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.
(Managerial note: we're staying out of the intramural race between Maureen Hackett and Jim Meffert. I got the same email and found it pretty humorous, but MPP will support anyone who ends up with a shot at retiring Erik Paulsen. - promoted by Joe Bodell)
Submitted by TwoPuttTommy on January 28, 2008 - 9:45am.
Folks, you just can't make this up - Erik Paulsen claiming 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."
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Just who does Erik Paulsen think he's kidding??!?
ERIK PAULSEN, working in a "bipartisan fashion"??!? Those two belong together the same way "George W. Bush" and "articulate" do. Well, more like: "don't."
The whole thing is worth re-reading, as is this one.
So, what reminded me of what I wrote, last cycle? Go below the fold!!!
(Both of the CD3 congressional campaigns have posted entries on MPP in the past 24 hours -- Jim Meffert's recent entry can be found here. Feel free to connect with the campaigns and ask them questions! - promoted by Joe Bodell)
Next Saturday, as Jim Meffert and I lay out our visions for America's future at DFL conventions in Senate Districts 33 and 45, a coalition of right-wing interest groups will be fighting for the status quo on health care with a "Kill the Bill" rally in front of the state Capitol.
It's not clear at this moment whether Erik Paulsen will be attending that event. He generally tries to keep his ties to Michele Bachmann (a featured speaker) hidden and it's been nearly two months since his office even sent out a press release on health care. But make no mistake about it, this is what we'll be up against in the fall campaign.
Health care reform is long overdue. Each day that passes without progress another family risks bankruptcy if someone gets sick; another business has to put off plans to expand; and another parent is forced to make the painful choice between taking their child to the pediatrician and making a trip to the grocery store.
That's why I'm in this race. As a doctor who's worked in many systems, including Hennepin County Medical Center, I've seen the problems with the current health care system and insurance industry from the inside. As the wife of a small business owner, I've watched my husband deal with insurance costs that sky-rocket year after year. And as a candidate in this race, I've heard from so many people who are simply terrified about what will happen if they lose their job or when their COBRA benefits expire.
We can do so much better in this country and we must. President Obama's plans aren't perfect, but they do move us a big step closer to the day when we can finally relegate the phrase "health care crisis" to the scrapheap of history and begin rebuilding our economy so we can usher in a new era of opportunity for all.
When we move into the general election campaign, I won't back down when the Tea Party and related groups start attacking us. And when Paulsen accuses me in a debate of supporting reform efforts, I'll turn to him and ask "why don't you?"
Thanks, as always, for everything you're doing to help our campaign and our party. We've won seven of nine Senate District conventions and two-thirds of the total named delegates so far, but this is only the beginning. The next step is defeating Paulsen in November and then the hard work of moving our country forward begins.
If you have any questions, please feel free to visit our campaign Web site, e-mail us at info@hackettforcongress.org or call us at (952) 938-0510. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you in the weeks and months to come!
(It's crunch time for the congressional campaigns -- both the Meffert and Hackett campaigns have posted entries here in the past 24 hours. Hackett's entry can be found here, and it will be promoted at 11:30 today. - promoted by Joe Bodell)
I'm seeing a disheartening trend on the campaign trail. Amid all the political chatter, we may be losing focus on what's most important. Crunching numbers and assessing strategies can be useful, but when the horserace becomes the main focus we are missing the point completely.
The reality is that poverty is growing in the suburbs. Middle class families are struggling to make ends meet. Jobs are scarce. Demand on food shelves is increasing. Use of subsidized school lunches is increasing. The Star Tribune has drawn attention to just how hard the economic crisis is hitting suburban families. This is the reality that our friends and neighbors are facing.
Politics doesn't matter to the mom whose dream is to go to the grocery store rather than the food shelf. Politics doesn't matter to the patient putting off an operation she can't afford. Politics doesn't factor in for the guy who lost his job, then let his health insurance lapse in order to pay the rent. When our discussion drifts away from these realities, our words cease to matter.
Our neighbors are suffering, and Congressman Paulsen and the GOP are more concerned with blocking reform in Washington than offering solutions.
