Often biased, always thoughtful.

Republican Politics in Minnesota editor knows Erik Paulsen’s no Jim Ramstad

This weekend, Politics in Minnesota editor Sarah Janacek made her election predictions. Not only did she predict that Ashwin Madia would win, she had some less-than-kind words directed towards Erik Paulsen:

3rd CD. DFLer Ashwin Madia narrowly bests GOP former Rep. Erik Paulsen mostly because the 3rd District Republican party scared better, more ideologically moderate GOP candidates out of the race. This is a painful loss for the state GOP which has proudly held this seat for decades with strong, smart, social issues-moderate leadership in Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad. [emphasis in original]

Janacek is right on. Paulsen simply is not a moderate Republican in the mold of Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad. No, he’s a right-wing extremist, just chomping at the bit to be another warrior in the extremist’s culture war. Time and time again on this blog, I’ve showed that Paulsen isn’t a moderate, despite what he’d like you to think. For instance, see my posts here, here, and here.

If you’re looking for a pragmatic, intelligent candidate to represent you in the 3rd district, there’s only one choice.

From the archives: a two-prong strategy for Madia in CD3

In CD3, a district that has been in Republican hands for 50 years has become one of the Democrats’ best opportunities to pick up a seat. Back in August, I showed why.

Read more »

Kids love Paulsen, Women love Coleman?

There are two polls out today that show Republicans gaining in Minnesota. A SurveyUSA poll shows Erik Paulsen barely leading Ashwin Madia, 45-44, and a Rasmussen poll shows Norm Coleman leading Al Franken and Dean Barkley, 43-39-14.

If these polls are accurate, they’re good news for the Republicans. I’m withholding my judgement on that, though, because of some suspicious looking numbers in each.

Here’s the problem in the Senate race:

Read more »

Star Tribune on the 3rd district: Endorsements are too hard…

Despite the Star Tribune’s march toward the far right, even its editors know that Erik Paulsen is a terrible choice in the third district:

The candidacy of Eden Prairie Republican Erik Paulsen generated significant reservations. Paulsen has an impressive political pedigree, serving as the Minnesota House Majority leader from 2003 through 2006. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship that took him to India and China.

But Paulsen’s endorsement interview was disappointing. His answers on energy, health care and foreign policy lacked depth, detail and vision. Paulsen performed better at debates, but did not make the case that he has the depth needed to be a strong, independent leader in Congress.

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. His conservative credentials are solid; he should have run on them.

I found this language telling for two reasons. First of all, the Strib clearly is disappointed in Paulsen, as well they should be. More importantly, though, this passage makes it clear just how far to the right they’ve moved. The editors are practically begging him to campaign on the extremist right-wing policies he espoused back when the editorial board leaned to the left. You know, it wouldn’t be the end of the world for the Strib to just admit that their editorial board leans conservative; I just wish they’d come out and say it.

Despite their reservations over Paulsen, the Star Tribune just can’t bring themselves to actually muster a bit of political courage and endorse Ashwin Madia. Instead, they opt for one of the lamest cop-outs I’ve read in a while:

All three candidates in the race to replace Republican Jim Ramstad in the Third District are competent. But none inspired the critical mass of confidence required for our endorsement.

Come on, you’re an editorial board. I’m sorry if the decision’s hard for you, but do your job. Pick the best candidate. The voters don’t get to choose to send nobody in November. And since you clearly can’t stand Paulsen, there would seem to be only one choice.

More on MN-03: Paulsen “trying to buy the race”

Matt Martin over at MNpublius lays out what’s going on:

Polinaut just broke the news that the MN GOP is buying $110K in ads next week for Erik Paulsen… $110,000!!  But wait, it gets worse, the NRCC has 5 buys (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) for over $390K from yesterday through 28th… $390,375!!!!!  But you’re saying, “well, at least they’re stopping shy of election day.”  Hold on, it gets worse!  Erik Paulsen’s campaign itself is chipping in a cool $275K for ad buys up to November 4th… $275,000!!!  Does your head hurt yet?  Just wait, it gets worse!  Between the 28th and the 4th of November, the RNCC, hold your breath for this one, is spending $305K over 5 different buys… $305,225!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (my head is exploding).

Without even factoring in the radio buys that the GOP and other Republican interest groups are running in the 3rd as we speak, the above brings the total for GOP major-player (sate party, NRCC, and Paulsen) ad buys to over $1,000,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans are trying to buy this race from us.  They’ve seen Madia working his butt off and they’ve been unable to sell Erik Paulsen on his record, so they’ve turned to the last ditch option the GOP always turns to: break out the big-bucks and attack, attack, attack!

