Archive for the ‘Michele Bachmann’ Category
Despite what Sartell Mayor Joe Perske told WCCO’s Esme Murphy, he’s still fighting a steep uphill fight:
Perske said that he thinks, while the district may be heavily favored toward Republican candidates, “people want a change.”
Perkse added that he believes “people are sick of the polarizing politics that we’ve seen with Michele Bachmann, and I think we’re just going to get more of the same with Tom Emmer. If you take a look at his past record of what he’s done in the state legislature, and you take a look at the things he’s said, (he’s) very similar in being on that right side with the Tea Party.”
First, it’s clear that Perske’s only hope of getting elected is in a) turning Tom Emmer into the biggest boogeyman this side of the Koch Brothers and b) getting voters to ignore what’s important to them.
Perske needs three other things to happen to win. He needs to have an instant name ID bomb to go off in the Sixth so people south of St. Cloud know who he is. At the moment, his name ID in Andover, Annandale, Anoka, Becker, Big Lake, Clear Lake and Clearwater is on a par with my name ID in those cities.
I’m pretty certain my name ID is virtually non-existent in those cities. Welcome to the club, Joe.
Another thing Perske needs is a mass cash infusion so he can at least run enough ads so people in Big Lake and Clearwater know who he is. (Perske should forget about becoming known in the south Metro part of the district.)
Finally, to be competitive, Perske needs the Sixth to become much more moderate between now and election day. Since that ain’t happening, Perske should accept the fact that he’s gonna get beaten like a drum.
Emmer’s team is working hard. They’re showing up at all the right events. They’re having discussions with all the right people. They’ve got a great GOTV operation.
Most importantly, Emmer’s team has something that Perske doesn’t have. Specifically, they’ve got a candidate who’s a great fit for the Sixth.
In 2010, Tarryl Clark had a well-financed campaign. Michele beat her by 13 points. This year, Perske is woefully underfunded in a year that’s likely to be another good year for the MNGOP.
The likely outcome is Emmer beating Perske like a drum.
This LTE is just another helping of DFL gibberish:
Joe Perske, who is a candidate for the 6th Congressional District, is the kind of person we need to represent us in Washington.
Joe has worked in local politics for the past 10 years and has advocated diligently for workers and families in this area. He has an incredible gift of being able to relate to people from all walks of life. He has the integrity we are lacking in Washington today.
Recently he was endorsed by the Minnesota AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education for his positions and record on issues of importance to workers and their families. The endorsement is based on his steadfast support of working families.
The notion that a DFL congressional candidate getting endorsed by the AFL-CIO isn’t news. Based on their list of endorsees, if you had a D behind your name, you were endorsed.
Simply put, Perske is just another tax-raising liberal. His history is littered with raising propert taxes and spending money foolishly.
In 2010, I wrote that Tarryl faced an uphill climb against Michele Bachmann. Tarryl lost by 13 points, the biggest winning margin in Michele’s congressional career. If Republicans work hard this year, the DFL will look at the Michele vs. Tarryl as the good old days.
Tom Emmer is a great fit for the district. He’s fiscally conservative, which is important. Most importantly, he’s a reform-minded conservative.
This St. Cloud Times article reads like a Dayton administration press release. Here’s the newsy part of the Dayton press release:
Gov. Mark Dayton’s announcement Thursday that up to $46 million will be spent as soon as summer to expand Interstate Highway 94 between Rogers and St. Michael is extremely welcome news.
As Dayton and Minnesota Department of Transportation Charlie Zelle noted in meeting with this board prior to the announcement, these bonding dollars are not just a down payment on expanding this critical corridor all the way to St. Cloud, but in providing the funding necessary to maintain and expand roads and highways statewide.
Nowhere in the Dayton press release did they talk about the Dayton administration’s disapproval for the expansion project when they attempted to thwart Michele Bachmann’s proposal:
But Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the I-94 widening doesn’t rank high on the agency’s long-term list of priority projects. “There are projects like this all across the state — really good projects, really important projects, projects that have tremendous support like this,” he said. “It all really boils down to the funding piece.”