Reps. Tim Walz (D) and Erik Paulsen (R) penned an editorial in today's Star Tribune (surf there at your own risk of malware and other cooties). In it they argue that the moratorium on building new nuclear plants needs to be lifted. I couldn't disagree more strenuously.
I really don't want to do this as I'm a big fan of Tim's and I personally like him a lot, but I have to point out a few things. Despite what I'm about to say, I still think he's a great Representative.
What Tim is doing is validating their tired, old and debunked arguments.
For decades, the debate over nuclear energy has been stalled, largely along ideological lines. During that time, our nation's primary energy sources have drastically narrowed. Our emissions have increased. High and volatile energy prices have become standard. As a result, our nation is heavily reliant on energy sources that come from countries and regions often hostile to our interests.
Stalled along ideological lines, eh? What about stalled because enough politicians have listened to reason? Paulsen and Walz oversimplify by claiming that we either have coal or nuclear power as options. This is the argument that the polluters, the nuclear lobby and politicians like Erik Paulsen have been advancing to prevent any serious investment in green energy technology. And Tim is playing right into it.
You wouldn't know from this op-ed that Tim has worked hard on green energy solutions. You'd think he was a corporate Dem more concerned about his corporate donors interests than the needs of Minnesotans. The opposite is true.
Essentially, Paulsen and Walz argue that we must consider nuclear power because we have to reduce our carbon output. The problem is it's not just about the carbon. The fact that Paulsen oversimplifies the issue is not surprising -- he's bought and paid for by Corporate America. But the fact that Walz agrees with him is not good.
If it's so safe, let's build it upriver from Mankato on the Minnesota river. Then let's build the storage facility in Tim's neighborhood. Oh ... don't like the idea so much now? It's going to have to go upriver from somebody and we'll have to store the spent fuel rods and other toxic by-products next door to somebody.
Next consider that a nuke plant uses more water than any other kind of energy source. Typically around 390 billion gallons per year for your average nuke plant. In addition, the water exiting the plant is often toxic. This water would have to go into a river somewhere and I don't think Tim's neighbors would want it in the Minnesota.
Furthermore, Paulsen and Walz flippantly dismiss wind and solar with "Unlike with some renewable sources, we can count on it (nuclear power) for consistent power -- come rain, snow, sun or clouds." Walz should know that the wind blows pretty much all the time out in western MN and it's plenty sunny.
Paulsen and Walz also fail to recognize the impact that energy savings measures might accomplish. Think of all the people we could employ making existing homes more energy efficient. They fail to recognize the unrealized potential of the combination of wind, solar, geothermal and energy conservation. Paulsen has never wanted it, but Walz? Shame.
Building a new nuke plant will raise everyone's rates. Even if you don't get any of your electricity from the plant. Nuke plants require massive government subsidies to make profits for their owners. Fundamentally, taxpayers subsidize the profits the owners -- nuclear plants are always a bad deal for taxpayers.
Paulsen and Walz want us all to ignore the lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant. Mining uranium is incredibly destructive and expensive. Enriching uranium takes massive amounts of energy plus most enriching facilities are coal powered. Finally, we have no solution to dealing with the waste. We have to store this waste for many, many millions of years.
Paulsen and Walz fail to recognize the true cost and impact of nuclear power plants and want us to ignore the voice of reason on this issue. While this is typical behavior for Erik Paulsen, I am truly saddened that Tim Walz is siding with the polluters, the nuclear lobby and those like Paulsen who oppose green energy solutions.
I have to admit, despite the fact that I live in the Third congressional district, it seems like the race is running under the radar a bit.
I've interviewed both Jim Meffert and Maureen Hackett (both of whose websites can be found via the ad banners you see here on the frontpage), but I still don't have a good bead on where this race is headed. Earlier this week, Meffert announced the support of several individuals who will come in handy in an endorsement fight, while Hackett now boasts the support of the DFL Veterans' Caucus and Stonewall DFL. Meffert has great policy experience, while Hackett has a great profile, story, and contrast with Paulsen.
Either will need a lot of help raising the money necessary to mount a credible challenge in November.