Matt is absolutely right. Please give today.

Negative ads are coming in MN-03!

Now that the National Republicans have changed their minds — again — and decided to give up on Michele Bachmann, their nastiness will be redirected at Ashwin Madia. A boatload of negative ads will be airing against Madia soon, on both TV and the radio.

The NRCC isn’t even the only group that will be attempting to off Madia. MPR’s Tom Scheck reports that the State GOP will be helping, too:

The Minnesota Republican Party has bought ad time to help Erik Paulsen’s Congressional bid. The Republican Party has bought 110 thousand worth of ads at KARE and WCCO. The ads will run in the final week of the campaign. A GOP source said the ads will run on all four Twin Cities broadcast stations.

Ladies and gentleman, be prepared for a lot of nastiness. The Republicans are getting absolutely desperate here. They had already given up on this seat a few weeks ago, but now they’ve lost Bachmann, and they are watching almost every single Congressional seat in Minnesota go blue. This is their last-ditch effort, and make no mistake — it will be disgusting.

Please give now and help Madia rise above the mud that’s going to be flung at him.

Thoughts from the final CD3 debate with Madia, Paulsen, and Dillon

Just like I wrote for the last Senate debate, if you’ve already listened to the rest of the CD3 debates, you didn’t hear anything new last night. Personally, I think that Paulsen really needed something a bit better than “same old, same old” to start making up some ground on Madia. After last night’s relatively tame debate, Paulsen is only going to have one option: negative ads. I hope readers in the 3rd District are able to survive the onslaught that’s coming with their sanity intact.

Some thoughts from the debate:

—

Ashwin Madia, as always, was relentlessly on message. So on-message, in fact, that at times it got a little tiresome; I could probably some pretty close to reciting his opening statement word for word by this point.

—

One of the biggest reasons I respect Ashwin Madia is that he has the courage to tell the voters that borrowing and spending — and promising everything to everybody — is not sustainable. Election season is the time, as Madia has said, when we promise both tax cuts and spending increases. At serious risk to his political capital, Madia isn’t afraid to tell people that we’re going to need to make sacrifices.

—

I continue to be disappointed at conservatives’ willingness to incorrectly blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the housing crisis. I’ve explained several times why this is not only wrong, but missing the underlying causes of the housing crisis. I’m concerned that people like Erik Paulsen and David Dillon would fight against properly regulating our economy.

—

David Dillon has railed against partisanship and and special interests plenty, but he hasn’t made a convincing case for why he’d be a good Representative.

—

Madia is wise to hitch himself to “vote for change.” This race is close, but he is likely to ride Obama’s coattails to victory.

—

Erik Paulsen was at the debate, too.

Flailing National Republicans try lying to save Erik Paulsen

The National Republican Congressional Committee, after pulling out of the 3rd district race to save Michele Bachmann, has now decided they can’t save Bachmann, and they’re back to going after Ashwin Madia. The NRCC ad follows the tried and true Republican formula: take a couple of words from a candidate’s statement out of context and imply that they will, in fact, destroy all life as we know it. In this particular ad, it’s taxes. Here’s the discussion the NRCC takes out of context in their ad; especially take a look from about 1:20 to 2:15.

The key passage, at around the 2 minute mark:

If this war is so important that we can ask for sacrifices [from our soldiers], then we can darn well ask the top 1 percent of people in this country to sacrifice their tax cuts to help pay for it. [emphasis added]

That seems reasonable to me. Why should the entire war be paid for by the middle class and our children? Madia, like Obama and other Democrats, supports rolling back Bush’s unprecedented tax cuts for the very wealthiest.

What does the NRCC have to say about it? I’m paraphrasing here, but the gist is that Madia will tax you out of your house and home. Also, he’ll tax your puppies and kittens. See the video below for the ad.

Well, Dear Readers, it’s your choice. Which do you believe: what Ashwin Madia actually said, or what the desperate Republicans say he said?

For Ashwin Madia, the most incredible week ever

As recently as last week, the race for Minnesota’s 3rd District seemed to lean Republican. But then Ashwin Madia had the most incredible week I’ve ever seen. Yesterday, I wrote about it in a piece exclusive to MN Campaign Report:

First, a poll showed him ahead of Erik Paulsen by 5 points. Then, the NRCC canceled a week of advertising for Paulsen. Yesterday, a second poll showed him ahead. And now, team Madia has come out with fundraising numbers that blow even their own previously impressive hauls out of the water.