It’s clear that the Dayton administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Here’s how the Times attempts to spin this project:
The focus of Corridors of Commerce is to improve roads that are bottlenecked or considered critical to regional economic development but not funded under MnDOT’s latest “fiscally constrained” 20-year transportation plan.
That’s insulting. MnDOT’s budget isn’t “fiscally constrained.” It’s politically constrained, especially when Michele Bachmann was trying to get I-94 expanded. Back then, MnDOT said directly that I-94 expansion didn’t “rank high on the agency’s…priority projects.” Back then, MnDOT’s spokesman hinted that the expansion ranked behind “really important projects.”
Gov. Dayton’s facade is that of a nice guy. When politics are involved, he’s a sharp-elbowed ideologue. I’m betting that he’s only supporting the I-94 expansion to get support for a massive tax increase to pay for his light rail projects. Minnesotans are taxed too much already. The last thing we need is to raise taxes to support failed light rail projects.
When Steve Murphy’s Transportation Tax Bill passed in 2008, I predicted that the DFL would whine that the tax increase wasn’t enough to add lanes to roads. I also predicted that they’d be back for another massive tax increase. It took them longer than I expected but they’re back asking for another major tax increase.
Expanding I-94 is the right thing to do. That’s why Michele Bachmann fought for it. Gov. Dayton isn’t as interested in doing the right thing as he is interested in playing politics with economic growth. Gov. Dayton didn’t like the expansion until he was pressured by David Fitzsimmons, Mary Kiffmeyer and other Republicans from central Minnesota.
Minnesota needs a governor who does the right thing for the right reasons. We don’t need a governor who moistens his finger before making a policy decision.
This morning on @Issue, Javier Morillo-Alicea, the president of SEIU Local 26, hinted that state unions would work with ABM in funding a mudslinging campaign against the GOP-endorsed candidate for the Sixth District. Here’s what he said:
Michele Bachmann wasn’t the problem. Michele Bachmann was a symptom of the problem. The problem is a party that is so far outside the mainstream, a party that is so far outside of Americans’ thinking…We’ll see who the Republicans put up…because the Republican primary and endorsement process…even if the person isn’t Michele Bachmann at the start of the process, they’ll be Michele Bachmann by the end of the process.
That’s spin. It’s likely how ABM will attack the GOP-endorsed candidate, too.
Those attacks will start before the endorsing convention. They’ll intensify once a candidate is endorsed. ABM’s history, which the SEIU is part of, is littered with stinging criticism of their advertisements. ABM is known for having mounted the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history.
Why should people think ABM won’t try smearing Michele’s successor? They’ve shown that the truth isn’t important to them.
Republicans shouldn’t take the Sixth for granted even though they start with a distinct advantage. Though it isn’t likely they’ll dump tons of money into this race, Republicans shouldn’t just assume ABM won’t try mounting a smear campaign against their endorsed candidate.
When Michele Bachmann officially becomes a private citizen again, the St. Cloud Times will need to find a new villain. Their hatred of all things Michele has been documented throughout the years. I’m not sure I ever read them praise her. If they did, it was buried in their avalanche of criticism of Michele. The Times’ hatred of her stems mostly from Randy Krebs. His op-ed is filled with incredible criticism. This one is most ironic:
I find the most stunning aspect of Bachmann’s political style is her refusal to admit she makes mistakes. It’s like she’s perfect, like she walks on water.
This coming from a man who isn’t capable of admitting he’s ever made a mistake. Last year, when Michele and 4 other conservative Republicans worried about the State Department’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood slant, I tried submitting a YTE editorial. Randy Krebs rejected the YTE, calling my statements “unsubstantiated allegations.” I explained in this post how Krebs wasn’t just a little bit wrong:
This week, I attempted to submit an LTE defending Michele Bachmann. I tried highlighting the fact that the questions Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney asked were both legitimate and substantive. I used information from Andrew McCarthy’s article to show that Huma Abedin’s parents had significant ties to radical Islam, including to the Wahhabist movement that produced 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists.
