CD3 debate redux

I have a few brief thoughts from the CD3 debate. For full coverage on the debate, see MN Campaign Report, where Joe Bodell has done a great job covering this.

Ashwin Madia was really on message today. Erik Paulsen and David Dillon both did very well, and they sounded reasonable and intelligent. However, people will remember what Madia said, and they won’t remember what Paulsen and Dillon said. Why? Because Madia stuck to key themes and phrases, and hit them over and over. Some of his key ideas from the economy-focused debate:

  • We need to investing in people for the future of the economy
  • Working families are not the problem with today’s economy
  • By implementing simple steps, we can chart a new direction for our economy
  • As we chart a new direction for the economy, we might just save the environment along the way

Ash didn’t pander or waver in his positions. He was clear about his positions, he explained them well, and he didn’t hesitate to point out Paulsen’s record on the issues. Early on, it seemed like Paulsen was playing offense; after the first question or two, it was Madia on the offense, continually bringing up Paulsen’s record as Republican majority leader. Paulsen rebutted well, but I think the damage was done.

Paulsen only had one really clear message that he continually returned to: “Jim Ramstad supports me.” But he’s no Jim Ramstad; he’s an extremist right-winger.

David Dillon went after Ash pretty hard during the debate, and didn’t have much to say about Paulsen. It’s clear that he knows who’s in the lead. Ash will have to approach Dillon carefully.

Overall, a great job for Madia! Perhaps more to come later in the day. Feel free to leave your comments below.

Related posts: Want more Daily Liberal? Subscribe or bookmark this site to keep up to date!

Tags: , , ,

categories Election 2008 | authorJeff Rosenberg | August 21, 2008





Comments

  • By munchkinmom, August 21, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

    This is the same impression I had of the debate. I think Madia made points that people really listened to, Erik defended his record, and Dillon attacked both parties, although he attacked Ashwin much more.

    Dillon needs to explain how he plans to be successful in a congress where he will not have anyone to caucus with, or will certainly not be given any committee assignments by either party. I don’t think he understands how Congress works. He thinks he is speaking truth to power. Truth is, there is only one independent in Congress today, and he caucuses with the Democrats.

  • By Jeff Rosenberg, August 21, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

    You’re right on about Dillon. In the Senate, maybe he could be “speaking truth to power.” In the House, he’d be a tiny, ineffective voice in a crowd.

  • By rainman, August 21, 2008 @ 11:39 pm

    Madia wins again…just like in the DFL endorseing debates, he was clearly more articulate than either Paulsen or Dillon. The more Madia reminds voters of Paulsen’s voting record on things that matter (voting against the transportation bill that was supported by the Chamber, continually voting to cut education funding, and balancing the budget by accounting gimmicks, fee’s, and pass the buck to cities, counties, and school districts. The only reason a school district should have to have a levy referendum is to fund some major capitol building campaign, not to fund basic education needs like teachers, supplies, transportation, extra curricular activities, etc. I just finished listening to the debate a 2nd time and Madia won again!

Other Links to this Post

  1. CD3 Debate - August 21, 2008 | MNpublius.com — August 21, 2008 @ 11:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment