It was a great debate - well, considering all the candidates sharing the stage....and all those folk tweeting, using the hashtag #TMPDebate2010 ! Blow by blow commentary - it was GREAT!!!
So, what did the TweetO'Verse think? Let's look!!!
Having slept on it (and caught the end of what turned out to be a very solid State of the Union address), I finally have some thoughts on last night's Major Party Debate hosted by the Minnesota News Council.
First, kudos to the organizers -- the MNC and the League of Women Voters did a heck of a job corralling and managing so many candidates into a format that actually kind of worked -- each group of five candidates was able to stay within its allotted time, and the interactions between moderators and candidates were quite cordial and to the point.
As for the participants....you'll catch more on them after the break.
I'm getting into a standard routine for these events. Brush teeth, put on face, leave work, remember where I parked my car, get in and hope I don't have to scrape ice off the windshield, figure out which cd to listen to. Tonight would it be Eric Clapton, Jelly's Last Jam or Asleep at the Wheel? Clapton won. Crossroads, Sunshine of My Love, I Shot the Sheriff, and other greatest hits. Now try to decide the best way to go. Shepherd Road to Hwy 5 to I494 sounds good. I should go that way more often. It's quick and direct. Not the safest way to go in my car, but oh well.
The first person I met up with was Orrie. Great to see him again so soon. He asked me so sadly what happened to the Rukavina button he gave me. He noticed I had the Dayton button attached to my purse again. What could I say? He looked so downtrodden about it. Sorry, Orrie. I just couldn't help it.
Holly was there. She sought me out right away. I like to hang with her at these events. I don't think she liked my hat, though.
Tonight I met TwoPutt Tommy. Live and in person. What a cool guy! What did we have in common? We were both wearing a hat. I love hats.
I made it into the reception after all and didn't even have to pay the $25. Ole Savior came to the rescue with some extra passes. Thanks, Ole!
Craig from TheUptake was there again, too. And another guy from TheUptake. Gosh, what was his name? Darn brain fog!
After hanging out for an hour, Holly and I made our way into the ballroom. It was time for the debate. Who were all those people sitting up on the platform? Those are all candidates? Good grief, there sure are a lot of them. Just think, only one is going to win. But each one thinks that it will be him or her. Each of them is convinced of it. Some of them don't have a chance in hell. Others have a high probability of being the One.
There were so many candidates tonight that each person did not get to answer each question. Five candidates answered one question, then five different candidates answered another question. And on it went.
Judy Stuthman from the League of Women Voters laid the ground rules and gave some background information. Later I introduced myself to her as a member of the Captain John Holmes chapter of DAR. I liked Judy and thought she did a great job with her role.
The host and producer of the evening was Gary Eichten. He did an excellent job. Some of the candidates didn't make it easy for him when they went over their time limit and wouldn't quit speaking.
There were nineteen candidates. Count them! Why would anyone want to be governor anyway? Whoever wins will sure have a big mess to clean up. There were a couple of candidates who didn't come. Matt Entenza wasn't there again tonight.
Because of the word limit on this blog, I'll try to keep the answers of each candidate short. That means mega paraphrase. If you want to know more about each candidate and his or her stand on the issues, go to their website.
I'll take each question separately along with each candidate's response. I'll add my own comments, too, because I can't help putting in my two cents worth. Well, with inflation, maybe 25 cents.
I'm set up at the Sheraton in Bloomington for the Minnesota News Council Major Parties Debate -- I'll embed the Uptake live video stream here when it's live, and I'll be live-tweeting @MNProgressive -- follow along!
Some thoughts on last night's gubernatorial debate:
--ALL the candidates were much more comfortable in a standard debate format, even a modified round-robin format like last night's, than they were at Netroots Minnesota this past weekend. Maybe it's the podium, or something else. But all nine who were at both events were more on their game last night than Friday.