Despite quoting Mr. McCarthy’s impeccable documentation for the LTE, Mr. Krebs told me that they wouldn’t publish an LTE based on “unsubstantiated allegations.” It’s insulting that Mr. Krebs would argue about “unsubstantiated allegations,” especially considering this research by Walid Shoebat. Shoebat’s research is detailed, on topic and damning. Mr. Shoebat was a “radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad” until his conversion to Christianity.
Here’s the subtitle to Mr. McCarthy’s article:
Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions.
Krebs’ blind hatred of Michele Bachmann wouldn’t permit him to admit that his criticism of Michele wasn’t right. He’d excoriated her for her calling for an investigation. The lead prosecutor in the trial against the Blind Sheikh said this about Michele’s claims:
Representative Bachmann is one of five House conservatives who have raised concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of our government. Glenn Beck reported Tuesday that GOP leadership is trying to extort an apology out of Bachmann by threatening to boot her from the House Intelligence Committee if she fails to submit.
That got me to wondering: Any chance Speaker Boehner might take just a couple of minutes out of his busy jihad against Bachmann to focus on how the State Department, during Ms. Abedin’s tenure, has cozied up to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist?
I suspect that the man who led the successful prosecution and conviction of the Blind Sheikh might know more about the Muslim Brotherhood than Mr. Krebs. When I pointed out that Mr. McCarthy was a respected expert on terrorism, I got an email from Krebs saying that my YTE was based on “unsubstantiated allegations.”
Isn’t it a bit ironic that Krebs now whines that Michele can’t admit when she’s wrong? First, shouldn’t Krebs practice what he preaches before criticizing others for what he won’t do? Mr. Krebs, if you aren’t willing to admit your verifiable mistakes, why should we listen to anything you say?
Finally, it’s long past time for Mr. Krebs to admit that Michele’s positives exist and that they’re important. Perhaps that isn’t possible because he’s approved far too many I-hate-Michele LTEs. The common trait of those LTEs is that they’re filled with emotion-filled, fact-free anti-Michele rants.
Witness her 2012 campaign. She agreed to only three debates with challenger Jim Graves, all within the last two weeks of the election. Only one of those was in a public setting, here in St. Cloud. But even it was moderated by the deep-red St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce.
The St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce is filled with people who believe in capitalism and who do good work. Saying that they’re “deep-red” isn’t just a stretch. It’s an exaggeration of epic proportions. That statement by Mr. Krebs shows just how liberal he is.
The Times is running a loose shop. If they don’t get their act together quickly, they’ll fade into irrelevance. That said, Mr. Krebs is in danger of that already.
When it comes to intellectual foolishness, it’s difficult to beat the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board. This editorial is laced with that intellectual foolishness. Here’s a prime example:
Sure, his desire to beat Bachmann is implied in most every speech, news release and public appearance. However, the words he speaks (and writes) literally list priorities that go well beyond who isn’t in office. Here are two very recent examples:
“… I’m running to work with both sides to find ways to balance the budget, keep our promises to seniors, create jobs and strengthen the middle class,” closes out a “Why I’m Running” explanation on his website.
“… As a businessman who has balanced budgets and created jobs, I’m running to work with both sides to find ways to balance the budget, keep our promises to seniors, create jobs and strengthen the middle class,” is the final quote he issued in announcing April 12 his candidacy for the 6th District seat in the 2014 elections.
So was that all just lip service?
It’s amazing that a supposedly high profile newspaper didn’t notice that Jim Graves’ platform was all about him not being Michele Bachmann. Either they didn’t notice or they’re pretending that they didn’t notice that that’s Graves’ motivation.
The foolishness continues:
Another big reason for disappointment is the stark reality that, contrary to Graves’ belief, Minnesota’s Republican Party, foundering amid an internal ideological war and massive debt, could very well end up nominating a candidate similar to Bachmann.
And to be even more honest, who is to say the DFL Party, emboldened by its dominance at the state level, might not just find an extreme DFLer to put on its ticket?
First, there isn’t another person who is as steadfast in her belief in the right things as Michele Bachmann. Her charisma, her policy chops and her love of limited government gave people a reason to vote for her.
