Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Tina Smith category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Tina Smith’ Category

What’s fascinating about President Obama’s list of 8 candidates running for election across the United States isn’t who’s on the list. It’s who’s omitted from the list. What’s fascinating is that the article starts by saying former “President Barack Obama weighed in on behalf of 81 candidates for federal and state offices on Wednesday, his first major batch of endorsements for the 2018 midterm elections.” Then the article states “I’m proud to endorse such a wide and impressive array of Democratic candidates – leaders as diverse, patriotic, and big-hearted as the America they’re running to represent. I’m confident that, together, they’ll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity that’s broadly shared, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes — and I’m eager to make the case for why Democratic candidates deserve our votes this fall.”

What’s noteworthy about President Obama’s statement is that he didn’t mention anything about creating jobs or strengthening the economy. That isn’t surprising. It’s just noteworthy. President Obama didn’t put a priority on creating jobs while he was president. Why think that he cares about building a strong economy now? Here’s the tweet with President Obama’s endorsements:


Attached to the tweet are the candidates he’s endorsing. It’s rather fascinating that he didn’t endorse any Democrats in Minnesota. It’s fascinating that he didn’t endorse Dianne Feinstein or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This was a fun interview to watch:

Here’s something that I just thought of that’s worth considering. President Obama didn’t endorse a single DFL candidate in Minnesota. He didn’t endorse Keith Ellison. He didn’t endorse Tina Smith. Question: Is that because they’re both Bernie followers? Also, as I said earlier, President Obama didn’t endorse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s a Bernie candidate, too. Question: Is this the start of a fight between the establishment and the Bernie wings of the Democratic Party? Only time will tell but I can’t rule it out.

RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel made a great point in her interview with Harris Faulkner when she asked if Democrats would highlight the fact that President Obama had endorsed them. I’m betting they won’t highlight it.

Karin Housley’s optimism is infectious. Reading through this article, it’s obvious that she sees her campaign as the right elixir at the right time. It’s equally obvious that she thinks that Tina Smith is Sen. Schumer’s shill. She’s right about that, BTW. Sen. Smith has opposed everything that President Trump is for. New York already has 2 senators. They don’t need another one.

In an interview with the Brainerd Dispatch Editorial Board, Sen. Housley said “I had been in the Minnesota Senate for the last six years and seen the failures of the Dayton-Smith administration and I thought, ‘There’s no way that woman represents everyone in Minnesota or what we really stand for in Minnesota.’ I decided to jump into the race and fight for Minnesotans.”

Sen. Housley is right. Sen. Smith doesn’t represent Minnesota’s priorities. Contrary to Smith’s beliefs, there’s much more to Minnesota than the Twin Cities. In her brief time in the US Senate, Tina Smith has traveled often outside the Twin Cities. Unfortunately, she’s brought her Twin Cities beliefs with her. Rather than listening to Minnesotans’ worries, Smith has tried selling the Twin Cities’ priorities. That’s disrespectful.

By comparison, Sen. Housley has met with (and listened to) lots of groups from Owatonna to Bemidji to Walker. As she says in this interview, she and her husband have had a cabin in the Walker area for several decades:

That means they understand rural Minnesota. That isn’t all. They know that Washington’s policies have made life difficult for rural residents. Then there’s this:

By replacing Smith, Housley said she hopes to help break the deadlock in the nation’s upper house—750 bills left on the debate floor, undebated and not voted upon because of rigid partisan lines. Sen. John McCain’s absence leaves the Senate in a state of limbo, a razor-thin 50-49 Republican majority.

In doing so, Housley said, she’ll look to restore a kind of representation that actually represents the interests of everyday Minnesotans—not blind dogmatism, not run-of-the-mill Capitol Hill and not an out-of-touch Democrat who favors big government and the big problems that brings.