--If you were there, the format actually wasn't that bad. As a necessity borne of having so many candidates, it kind of worked. Depending on when they entered the stage, they may have given their opening statements after having answered a question, but it was good to have smaller groups of candidates onstage with each other, and to be able to mix up the pairings was an interesting feature.
Big winners:
--Hopkins is Steve Kelley's home turf, and he didn't disappoint -- he was on message, was less wonky then he has been despite his natural policy geekiness, and had a couple of great lines, not least of which: "I know it will take one Governor and five million heroes to make Minnesota great again." At least until we have a good picture of what precinct caucus attendees are thinking as of February, I think it's a bad idea to count Kelley out of this endorsement race. But, as noted many times before, I'm a fan of the guy, so maybe I'm hopelessly biased.
--Paul Thissen has not had a single misstep in this campaign so far -- he's improved his stump presence consistently, and impressed everywhere he travels around the state. He'll be a player in the endorsement battle.
--Mark Dayton makes it very clear that he's been there, done that when it comes to high-end electoral politics. He's clear, he's forceful, and his DFL opponents aren't likely to use the same attacks -- terror alert/office closure, ineffective, etc -- that the GOP will break out if he's the DFL nominee. His "Read my lips: tax the rich" line is getting a good response from the DFL faithful, because he's framing it in the context of a more progressive taxation and governmental system as a whole. "I'm going to raise my own taxes" didn't quite work for John Kerry in 2004, but other issues were in play back then as well.
Not-so-big winners:
--I want Susan Gaertner to be a better candidate than she is. She has a great record to run on, and if one listens to the written content of what she's saying, it all makes pretty good sense. Her delivery, however, needs a lot of work, and she's running out of time.
--R.T. Rybak is in a very tough position -- he has an extremely short timeframe in which to get organized, is already behind on endorsements from elected officials and organizations, and seems (rhetorically, at least) to depend on the 2008 Obama surge to carry him through the endorsement. If the massive numbers of Obama caucusers don't show up this year (which they usually don't, in non-presidential years) he'll be in trouble and we're going to know it very quickly. He has a good message, but tried to pack WAY too much into each answer rather than really connecting with the audience.
--Margaret Anderson Kelliher is not a great debater. Her answers were very rehearsed-sounding, and she repeatedly fell back on her rural Minnesota roots. Once in a debate? You have to do it. More than that, and it starts to sound hackneyed. She's still very much the frontrunner for the endorsement, with endorsements from several unions and dozens of superdelegates, but none of her opponents have really let loose with attacks on the outcome of the previous two legislative sessions. How effective or ineffective those attacks are will go a long way toward determining how successful MAK can be in the primary and general elections.
--Matt Entenza is strong on policy -- his repeated refrain on the new clean energy economy works, policy-wise -- but is lagging in the energy department. Onstage, he tends to pause for about two seconds longer than he has to before speaking. On the other hand, he's name-dropping less than before, so that's a good thing. But in a big field, even with a very sound grasp of policy and an all-but-certain date with the primary, Entenza has been fading into the background a bit, something he'll need to work on if he's really gunning for the endorsement as hard as he and his campaign say he is.
I was off to 2200 Lyman, the new Chanhassen school to cover the Republican debate.
The Carver County Republicans have put out the call to sponsor the first debate of Minnesota Republican gubernatorial hopefuls from 7 to 10 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 17. The event is scheduled at the new Chanhassen High School, 2200 Lyman Boulevard in Chanhassen
I get to Lyman and Powers, no school. I drive up and and down, no numbers either. Off in the distance a factory, no it is a huge school. Many people are driving up, that's it. Another guy gets out and asks me if this is the Republican debate. We bond. Then we follow the crowd, it is an outside sporting event! We are going inside to the auditorium. Oops, it is a music rehearsal. The janitor tells us that there a small sign posted on one of the many doors that redirects to Chaska high school. We ask directions from people. And I kid you not, we get three sets of different directions, all slightly similar. We head out. Aha, there it is, the sign says Chaska. People are watching sports. There are not enough cars. My buddy is somewhere on the road still. So I ask. This is Chaska MIDDLE school. I get to Chaska HIGH school. Republican signs. Also lost Republicans arriving late too. It is ten minutes after 7. Sigh.