Next, the DFL has nominated extremists before to run against Michele. Graves’ talk about being a new Democrat was a fallacy. Barney Frank, one of the most extremist, hateful Democrats in DC, hosted a fundraiser for him. Graves told me that the PPACA was a free market solution to the health care crisis. The truth is that it’s a government-centered program.
As this board noted last fall, the appeal of Graves is his moderate viewpoints. He was an island of common sense and potential compromise amid a sea of political extremism.
On the issues, Graves sounded more moderate than he really was. More importantly, his policies wouldn’t solve America’s problems. The PPACA won’t lower health care costs. In fact, health insurance premiums are rising rapidly. There will be almost as many uninsured with the PPACA in place as before. Graves the politician didn’t see the need for uprooting the PPACA.
Graves the politician never talked about the crippling effects of the federal government’s overregulation. Michele Bachmann fought against the federal government’s overregulation every minute she was in DC. America’s economy can’t grow with the regulators running wild. Graves didn’t have a plan for that. That’s because it wasn’t a priority for him.
If you don’t reduce the federal government’s overregulation, we can’t achieve energy independence. Jim Graves didn’t speak about the need for achieving energy independence. Michele frequently spoke about reducing regulations and achieving energy independence.
For all the Times talk about Graves the moderate, they’ve never spoken about his policies or his problem-solving abilities. They seemed to think that being a compromiser was the chief qualification for being a congressman. That type of wrong-headed thinking is what’s gotten America in the trouble it’s in.
We don’t need compromisers as much as we need people who get policies right. Michele Bachmann made some indefensible statements. That said, she’s been right on the issues, from energy independence to health care to taxes to regulations. I’d love it if the Times got rid of their irrational hatred of Michele. If they’d paid attention to the issues, they might’ve appreciated what Michele brought to the table.
Instead, they got a tingle up their leg for any DFL politician who criticized Michele. What a pathetic excuse for a newspaper.
Tom Steward’s article contains some spot-on analysis of the impact Michele Bachmann’s announcement will have on the DFL and the DCCC:
Strategists say it’s not a good day, however, for Graves’ chances to wrestle the seat out of the Republican column.
“Graves doesn’t have Bachmann to run against and partly I think he was benefiting by her being a lightning rod,” said political analyst David Schultz of Hamline University. “So now he’s got to worry about perhaps now there may be another Republican running who’s less of a lightning rod and doesn’t come with all the baggage Bachmann has.”
“Jim Graves’ candidacy is based on the fact he’s not Michelle Bachmann,” said Ben Golnik, a Republican consultant. “Graves went from a slight shot to virtually little chance of winning against a Republican candidate with a fresh slate.”
Jim Graves shouldn’t be underestimated. He’s got tons of money he can spend on his campaign. The media will take every opportunity to pretend that he’s a “new Democrat.” The DCCC will dump tons of money into the race.
That said, Graves’ only shot at winning in 2014 hinged on his ability to remind voters that he isn’t Michele Bachmann. That strategy disappeared this morning about 3:00 am. Whether it was Pelosi vilifying her or Bill Clinton vilifying Newt Gingrich, the reality is that Democrats need to a) run as something they’re not and b) run against a boogeyman.
When Michele’s video got noticed, the DFL’s and the DCCC’s biggest boogeywoman disappeared.
The loss of Bachmann also complicates Democratic messaging and fundraising well beyond the borders of her district. “Bachmann has been a great boon for Democratic fundraising and MSNBC has loved her,” Schultz said. “She’s become basically the person they get to rail against for ratings and to fund raise against and in the state of Minnesota she has been part of the face of the Republican party in Minnesota for the last eight to ten years. Her leaving just makes it harder for people to identify a boogeyman to run against.”
John Hinderaker’s post highlights just how foolish Democrats sound in their messaging with this commentary:
This morning the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an email commenting on Michele Bachmann’s announcement that she will not run again in 2014. The email employed the breezy, low-rent tone that the Democrats have perfected. You wonder who writes these things; is it a 22-year-old slacker, or is there some middle-aged guy who gets paid millions to impersonate one?