A source has told MN Campaign Report that, at 2 p.m. today, the Madia campaign will announce that they have raised $997,632 for the quarter. This is a massive number. Madia has now raised over $2 million for his Congressional campaign.

What a week! Two polls showing him in the lead, the National Republicans starting to pull out of the race, and a massive fundraising haul of nearly a million bucks! Keep an eye on Madia, dear readers. He is going to be the first Democrat to represent the 3rd district in over 50 years.

National GOP gives up on Paulsen, struggles to keep Bachmann

Ouch. MPR has some bad, bad news for the Republicans:

I checked the ad buys at WCCO-TV today and found that the National Republican Congressional Committee has canceled a week of ads that were scheduled to run on Republican Erik Paulsen’s behalf.

…The NRCC has been forced to play defense this year so the money reserved for Paulsen may be going to an incumbent in a tough race.

Meanwhile, the NRCC will also run ads on GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann’s behalf. The NRCC has reserved time on Bachmann’s behalf to run between October 20th and election day (at a cost of about $126k) at WCCO.

The NRCC looks like they’re getting ready to give up on Paulsen. This comes, of course, in light of a poll by their Democratic counterparts showing Madia up by 5. Does the NRCC’s internal polling agree that Madia’s in the lead? It sure looks like that, doesn’t it? In the weeks ahead, will they pull out of the 3rd district entirely? That would be a huge blow for Paulsen.

Not only is the NRCC pulling out of a race once considered a toss-up, they’re also being forced to defend a seat that was considered a likely Republican hold. Maybe voters in the 6th district are finally tired of their representative having more time for Larry King than her constituents. Whatever the reason, this is shaping up to be a bad year for the GOP in Minnesota.

Thoughts on the 3rd district debate

I was unable to make it to last night’s 3rd district debate between Ashwin Madia, Erik Paulsen, and David Dillon. I’m currently listening to it, courtesy of MPR. Here are some thoughts on the debate.

1. The difference between Paulsen and Madia is immediately apparent during the opening statements: Paulsen talks a lot about what is wrong in our country. Madia talks about how to fix it.

2. It was amazing to listen to Erik Paulsen try to run away from his record. After claiming that Ashwin Madia was taking his votes on intelligent design out of context, he repeatedly refused to actually explain what the bill said that he voted for. This lead to a great line from Madia: “I’m going to yield you my time, and you can explain the context to these people.”

3. Ashwin Madia once again showed that he clearly understands the problems facing our nation, the causes of them, and that he’s willing to take on both parties. This was the best line of the night:

We are essentially running our country like Lehman Brothers made their company, which is that we are leveraging everything in this country, because we’ve had politicians for the past several years who would come and tell you this: I’ll give you health care. I’ll give you education. I’ll fight Afghanistan for you. I’ll fight Iraq for you. I’ll fight terrorism for everyone. I’ll give you all health care, and you know what? I’ll cut all your taxes at the exact same time.

This is simply unsustainable, and once again, kudos to Ash for admitting it.

4. I can’t help but wonder whether Paulsen understands how the Bush tax cuts worked. Was this attack on Ash intellectually dishonest, or does Paulsen really think this is how the tax cuts are structured? Paulsen said:

Mr. Madia can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you’re against a $2.3 trillion tax cut and then say you’re for 98 percent of it. That doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s be really clear here. Madia is in favor of tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. But, because of how warped Bush’s tax cuts were, that’s nowhere near 98 percent of the money. According to news sources pulled together by the DNC, more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent. Does Paulsen actually believe these tax cuts benefit the majority of Americans? Maybe he needs to study them some more.

Conservative logic

Maybe the Republicans are just so busy they don’t have time to read all the way to the end.

That would explain this popular conservative debate tactic: quoting a small portion of an out-of-context study, and assuming that nobody will bother to read the rest. Unfortunately for the Republican party, Joe Bodell does his homework. After reading what I’ve got posted below, you’ll see that there are only two possibilities: either Republican party officials are being deliberately dishonest, or they’re genuinely too lazy to read an entire report.

