Ron Paul At Northrup Auditorium: "They (the GOP) want my money."

Dusty Trice got the scoop! Here’s what Dusty has to say about his video, as posted on YouTube:

EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul explains why the MN GOP suddenly needs his help: “They Want My Money.”

The MN GOP blocked Ron Paul from speaking at their 2008 convention in Rochester, MN. But on Sept. 25, 2009 the MN GOP sponsored an appearance by Dr. Paul at Northrup Auditorium in what was billed as a joint town hall with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

What’s behind the MN GOP’s sudden change of heart? According to Ron Paul, “They want my money. They want to get a little bit of influence from our supporters, too.”

I think this says a lot about Ron Paul, who’s been a consistent voice for what he believes in, so much so that he was willing to forget the past troubles with the MN GOP.

I also thinks this speaks volumes about the MN GOP. Their leadership realizes that they have alienated roughly 15% of their party. Now they realize that Michele Bachmann is actually in trouble and the only way to save her is to turn to the person they publicly shunned and beg for his money and help.

The MN GOP is exploiting Ron Paul because they are terrified without his support they will lose and lose big.

On a side note, I’d like to thank Congressman Paul for taking moment to speak with me. (DustyTrice)

Let’s watch!!!

I’ll have my own thoughts about Dusty’s breaking story later, for now, link here for Mary Lahammer’s May 30th, 2008 report from the 2008 MnGOP State Convention – the footage of the floor scuffle between a Ron Paul supporter and a McCain suporter is “must see TV” – great job by Mary Lahammer and the Twin Cities Public Television team!!!

(cross-posted from MnProgressiveProject)

"I'm DFL. And that's the line that I'll be on."

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)

Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive – "Normie wuz robbed!!!"

ThinkProgress.org got the recording of Princess SparklePony on The Moonie Times’ radio “show”:

What Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive said, BEFORE she said she was gonna break the law, is worth repeating. Here’s the transcript:

(0:25) I come from Minnesota. We’re still in a recount with our Senate race between Senator Norm Coleman and the challenger, Al Franken. Senator Coleman won the race on Election Day but that was challenged repeatedly over and over with what we feel may be fraudulent votes and very concerned about what goes forward.

“fradulent votes”, eh? That’s what you “think”, Michele?

Why, just the other day (June 1st, to be exact) Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Christopher Dietzen said he saw “no evidence or fraud or misconduct.” And Justice Dietzen said that in court.

That same day, in that same court, another Minnesota Supreme Court Justice asked Norm Coleman’s attorney, Joe Friedberg, very pointedly if their were any instances of fraud. Norm Coleman’s attorney – NORM COLEMAN’S ATTORNEY – answered emphatically “absolutely not” and added that there was no fraud of any kind; election, voter or otherwise.

But, hey – today’s GOP playbook is ignore the debunking and repeat, Repeat, and REPEAT the debunked stuff over and Over and OVER, as Bachmann just did: the “fraudulent vote (debunked) theory.”

In the rightwingworld, Norm “Smokescreen” Coleman “wuz robbed.” That’s their story, and they’re stickin’ to it.

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

"False Witness! – The Michele Bachmann Story (Vol. 1)"

Well, I would have called it “The misAdventures Bachmann MotorMouth OverDrive – The Early Years” but: they didn’t ask me. At any rate, “False Witness! is now out and available. I placed the order for mine – and if you act quickly, you can too!!! Link on over to BiasedLiberalMedia.com and get your copy of “False Witness! The Michele Bachmann Story (Vol. 1)”!

Here’s part of what the entrepid Bill Prendergast has to say about his entrepenueral offering:

The first issue is about how she got started in politics. Twenty four pages of electrifying black and white comics that have never been printed before. (DumpBachmann)

All that, for a measely $4.95 with shipping included! That link, again: www.BiasedLiberalMedia.com – go order your copy now!

