiveProject.com )
Yes, it’s that time on the ol’ campaign calendar – the rush to get every last dime in the bank. If you’re like me, you’re getting a LOT of requests in your e-mail in-box. Well, here’s a personal appeal: I’m proud to be co-hosting an event on Monday, March 31st for Captain Madia, and I’d like to see you there!
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is going to be a great event! Details are as follows:
former Speaker, Minnesota House of Representatives
and several other supporters, to meet
congressional candidate J. Ashwin Madia.
Details:
Monday March 31st . 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Nick and Eddie Restaurant Bar
1612 Harmon Place, Minneapolis (on Loring Park)
Host Committee
Barbara Anderson . Jessica Anderson . Victoria Ames . Scott Benson . Tom Berg . Dennis Bless . Brian Thorson
Patricia Bloodgood . Chris Cleveland . Jane Bremer . Bill Davis . John Derus . Katherine Doerr . Linda Eller
Marna Ericson . Dan Eulberg . Collin Foulds . Tommy Johnson . Charlie Leck . Lee Lynch . Darwin Lookingbill . David Potter . Virat Madia .
Ken Martin . Doré Mead . Gene Merriam . Laura Nelson . Laura Nevitt . Natalie Parsons . Tony Parsons . Christian Sande . Gary Schiff . Carla Smith . Steve Silton . Heidi Silton . Shivanthi Sathananda . John Sullivan . Gavin Sullivan . Bob Walser . Darrell Thompson . David Waterbury . Ruth Waterbury
A Political Newcomer
With little fanfare, Ashwin Madia,
an Iraq War veteran and attorney,
entered the race for the DFL endorsement in the 3rd Congressional District on Oct. 23, 2007.
He emerged as a top-tier challenger after a well-received performance in a December foreign policy debate.
Set a Fundraising Record
Ashwin Madia set a state record for a first-time candidate, raising $166,000 in the final two months of 2007. But his status as a “political unknown” didn’t last long. His fundraising success has continued in 1Q08, and he will announce a strong number in April.
Leading in Endorsements
Madia has won the backing of the DFL Veterans Caucus, eQualitygiving.org, VoteVets.org, U.S. Rep. Mike Honda,
State Sen. Mee Moua, State Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, State Rep. John Lesch, Teamsters Local 120, the Minnesota United Auto Workers Union and countless activists from throughout the 3rd District and the Twin Cities metro area.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to be very clear – I personally did not care who got the CD-3 endorsement to take on and take out Erik “The Hustler” Paulsen. Mayor Jim Hovland, State Senator Terri Bonoff, and Captain Madia are all fine candidates, each with unique strengths that would give the DFL a win in November, had they gotten the endorsement.
It is clear to me, that by winning all those Senate Districts; by building the grass-roots team; Captain Madia will be the endorsed candidate.
So I’m now firmly in the ranks of Madia’s Marauders.
I hope you join up, and are at this event on Monday, March 31st.
Come help celebrate Captain Madia’s candidacy, and add to his 1st Quarter Totals!
And one of the highlights of this event? We don’t have to ask Gavin Sullivan to cover it; he’s a Co-Host!!!
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The battle for endorsement in Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District is over; Madia’s Marauders have prevailed. The only thing remaining is ratification of the victory at the Convention, on April 12th.
Ok, sure – Captain Madia doesn’t have the 96 necessary delegates – he’s only got 84.5 of the caucus attending elected delegates marching in his formation. The point is, those 84.5 delegates represent way more than 60% of the elected delegate total.
For Senator Bonoff to win endorsement, she has to convince superdelegates to ignore the will of the people; convince the superdelegates to ignore the election results that are on paper and in the record books. And that’s just for starters.
Just as that will NOT be acceptable to Democrats in the Presidential race, that will NOT be acceptable to Democrats in the 3rd Congressional district. I am guessing the superdelegates will be inundated with e-mails and phone calls, telling them that the people have spoken, they have spoken loudly, and they have spoken convincingly. The message they will be conveying is in cases like this, it’s the superdelegate’s duty to ratify the will of the people.