In their email fundraising appeal, they talked themselves into a circle. They started with this:
THIS IS HUGE! Now that the Tea Party’s ringleader has called it quits, Boehner has to be wondering who’s next to go. If we can sweep up 17 Republican seats, we can take Boehner’s Speaker’s gavel and win a Democratic House for President Obama!
Then they say this:
Bachmann’s announcement is a huge blow to vulnerable House Republicans, so we need to put the pressure on them while they’re still reeling.
The DCCC essentially said that she’s a crazy nutjob who is the key to the Republicans keeping their House majority. That’s as credible as saying that Jim Graves is a policy heavyweight. Now Graves is a man without a boogeyman to run against.
Randy Krebs, the Editorial Page editor at the St. Cloud Times, has repeatedly shown a willingness to apply a double standard to the LTEs he approves. It’s appalling that he’d approve this LTE. Look at this assertion of fact:
Because Bachmann is a tax attorney and once worked for the IRS, I find it ironic that she wants a deeper probe toward the actions that the IRS took. Nobody raised this kind of fuss when the IRS took similar action toward Democratic groups when Republicans were in the White House.
Claudette Moran is the idiot that wrote this LTE. Her accusations should be highlighted because they’re baseless. What proof does Claudette Moran have that the Bush administration used the IRS as a weapon against its political opponents? What proof does Krebs have of the Bush administration using the IRS as a weapon against their political opponents?
It’s guaranteed that the NY Times would’ve written a series of articles criticizing the Bush administration had the IRS been used as a weapon against their political opponents.
Krebs’ penchant for approving LTEs that make baseless accusations against Republicans is well-documented. This isn’t the first time he’s let a Republican hater make wild accusations. He’s especially notorious for approving this viled crap if Michele Bachmann is the person being accused.
It’s time for Mr. Krebs to show us proof that the Bush administration used the IRS as a political weapon. If he doesn’t produce that proof in a timely fashion, then people should think of him as being an unprofessional editor who’s willing to use a lenient standard for LTEs criticizing Republicans but who uses a tight standard for LTEs written by conservatives.
When Michele Bachmann joined with 4 other conservatives in calling for an IG investigation into whether the Muslim Brotherhood, I wrote an LTE that cited Andrew McCarthy, the man that prosecuted, then convicted, the Blind Sheikh and Walid Phares, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. These terrorism experts said that the “National Security Five” were justified in asking for this investigation.
Pretending to be a terrorism expert, Krebs said that these men’s information and opinions were tenuous. That’s the explanation he gave for why he wouldn’t approve my LTE. Krebs couldn’t permit an LTE that supported Michele Bachmann even though national experts verified the accuracy of her statements. Meanwhile, Krebs didn’t hesitate in publishing an LTE that made wild, baseless accusations that can’t be verified.
That certainly isn’t the picture of professionalism. Unfortunately, that isn’t surprising.
Wednesday night, Michele Bachmann was interviewed by Greta van Susteren about the IRS scandal. What she said is quite pertinent to the scandal:
Here’s the first exchange between Greta and Michele:
GRETA: And, of course, we’re all chewing on the news that Bret Baier sent me that he was at the end of his term at the end of the month and President Obama making the announcement that he’d resigned just a month early.
BACHMANN: Well, he was the perfect scapegoat. He was exiting the stage anyway and so they might as well make it look like they’re chopping his head off on the way out because it wasn’t going to happen anyway.
By the time Jay Carney gives the daily press briefing, people will be criticizing President Obama for attempting to pull a fast one on people. This scandal will hurt the administration because the IRS has a history of intimidating people and because of the fear IRS audits have caused.
Later in the interview, Ms. Bachmann talked about a major TEA Party press conference:
BACHMANN: This is a major press conference where all of the major TEA Party organizations from across the United States are coming together. We are having a major press conference at the Capital. Joining us will be Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee. There’ll be many members of the House of Representatives. But it’s to give a voice to the TEA Party because they are livid as you can imagine and these leaders want to react and tell their story publicly.
People have asked where the TEA Party has been. Frankly, they’ve been hiding after the left successfully vilified them. Rest assured, though, that they’ll be fired up after they’ve been targeted by the IRS. Rest assured, people will sympathize with them because people hate and fear the IRS.