There are currently two bills, one in each legislative chamber, that have been introduced to re-write the state's Marriage Statutes by making them gender-neutral. The State's Senate (MN SF 120) has already received heat from the only openly gay Republican who sits in the Senate. The State's House quietly introduced MN HF 999 with very little fanfare from the media. The State Legislature has simply backed out of this "gay marriage" debacle by simply re-writing the statute to include everybody - gay or "str8"
But if you were to stop "the average Joe and Jane Turnip window shopping in the Galleria Mall in downtown Rochester" how GLBT couples are discriminated against with the current gender-specific statutes you would probably get a shrug.
Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.
You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.
- John McCain during the last presidential debate
Dear Joe the Plumber:
It seems like your heart is in the right place, and you've worked hard at an honorable job. Now you have some hope of buying the other half of your two-man shop. Ownership and its rewards are a big part of your personal American Dream.
Good for you.
Now, thanks to tonight's presidential debate, you've become a temporary national figure. The exposure will be worth more than a full-page ad in the Yellow Pages and a top level Google ad, so I guess you could say you have John McCain's policies to thank for boosting your business growth.
Or at least he would have, if you'd remembered to mention the name of your business during all the media attention.
If I were you, first thing in the morning, I'd change the company's name to Joe the Plumber, get a new phone listing and throw up a web page.
Or not.
The interest in your political thinking will be good for less than a week, but people will always have clogged drains and faulty water heaters. And the real issues you face as a future business owner aren't about national policy, including Obama's tax proposal.
In fact, I'm concerned that your thinking about owning a business may be clouded by all the political rhetoric. Here's what I, as a former small business owner, think you should be concerned about.
Do you know what you're buying? According to reports, you want to buy the two-man plumbing shop you work for and plan to pay for it over a number of years. What, exactly, are you buying? A name and phone number, two used trucks, tools and inventory, maybe some relationships with customers or contractors that you've had a role in building. And the opportunity to pay for it over time, out of the cash flow from the business.
This may be a good plan, depending on how much you're paying for good will - which shouldn't be very much for this small business. Otherwise, this decision will cost you far more than any income tax plans being proposed.
Don't feel bad. Most Americans don't know what they've been buying.
You need to separate your American Dream from Small Business Reality. Sorry, but when you consider that your ambitions call for only one or two employees, the chances of you paying off your purchase and ever earning $250,000 a year are very remote.
John McCain encourages you to dream about making $250,000, where you can fear Barack Obama's tax plan, instead of looking at the realities facing you now. That is, most small businesses fail or fail to grow, and almost all of them earn less than $250,000 in taxable income for their owners.
The reasons have nothing to do with their income taxes - unless they fail to pay them.
I applaud your hard work and determination to control your own destiny. That's where you should focus. If you do, you'll discover that paying a slightly higher marginal tax rate some day is probably the smallest problem you've had to overcome.
Do you understand the financials? I'm extremely suspicious about the reports that your tiny shop "clears" about $250,000 a year. Two plumbers fortunate enough to bill $150 an hour for 30 hours apiece every week would have gross billings of $468,000, plus maybe some mark up on materials and trip charges.
Anyone who bills by the hour knows that's a hard standard to maintain, especially if you're doing smaller jobs that require you to move around to different job sites, pick up products, take phone calls, pay vendors and do estimates. Stuff you can't bill for.
Maybe the boss pays you a pittance and is able to clear $250,000 after his truck payments, cell phone bills, advertising, etc. But I'd make sure I understood the financials before I added debt to the expenses you'd have with this business.
Obama's tax plan won't hurt you. If you do reach the $250,000 threshold, you'll only pay a slightly higher tax rate on the dollars above that amount.
If you don't like that, you have another choice. You can put those extra dollars into healthcare for your employees, buy a new truck, beef up your advertising, get some help to do the paper work or even hire another plumber. Your business will grow and your life will probably get better because you can spend more time doing what you like - whether it's thawing pipes or selling.
The Republicans want you to believe the scary stories that your business will by hamstrung by a couple percentage points tacked on to the extra dollars you decide to keep for yourself. That's not really how it works, and if you don't see that, stop listening to all the politicans and get over to a small business center and ask for advice.
Good luck,
Charlie Quimby, a guy who reached the American Dream
Here's some post-debate commentary from around the media -- it sounds like the insta-polls, focus groups, and most every expert observer has found Barack Obama to be a triple-winner in the 2008 debates. Let us know what you think in the comments, both of the debate and the comments from the media figures below.
The Hill's Sam Youngman: McCain's best likely not good enough: Sen. McCain (Ariz.), his back up against the wall as Democratic rival Barack Obama has started to pull away in the polls, demonstrated a new fire at the duo's last debate. But the Arizona senator's flurry of attacks and the Democrat's calm, measured responses will likely do little to change the campaign trajectory.
National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru: I Don't See It: A couple folks here have been saying that McCain is doing better than in the previous two debates. I wish it were true, but I just don't see it. I think a few times McCain has come across as spluttering.
CNN's David Gergen: "It then hit the personal animosity of the advertising and then I thought McCain swerved off track...He got overemotional about it. He looked angry. And it was almost an exercise in anger management up there for him to contain himself. And Obama maintained his cool, and I thought that changed the tone of the debate and Obama won the last half hour. I thought Obama really did well on education, abortion and health care."
TIME's Jim Poniewozik: Women Don't Like It: Dial group report 2: Um, Sen. McCain, women don't like it when you put "health of the mother" in air quotes.
ABC News' Teddy Davis: McCain was wrong to state that small businessman "Joe the Plumber" would end up paying a fine if he refused to provide his workers with health insurance under Barack Obama's health-care plan. Under the Obama plan, small businesses are exempted from a requirement imposed on large companies that they contribute to a national health fund if they fail to make "a meaningful contribution" to their employees' health care costs.
Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: A lot of the time, when Obama's talking and they have the split screen, McCain looks like he's about to explode. Not always, and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. But he frequently looks like he's about to snap. Not going nuts, but like he's seething and just holding it in. Are other people seeing the same thing?
Note that no points are offered on why Franken or Barkley necessarily won -- just how Coleman lost. This point started showing up last night in Franken campaign spin on the debate overnight, and is being confirmed by the traditional media, here by WCCO's Esme Murphy. Check it out:
Anyone who has been involved in a school yard fight knows the old rule, 2 against 1 will win every time. At tonight's debate Norm Coleman sat literally in the middle of Independent candidate Dean Barkley and Democrat Al Franken. He was eviscerated by both men.
The most devastating moment came when one of the moderators asked, "What do you think is the greatest threat to our country"? The moderator went on to say it could be any threat, not just of the military kind. Al Franken went first and said the biggest threat was Al Qaeda, and that the Bush administration had squandered the past eight years pursuing the war in Iraq, instead of pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. At the end of his comments Franken ripped into Coleman for his support of President Bush's policy in Iraq.
Then came Dean Barkley. He said the greatest threat was the skyrocketing national debt. He lashed into Coleman saying "this happened on your watch". Barkley's comments echoed a recurring theme by Franken tonight, that President Bush had inherited the largest surplus in US history and was leaving office with the largest deficit.
Then it was Norm Coleman's turn. Coleman said the biggest threat to our country was the "partisan divide" in Washington. Huh? Yes it is a terrible problem, but Coleman kept repeating this line over and over again throughout the evening. Is that really the single greatest threat facing our country?