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

A Double Dose of Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive

Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive has been saying bizzare things lately – as usual. How bizzare? The ol’ TwoPutter has two examples for today. Let’s look at the first – it’s “right” after Limbaugh and some other wingnut:

Countdown: Worst Persons, Michelle Bachmann Is Clueless, 6-10-09

The second clueless thing noted today (so far) by Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive came via (and a H/T to!) those vigilant folks at Dump Bachmann. Now, I’ve heard a lot of reasons rightwingnuts use as a rationalization for denying poor people access to medical care, but this one?

Well, it’s simply the ideological Bachmann, in typical MotorMouth Overdrive mode:

The Guttmacher Institute also routinely reports showing that when public funding is not available, 30 percent fewer women who receive Medicaid have abortions. Now, this is interesting because it means 30 percent more babies whose mothers receive government-subsidized health care survive because of abortion-funding restrictions. And this is, I think, particularly important for women and men in the African American communities, in the Latino communities. In communities of color, we see a very high
percentage of abortions. And I know one of our colleagues, Congressman Trent Franks, speaks about this often. He has a tremendous heart, as we do as well, for unborn children in the minority community because such a grossly high percentage of babies in the African American/Latino community are aborted, and we don’t want to see that.

[Time: 20:00]

These babies add to the richness of the American fabric just as Caucasian babies do. All babies are valuable, but what we’re seeing is an even higher percentage of babies who are losing their lives in the minority community. In particular, we see this with minorities as they access Medicaid funding. If they have Medicaid funding, government funding, we’ll see more abortions, and we’ll see that particularly in the minority communities.
(C-Span)

How’s that for an insensitive thought-process? Cynically deny poor people – especially poor people of color – acess to Medicaid, and there will be less abortions!

BRILLIANT!!! Well, for Michele, that is….Bizarrely, Michele goes on:

This is a common-ground issue, I think, that we can share with those who embrace a pro-abortion view and with those who embrace a pro-life view because the polls have shown very clearly that the majority of Americans do not support taxpayer-funded abortion. They don’t support it. We are here to represent the will and the interests of the American people. That’s not where the American people are right now. They don’t want to see us spending their money when we don’t have much, when this government
is in the red–in red ink up to our eyeballs. We don’t have money to pay for the intentional murder of unborn children.

The Obama budget changes this Dornan amendment (emphasis added), as my colleague Mrs. Schmidt has said, to the Financial Services’ appropriations bill, so the publicly funded abortions will, once again, be available in the District of Columbia. Right here where we stand this evening, this is the District of Columbia. So now, once again, President Obama is expanding abortion. Instead of making it rare, instead of making it safer, this is making more abortions, particularly for pre-born babies of color.(C-Span)

“…pre-born babies of color.” As opposed, say, to “post-born”? Is Michele playing the race card to garner sypmathy here, when the real issues for Bachmann and her ilk are 1) – keepin’ folk off the dole, and 2) – denying local control for the citizens of W.D.C. which, of course, is something GOPers like to claim they’re really for (except when they’re not).

The “Dornan Amendment” essentially prevents the citizens of Washington D.C. from using local funds to provide abortions – except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. Bachmann and her ilk want to keep W.D.C. in the company of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming – where local funds cannot be used for abortion except in cases of rape or incest.

Except, here’s the difference – those states, just listed, made that decision themselves, which is something the citizens of Washington D.C. don’t get to do. And Bachmann and her hyocritical ilk – GOPers elected elsewhere – would prefer to keep it that way; keep it as it’s been since GOPer Bob Dornan from California got that amendment stuck in there over 20 years ago.

Like I said, GOPers like local control (except when they don’t).

Even more hypocritical, is Bachmann standing up for an amendment Dornan passed, as Dornan has quite a reputation as a bigot.

Don’t take my word for that; go to Amazon.com and buy a copy of Dornan’s book – quaintly titled “Shut Up, Fag!: Quotations from the Files of Congressman Bob Dornan, the Man Who Would Be President”

The NY Times has Dornan once saying about an electoral opponent: “Every lesbian spear chucker in this country is hoping I get defeated.”

That story was – to no surprise, from me – about Dornan’s run for the GOP Endorsement for President of the good ol’ USofA.