Smith is a not-so-bright radical. Don’t forget, she’s a Berniecrat:

People can’t seriously think that Tina Smith isn’t a Twin Cities-centric socialist. Further, let’s ask this simple question: Are you better off today than the day before President Obama left office? Honest people would emphatically say they’re better off today. Business investment is improving quickly. Consumer confidence is sky-high. Unemployment for blacks and Hispanics are at all-time lows. Unemployment for women is at a 65-year low. The energy sector, which President Obama tried to intentionally kill, has turned around so dramatically that we’ve gone from importing oil to being a net exporter of energy. We’re so strong with energy that President Trump struck a deal with the EU to export Liquefied Natural Gas to them.

Tina Smith is a closet environmentalist who hates fossil fuels. She’s also (quietly) anti-mining. She has to pretend that she’s pro-mining because she needs lots of Iron Range votes but she isn’t a big fan of mining. By comparison, Karin Housley is enthusiastically pro-mining. This is the type of straight talk that Minnesotans insist on:

Since 2003, Housley has been a small business owner and is also a real estate agent by trade—though, she admitted, she almost closed up shop in 2010 because of restrictive policies by the state at that time. “It got to a point where you’re working so hard and everything you’ve earned is going to the government, but the government is spending your hard-earned money not on things you want it spent on,” Housley said. “That’s the reason I ran. We’re just starting to reverse that. People are keeping more money in their pockets, and so are our business owners, so we just have to continue that trend.”

Tina better buckle up for a tough campaign. Thanks to her mistake-riddled campaign, she’s earned a tough campaign.

It’s rather sad that the DFL has become consumed by anti-mining environmental activists. Thanks to them and their wholly-owned junior senator, PolyMet faces still more hurdles. The woman running to replace DFL appeaser Tina Smith isn’t too happy with the gamesmanship that the DFL is playing.

Karin Housley issued this statement, which says “I’m extremely disappointed the PolyMet land swap agreement was not included in the final defense spending bill. With the economic viability of real communities and the livelihoods of real people on the line, Tina Smith simply could not deliver. After years of obstructing the process as lieutenant governor and chief of staff, Tina Smith brought a sense of false hope to the region that she could get this done – despite her Democratic leadership never being on board. These thinly-veiled attempts at political pandering ended in failure, and it’s the people of northern Minnesota who will pay the price. I’ve supported PolyMet from the beginning, and as a U.S. Senator, it will be my top priority to get it across the finish line.”

Let’s be honest. Tina Smith did just enough so she couldn’t get accused of doing nothing. Smith knows that she’ll need to do well in Minnesota’s Eighth District because she won’t run away with things in the Metro because Karin Housley was born in South St. Paul and represents Forest Lake, Lake Elmo and Stillwater in the Minnesota Legislature. Tina Smith wasn’t committed to fighting the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, aka MCEA. Smith wasn’t committed to fighting Becky Rom of Save the Boundary Waters.

Becky Rom
She couldn’t afford to. Those people and organizations control too many votes that Tina Smith will need. Trust me when I say that Becky Rom and Tina Smith understand that. That’s why this act is more theater than substance. It’s time for people to stop pretending that Tina Smith cares about anything outside the Twin Cities metro.

The benefit of reading this article is to find out Karin Housley’s priorities if she’s elected to the US Senate.

In the article, Sen. Housley said her priorities in DC would be “the economy, health care and senior issues.” She then said “Taking care of our seniors is a really big issue,” Housley said. “I think we need to preserve and protect Social Security for them. That’s one thing that they’re worried about. I want to make sure those dollars are there for our seniors.” An opponent of the Affordable Care Act, Housley also said she doesn’t think a one-size-fits-all model works for the entire country. “It was supposed to decrease our health care costs, and it hasn’t,” Housley said. “I want to focus on a free market-based system for our health care costs and a patient-centered system.” On the economy, Housley said the U.S. Congress and President Donald Trump have made progress on the economy and would like to help keep it going. “I’d like to support continuing the way the country’s going with jobs and the economy booming,” Housley said. “I think there are so many great bills that are brought up in the U.S. Senate, but they (Republicans) have such a slim majority.”

Simply put, Sen. Housley’s main priorities are significant in the grand scheme of things and they’re important to Minnesotans.