It takes a lot for the word "eviscerated" to appear in debate roundups. And it's worth noting that Coleman did go last on this question, and two of the biggest threats to America's future were already taken. Looking like a Johnny-come-lately is a tough thing to stomach, and Coleman had the bad luck to go last. However...
--nuclear proliferation?
--biological/chemical warfare?
--poverty?
--government corruption?
--Threats to the Constitution?
As Murphy notes, the partisan divide can be an issue in Washington...sometimes. Sometimes not. When it is, shouldn't at least one or two of the issues above come before it? Plenty of choices were before Coleman, and he stuck to his "I get things done across party lines" talking point.
Have a look at this quote from last night's Senate debate:
"Social Security, by the way, is an issue that's too big for one party to solve. And unfortunately, reality has shown us that it gets mired in politics, so you take it out of the politics. And Dean, it's not another commission. We can set up Social Security, the resolution of that, much like we do with base closings. And so you put the commission together and they come out with recommendations and then they are - they're there. And the Congress votes them up and down. But you've got to get it out of politics. And I want to come back to the issue of how you get it done, because we have these philosophical debates. Al, when it came to the Wellstone Mental Health Parity bill, had your vision prevailed, had a no vote prevailed, we wouldn't have had mental health parity. That was the last shot to do it. You can't simply say, "Well, I think we should put it in a separate bill." We need to be measured not by what we say, but by what we do and the ability to get things done. [Emphasis added]
Let's leave aside, for a moment, the reality that Coleman still appears to support putting Social Security funds on the private market that's destroyed so much American wealth over the past several weeks. Instead, let's focus on what he said in the debate -- first, he said a commission should come up with recommendations, and Congress should give them a yes-or-no vote. Next, he said that Jim Ramstad's Mental Health Parity bill would not have passed Congress on its own (it was eventually passed as part of the recent Wall Street bailout bill).
Is Coleman willing to fight for an up-and-down vote on Social Security, but not on a high-priority bill pushed by both a respected Republican colleague and the Democrat who preceded him in the Senate before his untimely death? Interesting difference of opinion here between Coleman and Coleman.
In any case, the deeper frame Coleman is employing here is a nefarious one: Government doesn't work! Let a commission do the hard work for us, and we'll vote on them! It's a standard Republican line -- get the politics out of politics, shrink government because it doesn't work anyway, and all will be better. Whatever you think of Franken, he's used a great line on this topic -- "Republicans like to say government doesn't work. Then they get elected and prove it." Franken is right on this point -- it is incumbent upon Democrats to prove that Government-with-a-capital-G CAN work for the betterment of the people -- by truly protecting Social Security, by balancing the federal budget, and by tackling the single biggest economic issue facing the American people today -- the cost of health insurance.
If an Obama Administration and huge Democratic majorities in Congress can actually pass legislation guaranteeing health coverage to every American (or something getting significantly closer to it than we have today), we'll be looking at the potential for a true political realignment in this country -- leftward. Prove that government can work for the betterment of its citizens, and the people will follow.
In an age where debate questions, answers, formats, and other features are parsed down to the letter, resulting in a discernable element of kabuki theater, CNN's focus group made for an interesting viewing experience. Along the bottom of the screen during the debate, CNN displayed the warmth meter -- an average of the dials held by a group of undecided Ohio voters, with warm on one side and cold on the other.
By that measure, Barack Obama had several moments last night that bested his opponent in terms of strength and duration, especially when he was able to get moving with his rhetoric comparing the federal government to a family trying to live on a budget. The gender differences were interesting as well -- women responded warmly to John McCain's rhetoric on national security, but also to Obama's talk on fixing the economy, while both men and women seemed to respond favorably to Obama on energy issues.
Really interesting stuff. Among that focus group, 10 members said immediately following the debate they thought McCain won, while 12 said Obama won, and 3 didn't know. That means a win for Obama -- McCain spent more time -- a LOT more time -- last night talking about Barack Obama and his proposals rather than what John McCain would do; his efforts to produce a game-changing performance were unsuccessful.
