…”Houston, we have a problem.”
Yes, that’s correct: subtract MAK’s 39.93 from 100 (with 98% reporting), and the vaunted DFL Endorsement Process got spanked. Badly. Deservedly? I think so. And while that’s not likely to win me many friends over at Plato Avenue, it’s not like I have a lot over there anyway. So, I’ll go ahead and say it – even though as a rule, I don’t rip those in the DFL tent. Why should I? MudSlingerMike And His Minions do it all the time (even though they’re usually just makin’ sh*t up). But, real journalists (I make no claims to be ‘journalist’ – I’m a ‘pundit’ and there’s a BIG difference) like Bob Collins over on Minnesota Public Radio are calling it like they see it, so in this post I will too. Back to Bob over at MPR:
People who vote on Primary Day in August are more likely to be the most engaged, often activist party members. That’s what makes Sen. Mark Dayton’s win over DFL-endorsed Margaret Anderson Kelliher more shocking. There are plenty of campaigns and political careers in tatters today, but the value of a DFL endorsement is — at least for now — on the trash heap of history. And someone’s going to pay.
Indeed. Because someone (actually, a bunch) SHOULD pay; whether that actually happens remains to be seen. And that’s just in MN-GOV; for instance, there’s probably plenty of quotes – with language unprintable here at your family-friendly MPP – about the “value” of a DFL Endorsement from Team Powers down in CD-02, but: that’s a tangent with different dynamics. I’m going to focus on MN-GOV (for now). Before that, I highly recommend MPP’s dedicated readers go read this. Now. Bob Collins is writing nothing there that a lot of insiders have been muttering about for quite a while. My take? There should be resignations in a pile over at Plato Avenue – with Andy O’Leary’s at the top.
Remember, Andy was “in charge” when the infamous “Grandma Learning English” YouTube was imbedded in an email blast to the DFL’s media list.
Oops!!! In the subsequent search for the guilty, there was an attempted punishment of an innocent….
And while some may have forgotten ’bout that “oops!” (or, wish they could), I’m sure MudSlingerMike And His Minions haven’t; that’s one they won’t have to make up.
So, what’s transpired since then? Oh, a couple of Sample Ballot SNAFU’s and other “minor” mistakes…
But, rather than dwell on that, let’s go back to Duluth, in April.
And before we get to the top of the problem, let’s consider that while the powers that be refused to let a guy that’s won state-wide for the DFL twice – Mark Dayton – was refused permission to address the party faithful, Ole Savior was. (Note: that’s not a real blog. Yes, it LOOKS real, and COULD be real, but: it isn’t).
Here’s what Ole told the party faithful at the Duluth DFL Convention:
“I’ll probably get eliminated on the first ballot, but that’s OK. I’ll be in the primary,” Ole Savior promises.
And, guess what? Ole was in the primary: for the GOP.
Ole gets to address the DFL State Convention; former Senator Dayton doesn’t.
I’m tellin’ ya, they got real geniuses over at Plato Avenue…
And, how ’bout the brain-trust’s decision to P.O. The Teamsters in Duluth? How’d THAT one work out for ya, Andy?
Of course, Andy is only Executive Director; let’s look at what Andy’s boss – Brian Melendez – told the crowd in Duluth (it’s at about the 54:00 minute mark):
Rick (Nelson) was a political activist. Now I mention that Rick and I shared some obscure passions and of course political activism isn’t an obscure passion – activists are a dime a dozen. But Rick was one of a kind. His long time dedication to our party was unmatched. Especially his …
(emphasis added)
“…activists are a dime a dozen.”
“Did I really just hear that??!?” was asked by more than just the ol’ TwoPutter…
OK, ok – I realize Brian was eulogizing a friend. But, this wasn’t an emotional “heat of the moment” trashing of “dime a dozen” activists; this was Brian reading from prepared remarks to a State Convention. BIG difference. And clearly, clearly how Brian feels about activists.
Such as Teamsters, AFSCME, yada yada yada.
There’s a problem on Plato, and it starts at the top.
As regular readers know, I’m a veteran. And in the military, after every – EVERY – mission, there’s something called (well, it was back in the day, when the ol’ TwoPutter wore a uniform) an After Action Report. And after – EVERY – mission, a hard look was taken at what just happened, to learn what went right and what went wrong. To learn what worked and what didn’t. To make changes to make sure mistakes weren’t repeated.
