Buckle Up in CD6

"This Race is Red Hot" says this morning's Minneapolis Star Tribune front page story, which reports on the recent campaign finance reports on our Sixth District Congressional Race.  DFL State Senator Tarry Clark raised about $ 0.9 million just since April and Republican incumbent U.S. Representative Michele  Bachmann raised about $ 1.7 million.  These are record amounts for either candidate, any party, and any U.S. House race in Minnesota history.  I will add that much of Clark's total is due to Bachmann's status as a national bogeywoman hated by the Democratic Party.  Tarryl Clark, or a Clark Tarryl, either would be raising about the same amount of money.

For who is Tarryl Clark?  Yes, an attorney as is Bachmann, but politically just a community activist until five years ago when she won a 2005 special election into the Minnesota Senate, winning re-election in 2006.  That election returned the Minnesota House to DFL control, who fielded a brand new leadership team in both chambers.  Clark leapfrogged many others to suddenly become the Assistant Majority Leader in the Senate.  But after a few "not ready for prime time" gaffes her first year in that position, we've seen relatively little of her since.

So why is Tarryl Clark the nominee?  For one thing, this isn't a state-wide race, meaning candidates must live in the Sixth Congressional District (CD), where the DFL does not rule like in CD4 or CD5.  It's her or Elwyn Tinklenberg - or another outsider like Patty Wetterling (2006) or Ashwin Madia (2008).  But as those two elections have shown, the nominee is not the marquee.  They will run against Bachmann, not for Clark.  They're not likely to succeed, but as today's fundraising totals show, they still generate a lot of cash and a lot of volunteer energy that no doubt will spill over into other races.

So what is Tarryl Clark?  Cannon fodder perhaps, but more importantly, a blank slate where Democrats everywhere in and out of CD6 can write their positions.  Whatever they are, Michele Bachmann as a principled conservative will likely be against them and Clark's short record likely won't say otherwise.  Again, this brings out the money and the volunteers that lifts other campaigns as well.  If Clark loses as expected, well, it was expected.  But if our outspoken incumbent should have an E-85 moment giving Clark the victory, Bachmann's head will be on the DFL trophy wall.

So how will Tarryl Clark campaign?  Against Bachmann, viciously so, again.  We've already seen our first example, the Michele Bachmann loves BP ads.  But it will get worse, much worse.  Four years ago I bemoaned how "Saint" Patti Wetterling so surprisingly ran what I considered the most outrageous campaign I'd seen.  Wetterling herself went on camera and openly, obviously lied.  Bad as that was, Madia's campaign set an even lower mark two years later, to the point where even the Star Tribune and others in the normally compliant media had to wince and cry foul.

Buckle up.  The people that gave all that money Clark has raised will want some mud and blood in return.  Tarryl doesn't seem anywhere near strong enough to step out in front of this "Dump Bachmann" (and worse) mob and focus on issues.  Besides, her positions are Obama's positions and Kelliher's positions and they're not going to play well.  Hope and Change is over and out this year.

Comments

[Hiram]

I had doubts about Tarryl's candidacy and couldn't quite understand why she wanted a job that might well disappear in two years, but when the Republicans came out in favor of BP, her chances did improve immeasurably.

[Speed Gibson]

We came out for BP's day(s) in court, not strong-arming in the White House. The rule of law, not the rule of men.

[The Big Stink]

Goes to show you the nuance of the spin. Clark's campaign will require massive infusions of ignorance. Personally, I think she's equal to the task - I've heard her speak! However, in 2010 a Clark victory will require a public that is not only uniformed and ignorant - but, blind to the list of the bow.

[Hiram]

"We came out for BP's day(s) in court, not strong-arming in the White House."

I have genuine doubt as to whether years of litigation pursued by high priced corporate lawyers representing clients with the deepest of pockets holds out much hope for justice to the fisherrmen of Louisiana who need to know how to pay for this week's groceries, and next week's boat payment.

[Brent]

But if our outspoken incumbent should have an E-85 moment....

You should probably call it a BP moment, and we might find out it has already happened to Bachmann's detriment

[The Big Stink]

The amazing thing about Bachmann's persona is the people in her district don't have to guess what's in her heart. They know. This moment will be a minor speed bump in the campaign. The thing about Republicans is they are given no "mulligans" by the press. What you have to consider today - that you didn't 20 years ago - is the press is held in lower regard than politicians.

[Hiram]

Well, I think she does have a sense of things she can't say. She does have some sort of dim understanding that she can't take the side of BP openly. But I do agree that it's generally clear enough what's contained in her heart, along with what's lacking in her head.

[J. Ewing]

Oh, come now. Clark took Bachmann's comment completely out of context, wrapped it in a new context which was a complete and utter lie, and is trying to make gold leaf parchment out of yesterday's fishwrap. Most of the folks in the 6th don't believe that bilge Clark is peddling, and they shouldn't. Just spell Tarryl backwards.

[Hiram]

Michele is providing much in the way of context, so others will provide it for her. If she wants to give a press conference on the issue or sit down with a reporter and go into these issues in depth, I would be glad to hear what she has to say.