Later, Rep. Bachmann dispatched with the notion that a couple agents went rogue:
GRETA: So I’m curious with the IRS, doing this, what is the usual time period for people to get their tax exempt status from the IRS?
BACHMANN: Well, within a reasonable amount of time. Certainly within 2 years. It certainly doesn’t take the IRS to do it. But I knew this was a phony story last Friday, when the story came out because when I was a federal tax attorney and did this work, we had very strict jurisdictional limits within the IRS because we were handling people’s tax data. We had to act within that tax zone. We had very strict procedures where we check a lot of boxes. Our supervisors up the food chain check them. It’s impossible for them to go rogue.
In short, President Obama and his handlers are attempting to sell a BS story to the American people. The thing that’s going to trip them up are little details like this. If people “up the food chain” are checking these applications off, then this must be a cultural systemic problem, not a couple rogue agents acting irresponsibly. If you read the type of intrusive questions that the IRS asked some conservative applicants, you’ll realize that it’s ideological and possibly systemic.
Now that Jim Graves has officially announced that he’s running against Michele Bachmann, people wonder if he can defeat her. John Stossel’s article highlights Graves’ weakness:
Most Americans, even those who are legislators, know very little about the details of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare. Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.
Many people lazily assume that the law will do roughly what it promises: give insurance to the uninsured and lower the cost of health care by limiting spending on dubious procedures.
Don’t count on it.
Consider just the complexity: The act itself is more than 906 pages long, and again and again in those 906 pages are the words, “the Secretary shall promulgate regulations …”
“Secretary” refers to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Her minions have been busy. They’ve already added 20,000 pages of rules. They form a stack 7 feet high, and more are to come.
A couple of weeks after announcing his candidacy last time, Graves made an appearance at a weekly gathering at a St. Cloud bar to visit with conservatives. During that visit, he stopped past my table, at which time I asked him if he supported the PPACA. Though he stopped short of endorsing that specific legislation, he did attempt to sell the ACA as market-driven health insurance reform. More on that later.
The thing is that legislators don’t vote on sweeping principles. Legislators vote on specific legislation. Since there’s no chance that Graves would’ve been one of the legislators shaping the legislation, he would’ve been forced to vote yea or nay on the ACA.
Thanks to Graves’ insistence on not getting pinned down to anything, we don’t know if he would’ve voted for the PPACA. What we know, though, is that he’s attempting to not talk about the ACA. His issues page includes this line:
But today, too many Minnesotan families are struggling under the weight of rising home mortgage payments, skyrocketing health care costs and increasing college tuition.
The only other reference to health care on Jim Graves’ issues page is about the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. I don’t blame Graves for evading the issue. If I were a Democrat, I’d want to evade talking about health care. Stossel’s article provides the reason why the PPACA is a touchy subject for Democrats:
Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250. There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost — depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.
On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.
Compare all that to a tiny part of American medicine that is still free-market: Lasik eye surgery.
Its quality has improved, while costs dropped 25 percent. Lasik (and cosmetic surgery) are specialties that provide a better consumer experience because they are a market. Patients pay directly, so doctors innovate constantly to please them. Lasik doctors even give patients their cellphone numbers.
Mr. Graves isn’t foolish. He knows what constitutes a free market. He knows that the ACA is the opposite of a free market solution.
Michele Bachmann has been right about this issue from the outset. She submitted the first bill to repeal the ACA and replace it with a specific plan. Michele’s plan included eliminating the preferential tax treatment for corporations buying health insurance by giving individuals the same tax treatment that multinational corporations get. As a result of that provision, Michele’s plan made health care portable, which is a huge liberating force for employees.
While we don’t know what Graves’ solution to health care is, we know with certainty that Michele got it right with health insurance reform the first time. When Democrats are in the minority, talk immediately focuses on compromise. Minnesotans in the Sixth District have the choice of voting for an evasive man or voting for someone who got health care reform right the first time.
With health insurance premiums skyrocketing since enacting the PPACA, why would Minnesotans vote for someone who dodges the issue? Why wouldn’t they vote for the candidate who got it right the first time?