Now, I know that some folk are gonna be mighty unhappy for me writing this, but: most of ‘em are probably those that made mistakes, and the last thing they want is the light o’ day shined on what went wrong.
Not shining a light; not having an honest and dispassionate discussion of what has happened, gentle readers, is how mistakes get repeated: over and Over and OVER.
It’s time for a cold, clear, and hard look at the endorsement process – AFTER the election. Prior to that, there’s a desperate need to look at who performed and who didn’t; what worked and what didn’t; and make changes. FAST.
Or, before you know it, it’ll be Gov. Tom “I don’t believe you can be a patriotic American and be a Democrat” Emmer takin’ TBag’s place in the corner office.
(cross posted from MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)
When Dr. Hackett conceded her race for endorsement, she said, and I quote:
“By the way, Jim – I’ll have your back.”
Both Dr. Hackett and Meffert had agreed to abide; when Dr. Hackett lost she lost with class.
On the other hand, this one – from an e-mail just in:
Shelley Madore back in the race against John Kline
Dear Tommy,
I wanted you to be among the first to know that I have decided to place my name on the August 10 primary ballot seeking the DFL endorsement in the Second Congressional District to run against John Kline.
Both Dan Powers and Shelley Madore had agreed to abide by the endorsement, as cited here and here.
That was then; this is now – and Shelley Madore getting back in the race is great news – for John Kline.
Looks like Shelley Madore is pulling a Maureen Reed, or Priscilla Lord Faris. Rather than doing what’s best to beat John Kline – in Ferris’ case, ol’ Smokescreen – Madore seems to be chasing a vanity campaign. Considering how poorly Madore’s endorsement campaign was run, I doubt she’ll accomplish anything other than a spoiler role as evidenced by the two to one 2nd ballot endorsement vote: the DFL Activists are solidly behind Powers.
The posts on Madore’s Facebook Page are none too complimentary, either.
A call to Dave Griggs – Madore’s Campaign Manager – for comment was not returned; Caroline Sampson – Campaign Financier Spokesman – cited “fundraising” as a major reason for Madore’s flip-flopping reneging – more on that, later.
At least Maureen Reed was clear on not abiding; Madore can’t even say that.
“Crass” is what I say.
(cross posted from ; comments welcome there)
Over the last few months we’ve focused a lot, rightfully, on the governor’s race. It’s the most important thing on the ballot this coming November.
But there’s also a big race underway in my home congressional district, currently “represented” by so-called Moderate Republican Erik Paulsen. In the 3rd District we have two DFL candidates vying for the party’s endorsement. They’ve participated in three debates, at nine Senate District conventions so far, and have spent the last few months campaigning hard for every delegate they’ve earned.
But only one candidate has proven they have what it takes to win. My endorsement to follow after the break.
I met with both CD3 candidates in early December; clearly back then Team Meffert was way ahead in terms of organization and candidate ability to communicate effectively.
I met with Jim in early January, and at that time, not knowing about Team Hackett bringing in a strong campaign staff, was of the impression that Hackett should bow out.
Shortly after that, a Team Hackett staffer, whom I have known since his dad coached us in 5th grade football, hired my daughter.
Upon finding out Team Hackett had hired my daughter, the very first person I called was Jim Meffert, because I wanted him to hear it from me, first.
When the Veterans Caucus scheduled endorsement screenings, I called Trista, the Chair, and Major Jeff, to explain how my daughter working for Hackett could create the impression of bias if I were at any way at all involved in the screening. Since Trista was out of town, Jeff came to the screening to ensure everything was above board – and I stayed as far away from the endorsement screening as I could.
Hackett won the endorsement. And again, I had no involvement with the screening; prior, I didn’t know who was going to be screening. Post screening, those involved told me it wasn’t close; one veteran told me he went into the screening leaning Meffert but Hackett’s performance turned him.
As Dr. Hackett is the Veterans Caucus endorsed candidate, I have phone banked for the Veterans Caucus to tell people Dr. Hackett is the endorsed candidate, and the Veterans Caucus is asking them to stand with the veterans and stand with our endorsed candidate.
My daughter caucused for Hackett, and won as an alternate in 42B – she’s going to the CD Convention, and state in Duluth. She’s her own person; she’s an adult her pappa is mighty proud of.