Dornan’s bigotry is available in book form through Amazon.com; Bachmann’s bizarre bigotry is potentially available every time she gets behind a microphone.

(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)

He's Bbbbaaaacccckkkk!!!! Mark Olson takes up space, again

OK, and just when I thought the “Dump Mark Olson” blog was gone for good, Mark’s wife talks him into running for the State Senate – or, so she says, in a Letter To The Editor.

Mark’s got a LTE, too – and it’s in the usual OlsonGibberish, that only 6th District RightWingNutJobs understand.

Go ahead, link here, and see if you can figure out what Mark Olson is actually trying to say.

The Cage Match

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:

We are so proud to count Rep. McCollum as a supporter, and we have now received endorsements (emphasis added) from every Democratic member of the Minnesota delegation. From Tim Walz and Keith Ellison down South to Colin Peterson and Jim Oberstar up North, Democrats in Minnesota are working to send El Tinklenberg to Washington and send Michele Bachmann home.

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.

A Day In SD 49

Jeanine Allen sought endorsement for State Rep in 49B, for a rematch with Kathy Tingelstad. And she has worked hard – did the house parties, banged on the doors, yada, yada, yada. Then, the unexpected happened: Tinglestad became a member of the infamous (to the GOPer Faithful) “Override Six.”

Unless you’re just getting back from, say, the Iditarod, where you were working in the interior with no internet connections, you’re aware that retribution and punishment for Tinglestad, and the rest of the Override Six, was immediate and severe. Recently,Tinglestad was not endorsed for re-election; furthermore, GOPers undoubtedly will be endorsing someone else.

This created a huge opportunity, one that Jerry Newton found too appealing to pass by. At the SD49 Convention yesterday, both Jeanine Allen and Jerry were nominated for endorsement. Both gave passionate speeches with compelling reasons to receive support; both gave thoughtful and informed answers to questions presented. Obviously, as a veteran, I was drawn to Jerry due to his military background. However, Jeanine’s discussion of the potential threat to our Iraqi veterans from Depleted Uranium demonstrated beyond a doubt her knowledge of issues and genuine concern for veterans.

Clearly, Jeanine Allen is a worthy candidate. Unfortunately for her, the results of the first – and only – ballot were not in her favor.

Jeanine Allen took to the podium, asked that her name be removed from consideration, and requested Unanimous Endorsement for Jerry, by acclimation.

The dignity and class displayed by Jeanine Allen is a story that needs to be told often. She worked hard. Last cycle, she came close. This cycle, could have been much, Much, MUCH different. But the delegates chose someone else.

Recognizing the inevitable, Jeanine put party over self. She fought the good fight, but put party interests over hers. Ladies and gentlemen, we all owe Jeanine Allen our thanks and appreciation for throwing her hat into the ring, putting herself out on the line, and then accepting the results with chin held high and a high level of grace.

I’m proud to be a Democrat – proud to be in the DFL – because of people like Jeanine Allen. It’s important to remember above all, we are all Democrats.

Earlier, Senator Mark Dayton underscored this importance. Taking the stage, he reminded delegates of the importance of Democratic unity in the fall He asked if we wanted four years of (President) John McCain? “NOOOOOOOO!” Then he asked if we wanted a Vice President Tim Pawlenty or a Governor Carol Molnau? “NOOOOOOOOO!”

Then he said, “That’s the Republican philosophy of government. She ruins one state agency; they want to put her in charge of all of them. He fails one state; they want to put him in charge of the whole country!”

Senate District 49 is a bit different than most, because it’s roughly half in Congressional District 3; half in Congressional District 6. As I opined a week ago, the race in the 3rd is over – so I covered SD 49 as the drama for the honor of taking out Michelle Bachmann played out with the additional benefit of watching the inevitable in CD3.

Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of watching Rick Nelson’s efficiency in running the Senate District 42 Convention. At SD 49, I had the privilege of watching J.P. Barone’s running the CD-6 side of the district. Now, I admit I’m easily amused. While that is true, it changes not a bit J.P.’s masterful performance in guiding the convention. J.P. clearly explained not only the agenda steps; he explained the “why” of the agenda steps in a way that sometimes went beyond witty to downright funny. J.P. used humor as a tool to help delegates – especially new delegates – understand what was happening and why. The reactions I got from first time delegates was overwhelmingly favorable, and helped make what often can be monotonous procedural issues interesting. Both Rick and J.P. are experts in running a convention and the DFL is fortunate they volunteer their time and talents. This should be the point in this story when I begin to talk about who ran the Convention, on the CD-3 side. However, this citizen/blogger doesn’t have a report on Victoria Reinhardt, for two reasons – I wasn’t there, and I neglected to ask those delegates. This, however, only goes to show that this citizen/blogger simply isn’t perfect…

The results of the CD-6 side of the Convention clearly went El Tinklenberg’s way. There were 13 self-nominated subcaucus with Tinklenberg named in 6; Olson was named I three. At the end of the first round, two of Olson’s subcacuses weren’t viable, with Tinklenberg only losing one.

The final results for the delegate count are Franken 5, JNP 2, Uncommitted 2 at the senate level; Tinklenberg 4, Olson zero, Uncommitted 5 at the Congressional level. However, one subcaucus called ”Uncommitted Labor” clearly was leaning Franken and unabashedly pro-Tinklenberg. All in all, it was a very good day for Teams Franken and Tinklenberg at Senate District 49. The impressions on delegates from the March 16th Tinklenberg / Olson debate will be very important.

Congratulations are due to Ted Butler for his endorsement for his State House race in 49-A and to Jerry Newton for his endorsement in 49 – B, and a special mention is again due to Jeanine Allen, for meritorious service to party.

That Was Then. This Is Now.

I personally don’t care who takes Bachmann out; I just want her out. I honestly cannot find one good thing to say about her. Just last week, following in the traditions of John Kline and Mark Kennedy, she blew off the Disabled American Veterans. No surprise there!

Every year, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans has their annual Mid-Winter Convention in Foggy Bottom. Every year, Minnesota sends its Legislative Committee to talk to Minnesota’s Congressional Delegation, about legislation to help disabled American veterans lead productive lives.

Two years ago, John Kline told these Disabled American Veterans he wouldn’t co-sponsor legislation written by democrats. Period. End of story. When this news was reported, Kline’s reaction was predictable. Last year, he didn’t meet with them. Nor this year.

Thanks, John. NOT.

Two years ago, Mark Kennedy wouldn’t even let the veterans into his office.

Mark Kennedy got his just rewards.

Michelle Bachmann needs to get hers, too. So, really – I don’t care who takes out Bachmann. The reality is, though – whoever does, has to be on their “A” game. And from what I’ve seen so far, that ain’t El Tinklenberg.

Why, the reasonable, concerned citizen might ask? Credibility. And the Tink campaign lost it, for me. Take the issue of “endorsements” – Team Tink has put out in print, and in speech, endorsements they simply do not have.

Yes, “endorsements”. As in “plural”. Two that I know of; one a congressman, the other a well-known former candidate. I called another congressman’s office, two days ago, and asked a real simple question, Here’s the cut ‘n paste:

My name is (the ol’ TwoPutter’s given name); I’m a member of the DFL Veteran’s Caucus and live in (city). I also blog on the website http://www.MnBlue.com .

I am wondering who, if anyone, Representative Peterson has endorsed in CD-06?

Has Representative Peterson endorsed either Bob Olson, or El Tinklenberg?

Thank you for your response!

(the ol’ TwoPutter’s given name)
952-xxx-xxxx

I followed it up with a phone call, and was told I’d get a reply, when they got an answer. No answer, last Monday. So I e-mailed and called again, yesterday morning, and again, yesterday afternoon. Still no answer. So I followed up again, this morning. As of this minute, still no answer.

Now, the reasonable citizen might assume that anyone a Congressman has endorsed, the Congressman would be quick to confirm the endorsement. So, is it unreasonable to assume that Tinklenberg did NOT receive the endorsement?