I haven’t seen any recent polling on the Smith vs. Housley race but it’s apparent that Sen. Housley is running for everyone’s votes:


Then there’s this:


When Gov. Dayton picked her to replace Sen. Franken, Tina Smith said it wouldn’t be wise to underestimate her. That remains to be seen. There’s no doubt, however, that it’s foolish to underestimate Sen. Housley.

Minnesota has had liberal senators representing them for too long. Sen. Franken and Tina Smith have worked hard to represent only portions of Minnesota. It’s time for a real senator who will represent the entire state.

Yesterday morning, Tina Smith was interviewed by KSTP’s Tom Hauser. On another network, Bernie Sanders, aka Sen. Smith’s mentor, appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrats’ latest rising star.

During her interview with Hauser, Smith confirmed that she supported single-payer health care and that she wouldn’t vote for any judges on President Trump’s list because “far right special interests” compiled the list. (I’m wondering if that means that she wouldn’t vote to confirm any judges approved by far left special interest organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice, PFAW, the Center for American Progress, NOW or Planned Parenthood.) These aren’t mainstream organizations based on their lobbyists’ wish list.

Smith thinks that single payer is the cure for rising health care costs, which were created by the ACA, which was created by Democrats. Now we’re supposed to trust Democrats to fix the problem that … Democrats created? When Marty Seifert first ran for governor, one of the punch lines in his stump speech was “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

He’s right. Costs have skyrocketed since the ACA was passed. In October of 2016, I wrote this post to highlight this information:

Speaker Daudt spoke of a farming family he met during a MNsure listening session in Red Wing, MN, who told Speaker Daudt that their premiums this year were $2,300/mo. Then Speaker Daudt said that this family’s deductible for this year was an additional $13,000 this year. This family’s out-of-pocket expenses, which they’d pay before the insurance would pay a penny, was over $40,000.

As shocking as that was, the next part was frightening. Speaker Daudt said that that was this family’s premiums before this year’s open enrollment premium increases of between 50% and 67%.

That means, at minimum, this family’s premiums for 2017 would exceed $41,000. If their premium increased by 67%, this family’s premiums for 2017 would jump to $46,000. That’s one year’s premiums for a family of 3 healthy people. Let’s remember that Tina Smith was the Lieutenant Governor at the time. Why should I trust someone who presided over the highest health insurance premium increases in Minnesota history? That’s as foolish as trusting an arsonist to put out a building fire.

The more we learn about Tina Smith, the more we learn that she’s a radical lefty. Check out what she said on health care:

Tina believes every Minnesota family deserves access to high-quality health care that they can afford.

In other words, Tina Smith knows that she’s responsible for failing Minnesotans. She was part of the administration that implemented the plan that caused the 59% to 67% premium increases. Now she wants to return to Washington to screw up the system even further than she’s already screwed it up?

I think not. I’m voting for someone who will fix problems, not create them. I won’t be voting for Bernie’s ally, aka Tina Smith.

I wouldn’t characterize Ocasio-Cortez as being too bright after reading this:

“Bold” is a characterization that has been used for Ocasio-Cortez’s own campaign. She told Face The Nation host Margaret Brennan that her agenda included policy positions like Medicare for all. “I think that the factors that ultimately created our win was the fact that we had bold commitments and I campaigned on hard commitments of Medicare for all, tuition free public college, ensuring a Green New Deal for our future and championing those issues were the reason that we won,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Mostly, she won because Joe Crowley didn’t take her seriously enough. It wasn’t because people in that district thought that they were voting for a policy wonk.

Saying that Tina Smith doesn’t understand the Constitution speaks to another of her qualities that disqualify her as a serious Senate candidate. It’s almost as embarrassing as Amy Klobuchar saying during the 2006 election that the Senate would write a law ordering either the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Pentagon to draw up plans to remove troops from Iraq.

This time, Smith tweeted about this NYTimes article about how Judge Kavanaugh “could reshape environmental law from the Supreme Court.”

The second paragraph states “During his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often regarded as the nation’s second-most powerful court, Judge Kavanaugh voted in a number of high-profile cases to limit Environmental Protection Agency rules involving issues like climate change and air pollution. In two key instances, his arguments were later embraced by the Supreme Court.”