That’s the background. Now, the “why” -
1.) Dr. Hackett’s campaign has proven they can win. Nine times they’ve faced off against Team Meffert in Senate District conventions. Each time they’ve had the strongest presence and seven times they’ve emerged as the clear winner — including in SD 41, Meffert’s hometown.
2.) Dr. Hackett presents a clear and strong contrast against Erik Paulsen. As a military veteran, doctor, wife of a successful business owner, she can take on Paulsen where he thinks he’s strong and defend against the usual line of attacks the Republicans will use.
3.) Women win in the 3rd Congressional District. It’s not just Amy Klobuchar, Maria Ruud, Melissa Hortman, Terri Bonoff and the rest of our strong DFL legislative delegation. It’s also people like Joyce Peppin and Mary Kiffmeyer. Suburban districts across the 3rd CD vote “for” strong women – and clearly, Dr. Hackett is a woman with a strong backbone – she’s got spine.
I’m proud to stand with my fellow veteran, Dr. Maureen Hackett.
(cross posted from MnProgressiveProject; comments welcome there)
Actually, the whole quote is:
“I would not run on the IP line. I’m DFL. And that’s the line that I’ll be on.”
And the person making the quote is Dr. Maureen Reed, the congressional candidate in the 6th CD.
The quote was made to Eric Black at MinnPost.
Personally, I’m happy to see Dr. Reed make that quote; make the committment to the DFL Party and make the committment to helping Michelle Bachmann return to the profession Bachmann was trained in: tax law. Dr. Reed is a fine person and a wonderful candidate. She should be congratulated for standing up and standing tall!
(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)
“We’re never been stay the course, George.” — George W. Bush, attempting to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years, interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, October 22nd, 2006
I picked this Bushism for a very special reason. Just as Boy Blunder tried to distance himself from who he is and what he believes, “right” here in Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District there’s a Republican candidate for Congress that’s tried to pull the same stuff concerning who he is, what he’s done, and what he believes – Erik Paulsen.
Let’s go back, and look at what part of what I wrote concerning Erik Paulsen’s campaign announcement, in January:
At his announcement, Erik Paulsen claimed to have, and I quote from his press release: “…years of working in bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to get results in the business world and in the Minnesota legislature.”
Yeah, “right.” Anyone even slightly paying attention understands Erik Paulsen did not rise to Republican state House leadership position by being “bi-partisan.”
Right out of the box, Paulsen forces the interested citizen to question his credibility.
The very first line of the press release says, and again I quote: “Saying ‘Congress is broken, I will work to fix it,’ Erik Paulsen….”
Just who does Erik Paulsen think he’s kidding?
Jim Ramstad tried to fix it, and for that he was rewarded by GOP Leadership with backbench status.
If Jim Ramstad couldn’t fix it, what reasonable person could possibly believe Erik Paulsen could?
Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” fundamentally changed how power is structured in the Republican Party, in Congress.
Serious academics can explain exactly how power was removed from committees and placed in party leadership, leading to things such as the strong-armed ouster of Gingrich and the installation of Dennis Hastert as Speaker, with Tom DeLay the muscle. Not to mention the Abramoff Scandal, the K-Street Project, etc etc etc.
To the layman, the following explains it clearly: when it comes to Republican Congressmen, “the people elect them, but the GOP Leadership directs them.”
Paulsen’s claim he’s going to “work to fix it” is simply not credible.
Like Erik Paulsen is really – as a freshman congressman – going to take on and challenge John Boehner and Roy Blunt’s power and authority?
Quite frankly, in a one page press release, Paulsen seems to have a knack of saying things that simply don’t ring true.
Consider this: “Failed ideas and yearning for the past stand in the way of change. So do the politics of blame, division and partisan spin. Minnesotans are weary of this brand of politics.” (emphasis added).
Say, Erik?
THAT’S YOUR PARTY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.(MnBlue)
On that day, January 29th of this year, I asked “Just who does Erik Paulsen think he’s kidding?
Well, who Erik Paulsen didn’t fool, was the Candidate Endorsement Committee at The Star Tribune:
“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. (emphasis added) His conservative credentials are solid; he should have run on them.”(Star Tribune)
Hmmm….sounds familiar: “We’re never been stay the course” and “I’m a moderate in the mold of Frenzel and Ramstad.”
Simply not credible; simply not believable. Paulsen has run his entire campaign on a house of cards – trying to portray himself as something he clearly is not. It was noted immediately after his campaign announcement, and it was cemented in today’s Star Tribune non-endorsement.