[J. Ewing]

You don't need much additional information to know that Michelle's original comment was regarding Obama's Chicago-thug-style shakedown "escrow account" that he forced out of BP, completely outside of the legal liabilty system, completely outside the rule of law. THAT is what Rep. Bachmann objected to, as rightfully she should. Tarryl Clark says that means Bachmann wanted BP to escape all legal liability. That was an outright lie.

[Hiram]

But that's the point isn't it? Michele's concern is with the poor little oil company that is despoiling America.

I am truly touched by Lawyer Bachmann's suddenly emergent faith in America's tort system. It's not a context she has previously provided. Corporations, the Supreme Court tells us, are now individuals with first amendment rights with which we have to be concerned. But they are individuals who don't need to eat, and they are individuals whose capacity to delay the just compensation for wrongs inflicted on those who do borders on the infinite.

[J. Ewing]

Agreed, though your attempt to assassinate Bachmann's character based on your own prejudices is unseemly and totally unnecessary. The tort system often dispenses too little justice, erring in both directions. But there is total INJUSTICE (thug politics, is what it is, bordering on criminal) in bullying a corporation or "individual" out of $20 billion, to be used totally at the bully's discretion. The fishermen are unlikely to see a dime of that money, and it makes it that much less likely that BP will be able to pay said fishermen after the cost of cleanup. Add to that Mr. Obama's constant browbeating of BP, driving down their stock price, and notice how he has put additional pressure on the company's survival. Corporations don't need to eat, but they do have to break even or they cannot pay ANYBODY what they are due. Just like the spill itself, Obama has done nothing but make a proper resolution of the tort issue less likely. Bachmann is exactly right to criticize, and Clark is just playing dirty politics.

[Hiram]

I am not attempting to assassinate Michele's character which I am sure is just fine. I am critical of her decision to take the side of an oil company against the people of the Gulf Coast whose lives and livelihood the company has damaged. As for the notion that an oil company responsible for perhaps the worst environmental catastrophe history should somehow be exempt from what strikes me as the exceedingly mild scoldings they have received from the White House, well that strikes me as just strange.

[Hiram]

By the way, one basic reason for getting the money from BP now is that they are clearly headed for bankruptcy. By the time the tort actions are resolved, the company and it's assets, in all likelihood, will be long gone.

[anonymous]

FWIW, my issue with Bachmann is that she's the textbook do-nothing politician. She proposes very few bills, passes none, and spends her time and staff funds on media appearances.

If she wants to be a pundit or a think-tanker, godspeed. She'd be a very good one. But if I were one of the 54% of the voters in the Sixth who didn't vote for her, I'd be pretty mad about the (lack of) representation. She hasn't sponsored a single bill that's made it out of committee since she was elected in 2007. Not much of a record to run on, is it?

--Annie

[J. Ewing]

hiram, assuming that Bachmann would "take the side of an oil company..." IS casting unwarranted aspersions on her character. NOBODY, excepting perhaps the most cold-hearted BP attorney, wants the people of the Gulf stiffed of their legitimate due. The "exceedingly mild scoldings" have driven BP stock down some 40% and further worsened relationships with Great Britain as they find the "scoldings" brazen and decidedly unhelpful. "Pure political claptrap" is, I believe, one of the criticisms leveled.

And you are simply wrong about "getting the money from BP now" because not one red cent of that will ever find its way to the people with a legitimate tort claim, unless they happen to be Obama voters. It's purely a political slush fund. Need proof? Gulf fisherman already have existing claim settlements, but they haven't been paid. Why doesn't Obama pay them? Isn't that what the money is supposedly for, or is it just a political slush fund?

Either way, Clark's ad is a despicable lie, and negative campaigning at its worst. It's one thing to say your opponent has made a bad vote or action, or even misspoken. To imply that said statement or action stems from an evil character is worse, and to say it outright is outrageous.

[J. Ewing]

Annie, if "do-nothing" is what Bachmann is, I would wish for a couple of hundred in Washington just like her. Everything Democrats in Congress "reform" makes matters just that much worse. Replacing them with a half-cord of deadwood would be an improvement. Sharp people like Bachmann could get more done-- starting with reversing past idiocies-- if she were in the majority. In the minority, about all she can do is rail against the majority, and she is good at it. It's not like she could pass a bill, even if she authored one, is it?

[Hiram]

"assuming that Bachmann would "take the side of an oil company..." IS casting unwarranted aspersions on her character."

I disagree, but if you think her taking the side of BP demonstrates a character flaw, so be it. More generally, I don't take the position that disagreement with me on political issues, is evidence that someone else is possessed of a character flaw. Nor do I ever question the patriotism of those who disagree with me, as Michele Bachmann has, something which I do believe is evidence of a flawed character on her part.

I really don't think BP is comprised of bad people. But whatever their motivations, whatever their subjective character, they did a very bad thing and it will be the ruin of their business. It quite simply is not Barack Obama destroying the Gulf Coast and it is not Barack Obama who is selling and shorting BP shares driving the price down. The wonder to me is not that the shares have declined in value but that anyone is willing to pay anything for them at all.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with negative campaigning when there is a valid issue that happens to reflect negatively on a candidate as this one does. Michele Bachmann had and has the opportunity to stand up forthrightly for the people of the Gulf and against those who despoil our coasts. She chose a different path, and so she must accept the political consequences of that choice.

[The Big Stink]

Annie: Bachmann's intentions are crystal clear. Were she in the majority, you would complain she were trying to do too much, too fast, I suspect. Her role, at present, is to act as loyal opposition to the socialist agenda being ramrodded through by the current regime - a role she has performed admirably.

[J. Ewing]

hiram, I have to admire your confidence in what you think you know. You still believe that Michelle Bachmann has "taken sides" against the "little guy." You claim to know Michelle's character from one statement, taken out of context and wrapped in a political opponent's negative campaign ad. You state confidently that Barack Obama is not driving down the price of BP stock, but of what use are his grossly negative statements about BP "personally" if not? Intentions don't matter as much as results, wehether you are Obama or Bachmann. Obama has succeeded, intent notwithstanding, of making BP far less able to pay legitimate legal claims, while trying to make the US oil industry as a whole less viable.

I agree that negative campaigning works. But there is something seriously wrong when the negative campaign is based on an out-and-out lie. Of course, when your opponent is absolutely right on the issue, and you need to make political hay right away, that is what you do if you're Lyin' Tarryl Clark.

[Hiram]

"You claim to know Michelle's character from one statement, taken out of context and wrapped in a political opponent's negative campaign ad."

Again, it's not a question of character. Michele can take BP's side, and still maintain a very nice character. I just don't ever see political differences as raising issues of character. It just isn't immoral to disagree with me.

"You state confidently that Barack Obama is not driving down the price of BP stock, but of what use are his grossly negative statements about BP "personally" if not?"

Stocks are my thing, and clearly BP is headed to zero, and that's because their potential liability for the damage they have done to the Gulf Coast will eventually exceed their assets. Nothing Barack Obama has said or possibly could ever say, changes that fact.

"Obama has succeeded, intent notwithstanding, of making BP far less able to pay legitimate legal claims, while trying to make the US oil industry as a whole less viable."

BP's ability to pay for the damage it has caused has nothing at all to do with it's stock price. BP doesn't own BP. Someone else does, and sadly they will pay the price for the way their company mismanaged the assets that were entrusted to it.

"But there is something seriously wrong when the negative campaign is based on an out-and-out lie."

No one disputes what Bachmann said. If she doesn't like the context in which it was placed, she should provide her own. That's something she does not do.

[anonymous]

"ntentions don't matter as much as results, wehether you are Obama or Bachmann."

I agree. So again, look at Bachmann's record of results--not bold pronouncements--and tell me about her success to date.

" But there is something seriously wrong when the negative campaign is based on an out-and-out lie. Of course, when your opponent is absolutely right on the issue, and you need to make political hay right away, that is what you do if you're Lyin' Tarryl Clark."

If you want to talk about record of truth (aside from the campaign) I direct you to the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact, and Bachmann's record of truth there (hint, it's somewhere between "false: and "pants on fire").

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/

--Annie

[J. Ewing]

OK, I read it. It looks like it was written by hiram. :-) (or Rahm Emanuel) They twist statements and facts into pretzel shapes that the Germans never imagined. I would label each of the first 5 on the page absolutely true, yet this website finds a way to call them false. For example, Social Security IS out of money this year, taking in less than it pays out, and therefore drawing the difference from the general treasury. They're not spending the "trust fund" because it's nothing but a bunch of IOUs from Congress, and the only way to turn them into cash to pay out benefits is to take money from the general treasury. How can pointing out the obvious be "false"?

Of course, not everyone knows this because the Obama administration has held back the report of the Social Security administrators and auditors that is ALWAYS made public in May. What do you suppose they are hiding?

Is calling your opponent a liar when they call you a liar really the best way to get at the truth?

[Hiram]

I avoid Nazi analogies too.

Social Security isn't "borrowing" from the general treasury. Over the years, the general treasury has borrowed from Social Security and this year, SS is simply calling in some of those loans. As you correctly state, there is no trust fund. What you refer to as IOU's are bonds, legal obligations of the government which Republicans have at various times signaled a desire to dishonor.

[anonymous]

Wow. Really, J? If you read the supporting document, the chief actuary of the SSA says her info is wrong: the trust fund has enough funds to pay out for approx 25 years and that the SSA is not borrowing from the general treasury. Period.

Social Security is a mess, but if Bachmann were interested in fixing it, I'd suggest she work on bipartisan legislation to address the problem. Except she doesn't really do much legislating.

Some of my own favorite political types have been soundly spanked on Politifact--it's very nonpartisan. And the analysis and research behind those rankings are entirely sound.

On a related note, there was a report released yesterday that found when people are confronted with facts that contradict their own long-held beliefs, they often choose to simply question the veracity of those facts. So there's that. .

--Annie