The GOP yesterday gleefully attacked Ashwin Madia’s plan to reduce the cost of Medicare by negotiating drug prices. Before I even go any farther, let me ask: is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that negotiating better prices would somehow fail to save money? I mean, common sense is common sense, right? But fighting hard against common sense and reality, the MN GOP released the following statement:

Ashwin Madia falsely contradicted Erik Paulsen when he said that the Congressional Budget Office reported there would be $30 billion in savings if Medicare Part D were to negotiate for drug prices.  Rep. Paulsen was correct: the Congressional Budget Office has said it would only have a negligible effect on drug prices. (via Republican Press Releases ‘R Us)

Sure, in a way I suppose Paulsen was correct — If you stop reading at just the right moment. Joe Bodell dug up a more complete version of the CBO report:

By itself, giving the Secretary broad authority to negotiate drug prices would not provide the leverage necessary to generate lower prices than those obtained by PDPs and thus would have a negligible effect on Medicare drug spending. Negotiation is likely to be effective only if it is accompanied by some source of pressure on drug manufacturers to secure price concessions. The authority to establish a formulary, set prices administratively, or take other regulatory actions against firms failing to offer price reductions could give the Secretary the ability to obtain significant discounts in negotiations with drug manufacturers. In the absence of such authority, the Secretary’s ability to issue credible threats or take other actions in an effort to obtain significant discounts would be limited.

Gee, do you suppose these actions might be part of Madia’s plan? Do you think it’s possible he actually read the whole thing? Because I know Ashwin Madia; he’s a thoughtful, intelligent guy who has no doubt read more than two sentences of the report.

Oh, those GOP press releases. They put the “diss” back in intellectual dishonesty.

Republican “outrage machine” sputters to life to defend Paulsen after CD3 debate

At Tuesday night’s CD3 debate, Eric Paulsen found himself trapped a few times by Ashwin Madia. Paulsen has a major problem: he’s been trying to hide from his record, but Ashwin Madia keeps bringing it up. Check out this clip about negotiating drug prices from the debate. Not only is Paulsen wrong on the issue, but watch him stammer, try to change the subject, and generally do everything to avoid talking about his record.

Now, in a fairly desperate bit of spin, the Republicans are once again trotting out a strategy that’s worked well for John McCain: phony outrage. Former Paulsen spokesman Michael Brodkorb is SO ANGRY! that somebody posted a portion of the debate on YouTube:

Team Madia and their liberal allies can’t defend Ashwin Madia’s false statements made during last evening’s debate, so someone creates an anonymous YouTube account to smear Erik Paulsen. While the DFL and liberal bloggers all link to the video (it’s likely that one of them created the account), nobody has the guts to put a disclaimer on their handywork.

You know you have a bad candidate when posting his own words from a televised debate is considered a smear. Oh, the outrage! How dare someone post what Paulsen said? You can’t take any of that seriously — don’t they know he’s just pandering to the voters? Dear readers, please go check out this “anonymous YouTube account to smear Erik Paulsen.” All it contains are two clips from the CD3 debate.

I have a solution for the Paulsen campaign, though. If Paulsen doesn’t want his debate performances publicized, he should simply stop participating in debates. That should help protect him against “anonymous liberal smears.”

MN-03: Erik Paulsen finally starts participating in campaign

Wow, it’s about time. Erik Paulsen has finally joined the CD3 Congressional campaign, where Ashwin Madia is making major inroads in a district that was once solidly Republican. Apparently, this was enough to break Paulsen out of his hibernation:

Ashwin Madia Campaign Puts up Record Number of Lawn Signs

Visible Displays Suggest Strong Enthusiasm Building for the Iraq Veteran

MAPLE GROVE, MN ― Ashwin Madia, Iraq war veteran and the DFL-endorsed candidate for Congress in Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District, announced his campaign had placed over 1,500 lawn signs over the weekend of September 6-7, and at households in every city throughout the district.

So Paulsen finally struck back. Did he reveal a large number of his own supporters with lawn signs? No, of course not. He spent a whole bunch of money to purchase huge billboards looking down on the district. Will the voters be impressed? No one can say, but it’s not surprising to see that his former spokesman is.

Voters should note that, once again, Paulsen continues to rely on pictures of himself with Jim Ramstad to win this election. Of course, he’s a lot closer to Michele Bachmann that Jim Ramstad, but that hasn’t stopped him from trying to fool the voters. As a matter of fact, he seems to be under the impression that as long as he has that picture, he doesn’t really have to work very hard.

At around the same time, Paulsen also released his first ad. Once again, late to the party. I’m also impressed about how completely devoid of content Paulsen’s first ad is. But hey, thanks for making your children star in it!

Welcome, Erik, to the campaign. It’s been going on for quite a while now, but I’m sure you’ll get the hang of it.

After the break: the Paulsen ad, and the Madia press release regarding lawn signs

Read more »