In 83 days, January 20th 2009 will mark The End Of An Error. In one week, Americans go to the polls. Just as George W. Bush’s political career will be over, hopefully career politician Erik Paulsen’s political career will be over, too.
(crossposted at MnBlue)
(originally posted at MnProgressiveProject.com)
Substance versus style was on display yesterday, at Anoka City Hall. Neither side won.
I’ll admit it; I’m not a big Tinklenberg fan. I’ve seen him a lot, but I’ve never talked to him, even though the last four times I’ve seen him are: a fundraiser for a Minnesota Congressman in January in a small room; standing in line for “refreshments” at the Blue State Ball; at the SD 56 Convention; and yesterday at The Cage Match. I’ve never had a discussion with El Tinklenberg. Yesterday, I was sitting two chairs away from Bob Olson’s wife, and prior to the “debate” Tinklenberg was working the crowd in Tinklenberg fashion – greeting those he apparently knows. Well, and ignoring some he knows, too: He ignored Bob’s wife, even though he was but two feet away and looking in her direction. So, when I attribute Tinklenberg to the “style” side in this story, I use the term loosely.
I’ve met and talked to Bob Olson several times. I’ve seen him speak, publicly, a few times. Yesterday was not his “A” Game, and several questions I’d be hard pressed for a “C”. That said, Bob represented “substance”. He was consistent, dogged, and determined – usually. A couple of answers he rambled; he rambled on his intro. Tinklenberg was smooth to the point of slick. He started out using Sunday’s Strib as a prop, and the story by Larry Jacobs as the point: “Whatever happened to starting small”? about Mike Ciresi as an attack on Bob Olson and his lack of previous electoral experience. Tinklenberg later took a shot at Olson, who by profession is a tax lawyer and banker. Olson talked about taxes and those making over 300K a year; in his rebuttal Tinklenberg suggested Olson has a LOT more experience with making more than 300 grand than he did.
Which I found ironic, coming from a lobbyist. What was more ironic was Tinklenberg, later in the debate, decrying the lack of civility, and then immediately going back to the Strib to take another shot at Olson.
And let’s be frank – for all his waffling, Tinklenberg is a lobbyist. As I understand it, lobbying is the essence of his firm. There are plenty of documents from various cities discussing hiring Tink to lobby for them. When asked by Olson about this, Tinklenberg stated there’s the general meaning of words, and there’s the legal meaning of words, and legally, he’s not a lobbyist.
So, I guess Tinklenberg is not a lobbyist, depending upon what the meaning of “lobbyist” is.
Tink waffled on the issue of a primary, too. In closing claimed he’d abide by the endorsement only if the process was honorable and fair. “Honorable”??!? By whose standards? His?
The question of endorsements came up. Tinklenberg became visibly angry. Quite frankly, his answer was misleading. A Tinklenberg staffer clearly stated in an e-mail blast, and I quote:
Folks, there’s an “endorsement” in there, that Tinklenberg flat-out did not receive.
Tinklenberg shouldn’t have gotten angry. Embarrassed, perhaps? Contrite? Time to offer on up a Mea Culpa or two is more like it.
And this wasn’t the first time Tinklenberg would become visibly angry, at questions and in challenging rulings of the moderator and challenging the debate rules his campaign agreed to. All in all, Tinklenberg reacted angrily to questions 4 times, in addition to his closing.
Quite frankly, it’s apparent that Tinklenberg will get the endorsement. Whether he’s earned it, is subjective. However, the delegate counts speak for themselves, and the math is fairly simple. Fortunately for Tinklenberg, a Bachmann Tracker wasn’t there taking video – at least, not that I could tell.
If quoting Tinklenberg’s previous statements, and then comparing them to later statements is an “attack” in Team Tink’s view, they ain’t seen nuthin’. If questioning Tink’s lobbying background is an “attack”, wait until “real” lobbyists, working on Bachmann’s behalf, take aim at Tinklenberg. If questioning taconite tailings in roadbeds and embankments is an attack, wait until some Karl Rove protégé jumps on this one.
I personally believe the questioning I’ve heard from Team Olson is, without a doubt, legitimate campaign questioning; and part of the normal vetting process.
Be that as it may, it’s apparent this race is all but over, and Team Tinklenberg will be carrying the DFL Standard for CD-6. What remains to be seen, is who they can rally to march behind it.
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.