So for those of you who are in the Third (and I know there are a few out there), what are you thinking? Who are you supporting?
(Apparently, this group has a different opinion of Erik Paulsen, R-TargetCorp, than I do. Be that as it may, MPP encourages a wide variety of opinions - and I wish this group success in their endeavor. - promoted by TwoPuttTommy)
The 3rd district committee of the Minnesota Peace Project delivered a cup of tea to Congressman Erik Paulsen's Eden Prairie office Friday morning, Jan 29. The committee had struggled to secure a 2nd meeting with our freshman congressman in November. During the meeting Paulsen admitted to lack of knowledge about Afghanistan. He did say he was reading Greg Mortenson's book, "Three Cups of Tea," a longtime NY Times bestseller. This book, which has become required reading for all officers enrolled in counter insurgency courses at the Pentagon, describes Greg's work in building schools for girls in the remote region of Baltistan, in far Northeast Pakistan.
Committee chair Linda Thomson delivered a freshly brewed pot of tea and some homemade pumpkin cookies to the office in furtherance of continued dialog with Paulsen.
For Christmas, I was given a copy of The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation. And I didn't think the GOP could do worse. WRONG. Yesterday's SCOTUS Decision will go down in infamy; far outliving the excesses of, say, Jack Abramoff and the myriad of other acts of political vandalism the GOP inflicted upon this nation. The SCOTUS Decision leaves me shocked, and in awe at the audacity and mendacity of today's GreedOverPrinciples Party.
Ten years ago, I was between parties. Not quite ready to embrace the Democratic Party, I was completely sickened by what the GOP had become. Then came the destruction of John McCain, by Boy Blunder And The Plunderers.
For those that don't remember what they did to John McCain, google "John McCain push polls" - the third hit is this
I remain convinced that John McCain would have made a great President; and he should have been the GOP Nominee in 2000. McCain was well on his way to that GOP Nomination, and he got smeared. That's what pushed me to the DFL - and I attended DFL Caucus for the very first time in 2002.
Smears - that is the nasty style of politics the GOP uses today; the election of Michael Brodkorb as State GOP Party Deputy Chair just goes to show that today, the GOP rewards that kind of disgusting and dirty politics.
Do some Democrats play dirty politics? Of course.
The difference is, the Democratic Party, as a party, generally does not. The GOP, as a Party, has institutionalized dirty politcs. It's simply in their nature.
And that's just one reason why I'm no longer a Republican. When another former Republican - Joe Repya - talked about the downward death spiral of the Minnesota GOP, part of it is the dirty politics the party plays, and how those dirty players, like Michael Brodkorb are not only tolerated - they are REWARDED. Like, for instance, how GOPer Nathan Hansen was, when Hansen trashed Repya after Joe split.
Yesterday's SCOTUS Decision, ensured that unlimited corporate money will continue just that - and that decision will go down in infamy.
And that SCOTUS Decision reminded me specifically of one GOPer in particular; one that I sometimes identified as "Erik Paulsen, R=Target." Paulsen was corporate's boy BEFORE the SCOTUS Decision - it's safe to assume he'll be simply "more of the same" AFTER the Scotus Decision. So, I reached into the archives, and reluctantly present again:
Molly Ivins said that a definition of an honest politician in Texas is one that once bought, stays bought. Look no further than John Kline for proof of that, in a Texas politician. And Freshman GOPer Erik Paulsen sure seems to be following John Kline's lead! Let's look!
I listen to "Coast To Coast" while out late at night/early morning plowing snow; you never know what the topic might be and what the whackjob listeners call in with. Besides, there's no good music on the radio anymore; Clear Channel killed that a long time ago (but, that's a tangent). So anyway, I'm plowing snow last month, and I tune in to hear what the people that think Planet X is filled with aliens, Elvis is still alive, and/or they were pals with "John Titor.
That night's topic was "The Lennon Prophecy", where I learned that the reason the Beatles were so successful, is that John Lennon sold his soul to the devil. And I also came to learn that this should be of no surprise, as one of Liverpool's claims to fame is the booming "bidness" The Horned One does there, buying souls. This really came as no surprise to me; again - over the years I have listened to all kinds of (stuff) on Coast To Coast, such as the world is going to end in 2012 because that's when the Mayan calendar ends.