I admire Senator Bonoff. She’s won two tough races in this district. But the people have spoken. Louldly. Clearly. Frequently. Convincingly.
The race was over, one week ago. The results yesterday merely confirmed that. The Convention on April 12 will only make it official.
The endorsement race is over. It’s time to rally the troops, and prepare for the next battle.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I’d like to share the commentary of Jim Bootz, concerning the recent Candidate Endorsements by the DFL Veterans Caucus, to fellow members of the Caucus.
From Jim Bootz, Chair of the DFL Veterans Caucus:
***
I had mentioned earlier that I was going to comment on the choices that were made on our three early endorsements, and I think I’ve finally got time to do it.
There probably isn’t much that needs to be said about the endorsements of Sarvi and Madia. I think we all agree that they’re great choices. The first was unanimous and the second was nearly that.
There was a bit less of a consensus on the endorsement of a Senate candidate, though it wasn’t really close. I’d just like to make a few points about the reasoning behind my vote. Any and all of you are welcome to do the same.
As far as the criteria that we use to endorse a candidate on behalf of the Veterans Caucus, probably the most concise way of wording it is to ask just one question: “Who would best serve the interests of veterans, active military, and their families?” That’s the one area that should be of equal importance to all caucus members. As individuals, we have other issues that we feel are important, possibly even more important than veterans issues. But, we shouldn’t be taking those into consideration in the decision to endorse. If we do, we’re not serving the caucus anymore, we’re serving ourselves. Most likely there are some Vets Caucus members who consider themselves pro-choice and some who consider themselves pro-life. But, if we start bringing those biases into the equation, then we’ll be trying to turn the Veterans Caucus into the “Pro-Choice Veterans Caucus” or the “Pro-Life Veterans Caucus”. And, we’re neither.
If anyone has read even a few of the letters to the editor that I’ve managed to get printed in the Star-Tribune, there should be no doubt about where I stand on the Iraq War, and it’s a position that I’ve held from the very start. But, nowhere in the founding or the intent or the mission statement of the DFL Veterans Caucus was there any mention of it being a vehicle for an anti-war message. It’s as simple as this: the Vets Caucus has a pro-veteran agenda, not an anti-war agenda. There are plenty of good pro-veteran and pro-troop arguments to be made against Bush’s war. But, I’d have to ask this about the candidate: Is his stance against the war one of many ways that he supports veterans, or is support for veterans just one of the many facets of his overall anti-war stance? In other words, where is his primary focus?
And, then ask, not only “Where is that focus now?” but “Where has that focus been in the past?” One Senate candidate has been speaking publicly on behalf of veterans and active duty service members for several years. The same candidate has made several trips to visit with the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and made a learning experience out of it. Again, that same candidate has used his books, editorials, speaking engagements, and a nationwide talk radio show to inform the public about inadequate body armor and vehicle armor, new technologies that have made it possible to provide life-saving helmet liners to the troops, and the many ways in which veterans have been getting short-changed on the benefits they were promised as compensation for their service. Only that one candidate created a veterans group in his campaign, inviting the public to its kick-off rally and a commemoration of Veterans Day. The same candidate held veterans’ listening sessions around the state to educate himself and his campaign staff about the issues. That candidate was one of only two who said he will try to get on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee if he’s elected. Nobody is guaranteed their choice of committee assignments, but that is his first choice. And, finally, only that one candidate invited the DFL Veterans Caucus to set up a table at his summer picnic and raise funds for the caucus. With his encouragement and help from campaign volunteers, the caucus left that night with $735 in donations. Any of the candidates could have done that. Only one of them thought to do it.
Veterans are a high priority with Al Franken. They’re not an afterthought. They’re not a group to pander to. I like all four of the Senate candidates, but I don’t see how someone could even begin to compare the other three with Al when it’s a question of who would best serve the interests of veterans, active service members, and their families.
Again, I welcome your comments. I don’t mean for this to be a contest. It’s just my way of explaining my rationale. I want to make sure that, if anyone is feeling that there was something unfair about the process, they at least have the information about Franken that I was looking at when I made my decision.
Thanks,
Jim
***