Yesterday, I had a telephone conversation with Tinklenberg’s Campaign Manager, who claimed Representative Peterson in fact “endorsed” Tinklenberg; further, she promised me she’d e-mail me written confirmation of said “endorsement.” No e-mail in the ol’ in-box, yesterday. This morning, I followed up with a voice mail, asking for the promised verification of Representative Peterson’s “endorsement. I followed up with another voice mail. So far, no e-mail in the ol’ in-box.

What is the reasonable citizen to assume?

And quite frankly, I’m not even gonna get into the parsing of words and hair-splitting Tink’s campaign manager engaged in, with regards to Congressman Walz’ NON-endorsement of Tink.

Quite frankly, I felt like she was insulting my intelligence – not that I have a lot. I don’t understand why she didn’t simply state: “Hey – we made a mistake; we’re sorry, we’ll fix it.” And then actually did fix it. Why this campaign put Sergeant Major Walz in the position they did, is inexcusable, IF they didn’t apologize. They haven’t; it isn’t. And I don’t like gettin’ the run-around from a campaign manager from my party. Or, for that matter, the run-around Wodele gave me, yesterday. I expect straight talk. I haven’t gotten it.

In my first post on the race in CD-6, I affirmed I had no dog in the hunt. That was then.

This is now.

I’m not a rocket scientist, and I understand Tink isn’t either, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out taconite does NOT belong in roadways. Period. End of story.

And I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve seen enough to recognize a lobbyist when I see one. Not that there’s anything wrong with lobbyists; there isn’t. As long as they’re upfront. And I have a strong indication who isn’t being up-front.

And I happen to think my wife and daughters are smart enough to know what they should, or should not, do with their bodies. Apparently Tink does not. Or, does. Or, doesn’t. What day is it today?

And I happen to believe in “liberty and justice for ALL.” Not “some”. Not “liberty and justice, if you’re ‘straight’.”

And I happen to believe I should get honest answers, and discussions, from campaign staff.

Therefore I happen to believe Bob Olson is the candidate to take out Michelle Bachmann. With Bob, you KNOW where HE stands.

A "Good Faith Effort"??!?

OK, this is my third post on the race to take out Bachmann – and I got a feeling there’s gonna be more. Why, you might ask? Call it a “Good Faith Guess”.

Those of you that read my previous post on this race, saw how I scored the delegate count. So, imagine my surprise, when I saw a Press Release from Team Tinklenberg entitled “Tinklenberg takes big lead in early rounds of delegate selection”, claiming, and I quote: “In three of the largest conventions held Saturday (senate districts 52, 53 and 56 which include parts of Anoka, Washington and Ramsey counties) Tinklenberg came away with nearly 60% of the delegates chosen. “

This surprised me – of the named subcaucuses in 56, only 2 of ’em had Tink in their names, and they only took 3 of the 17 delegates. In 52, there was a “Tinklenberg – Uncommitted” subcaucus that took 2 delegates, a Franken-Tinklenberg that took 1 delegage, and there MIGHT have been another subcaucus with Tinklenberg in it’s name that took 4 delegates – maybe. So, out of 17 delegates in 52, Tinklenberg at best got 7, at worst only 3.

Even at best, in 52, that’s still only 7. Add that 7 to the 3 from 56, and Tinklenberg only took 10 of 27 – a far cry from “…nearly 60% of the delegates chosen.”

Since John Wodele’s name was on the Press Release, I called him this morning with a simple question: “How did the campaign come up with 60%?”

And boy, did I get an earful.

Hence, the title o’ this thread!!!

Apparently, according to Mr. Wodele, I wasn’t asking “a question”; I was “debating”, and Mr. Wodele was not going to debate a “good faith effort” on the number of delegates committed to El Tinklenberg.

Wow!!!

If my “conversation” (which is what I wanted to have) with Mr. Wodele is any indication, it’s no wonder the press corps had strained relations with the Ventura Administration.

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss “When is an ‘endorsement’, NOT an ‘endorsement’,” or, “Adventures In Parsing”….