And I thoroughly enjoyed the typical inanity of that three hour show!
Fast-forward a little over a month, and an earthquake hits Haiti. Not to my surprise, the nutjobs go gaga on the airwaves - except, it wasn't Coast To Coast where the most outrageous was; it was on the "Reverand" Pat Robertson's "700 Club" show, broadcast on the CBN ("Completely Bull(stuff) News") channel.
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. And ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."
-- Pat Robertson, 1988 Republican Candidate For President
Aliens, end of the world, soul selling to the devil - all things considered "reasonable" by wingnut media outlets, such as AM1500 and CBN ("Completely Bull(stuff) News") and Faux.
That, gentle readers, explains today's GOP (GreedOverPrinciples) "leadership" - such as Erik Paulsen and Michele Bachmann and Alan Quist.
Quite simply, they are simply nuts. Quite frankly, the only difference between Michele Bachmann and Erik Paulsen, is Paulsen isn't stupid enough to say that stuff in public.
Today's GOP (GreedOver Principles) candidates for Governor aren't much better. Take Tom Emmer, for instance (please! TAKE him!!!): Spot, over at The Cucking Stool compares Emmer as a modern-day Polonius. It's a good read. I had to comment, but not on Spot's comparison - I commented on Emmer's Op/Ed and it's below the fold:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced today that it's officially targeting the race in Minnesota's Sixth district, and watching closely in the Third.
Targeting the Sixth makes good sense for the D-trip -- getting rid of Michele Bachmann should be a worthy goal for all rational, caring primates. The D-trip's position on the Third is somewhat more interesting though -- they targeted this seat heavily in the '08 cycle, but came up short with fundraising horse Ashwin Madia as the candidate. This time around, saying "we're watching the race" means that Erik Paulsen is running with the advantages of an incumbent now, but the D-trip still wants to defeat him. At the same time, this position says "Dem candidates -- raise a bunch of money to make getting involved worth our while."
It just boils down to a monetary calculation for these committees. That means that Jim Meffert and Maureen Hackett have to raise a boatload of money by the time the CD3 DFL convention rolls around so the DCCC can make a good decision on what to do.
Says Jim Meffert: "I'm sick and tired of the distortions from people like Erik Paulsen."
Says Maureen Hackett: "I won't back down, not if it's something that needs to be done."
Tough talk from the two DFLers currently running for their party's endorsement against first-term Congressman Erik Paulsen.
Hackett, an Air Force veteran and practicing psychiatrist, told me about her service and her current work at Hennepin County Medical Center and in the local correctional system. Her profile, her experience, and the contrasts she can draw with Paulsen, she says, will make Hackett vs. Paulsen a competitive race.
Meffert has served on the Minnesota Parent-Teacher Association, and has served on numerous education-related boards and organizations. He says he'll use his handle on important policy decisions, and an ability to call out falsehoods and distortions from Paulsen and his allies.
DFL congressional candidate Dr. Maureen Hackett just announced a Meet And Greet this Saturday, at the Hopkins VFW Post #425 from starting at 1:00 pm. I'll be there; hope everyone will be! I'd like to note that the VFW is a non-partisan organization - and it's my understanding that no video nor audio recording equipment is allowed. So, GOPer trackers - leave your stuff at home.
Yesterday, DFL congressional candidate Jim Meffert announced the opening of his campaign office, at 5780 Lincoln Dr. Suite 109 in Edina.
I write this not just as a progressive blogger with a keen interest in your defeat next November; I also write as your ever-humble constituent.
You've got some serious nerve.
I appreciate that you're not as crazy as your Republican colleague to the north. Seriously, I do - I'm glad you haven't told us we need to slit our wrists to prevent the health care reform bill from passing into law.
But your recent constituent mailing wouldn't pass muster under your predecessor, nor should you expect it to be treated as anything more than a slight softening of your party's backward approach to American government.
"Right now, every action Congress takes should be examined through the lens of job creation. The current policies in Washington are not working. Congress needs to focus on putting people back to work by lowering the tax burden on individuals, families and small businesses."
--Erik Paulsen
I call horsepucky, Congressman, and I'll tell you why:
The stimulus package you love to rip on (in fact, you do so in the same mailing) lowered taxes on a huge swath of American taxpayers.
LOWER TAXES was the mantra of the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations. What did we get for it? The same ballooning deficits and poor economies you seem to think are Democratic problems
There's a bevy of data out there showing that direct stimulus like that which was the focus of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is a better job creator than tax cuts. There's even more data showing that this kind of direct stimulus provides a return on the dollar, whereas tax cuts generate about 60 cents on the dollar in economic activity.
What don't you understand about that?
The rest of your mailing is filled with not-as-scary-as-Bachmann policy positions and straw men about health care reform, and a few bills you actually supported -- bills that, while good, were not as high-profile as the stimulus, or cap-and-trade, or the health care bill. Where's the bipartisan effort to improve legislation into something you can vote for, rather than opposing it because Barack Obama's name is on it?
You say Washington is broken. I say your party broke it, and despite his affiliation with the same, your predecessor would likely not stand for it.
Perhaps that's why he quit in the first place.
I hear you're a nice guy. But we don't need a nice guy, we need a Congressman who actually wants to get things done on BIG policy issues. So either show a little backbone, and admit that bipartisanship means actually working with the other party, especially when that party is in power or just admit your brand of party hackery is marginally less offensive than Michele Bachmann's, and call it a day.
Alternately, there are some Democrats running against you who would be happy to take over the responsibilities with which you have been entrusted.
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) was the Minority Leader of the MN House at the legislature. The only way to rise to that level of authority in the MN Republican party is to be a far right conservative. However, in his run for the MN-03 seat in '08 he painted himself as a moderate. The Twin Cities' media aided and abetted his subterfuge.
Now that he's in Congress, he's reverting to his far right ways and quite shamelessly. In other words, he's lying. And in this one letter, quite a lot.
A constituent sent him a letter urging him to support real healthcare reform. He responded with lies about the public option's cost, it's effect on the deficit, that it would cut Medicare, increase taxes on everyone and negatively affect small businesses.
2. The five toughest votes, politically, against the bill: Reps. Mike Castle (R-Del.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.). Castle is seeking a Senate seat in 2010 in a state where President Obama won 62 percent of the vote in 2008. Lance and Paulsen were elected last November in districts carried narrowly by Obama while Reichert's district continues to move further and further from his party (a 15 point win for Obama in 2008) and Democrats continue to run well-funded challengers at him. As for Kissell, his "no" vote is close to inexplicable given the heavy black population in his district (28 percent) and the fact that the president carried it by five points last November.
Close votes really tell you where your representatives stand -- and on this one, Paulsen stood with his party against both the President of the United States and the people in Paulsen's district who favored that President last year. What Cillizza's note doesn't say is that while the Third was carried only narrowly by President Obama, it's been trending toward Democrats for several election cycles in a row, and that trend shows no signs of abating next year or in 2012.
I thought more about the "people-President-party" analysis last night in relation to Collin Peterson's and Erik Paulsen's votes on the bill. As a member of the opposition party, I figured that Paulsen should get a mulligan on the "President" item -- as a member of the opposition, it's a pretty safe bet he's going to oppose most of the President's agenda (if not every last item), especially as a junior member looking to curry favor with his party's leadership. In addition, by virtue of being in the opposition, voting against the President's agenda is likely going to mean he's voting with his own party, so that might be another mulligan.
But people in the Third district supported for President Obama despite the muckraking campaign for Congress between Paulsen and Ash Madia. Voters in the Third wanted this bill to pass, and Paulsen ignored their will so he could run stunts -- only marginally less offensive than Michele Bachmann's -- like setting up photo ops of him delivering the health care bill -- in person! -- to community libraries to demonstrate how many sheets of paper it included.
Who knew Erik Paulsen was an environmentalist! Darn those tree-killing Democrats and their pernicious commitment to high-quality, affordable health care!
Closed circuit to candidates looking to take on Paulsen next year: here's your cudgel. Use it.