There’s nothing radical about that position. It didn’t say that the EPA didn’t have the right to create regulations. Judge Kavanaugh simply opined that the EPA didn’t have the authority to implement “far-reaching regulations.” In other words, Judge Kavanaugh thinks that far-reaching regulations are essentially unpassed environmental legislation. Another way of looking at that is that Judge Kavanaugh thinks that the legislative and executive branches should pass legislation that addresses these issues.

His legal philosophy was clear: In the absence of explicit instructions from Congress, any far-reaching effort by the E.P.A. to tackle environmental problems should be met with deep skepticism by the courts. That philosophy often put him sharply at odds with the Obama administration, which sought to harness older environmental laws to deal with newer challenges like global warming.

This frightens Democrats because most of their major policy ‘victories’ have come through the courts, not through passing legislation.

In Tina Smith’s mind, that makes Judge Kavanaugh an existential threat to liberal activism. The last thing she wants is a judge interested just in ruling on a bill’s constitutionality. I’ll propose something radical that Tina Smith has never thought of. If the law doesn’t offer the proper solution to a problem, why not (Gasp!) write a new bill, get it passed, then signed into law?

Here’s something Tina Smith also likely doesn’t know. There’s no limit on the Senate’s authority to write and propose new legislation.

Rest assured that Minnesota will have a heated race this fall. For months, pundits like Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg have predicted 4 tight US House races. I’ve been skeptical of those predictions from the start. I never thought that Erik Paulsen’s and Jason Lewis’s seats were toss-ups like Cook, FNC and RealClearPolitics were predicting. Further, I’ve thought that the MN-08 race was likely to be the most likely to break the DFL’s way while MN-01 was virtually a lost seat for the DFL.

The tight race that’s likely to happen is the Senate seat currently occupied by Tina Smith. Over the past week, she’s proven that she’s capable of making multiple unforced mistakes. Before the week actually started, Smith announced that she wouldn’t support any Supreme Court nominee. She did that before the nominee was picked. That helped her look like a partisan ideologue, which is her true identity. At the other end of the week, she campaigned with self-described socialist Bernie Sanders and cop-hating Keith Ellison.

Meanwhile, Karin Housley, Smith’s opponent, is running a nearly flawless race while touting the Republicans’ economic accomplishments. First, a comparison is required. Bernie Sanders had a strong following thanks to the pathetic Obama economy, which produced tons of income inequality. He lost that issue the minute the Trump/GOP economy took off and hasn’t looked back.

Bernie can complain all he wants but people will ignore him when they’ve got their pick of good-paying jobs. It’s hard to think that we’re in a recession when we’re at full unemployment and there are more job openings than there are people to fill them. If income inequality is going to be Bernie’s message, he’ll lose. By comparison, here’s Karin Housley’s message:

Simply put, Tina Smith’s positions on things like immigration, taxes and the Supreme Court are pretty extremist. It’s impossible to sugar coat it. According to her own campaign website, Tina Smith supports open borders ‘immigration’. As for taxes, she’s never met a tax increase she didn’t like. Finally, Tina Smith prefers outcome-based justices and judges because they won’t hesitate to change the policy portions of a piece of legislation.

The judiciary shouldn’t care what is or isn’t smart policy. If there is a statute that needs fixing, it’s the legislative and executive branches’ responsibility to fix the problem.

Karin Housley prefers judges and justices who look at the text of the legislation, then determines whether the legislation fits within the framework of the Constitution.

When Karin Housley visited St. Cloud Thursday, she brought a bold prediction with her.

During a visit to the Whitney Senior Center, Housley predicted “This is the year Minnesota’s turning red.” She then explained, saying that she “expects two U.S. House districts to flip in the state with incumbent DFLers Rep. Rick Nolan and Rep. Tim Walz retiring from Congress and running in gubernatorial races.”

I agree with both predictions. President Trump’s visit to Duluth to rally for Pete Stauber filled the arena with people. The ramp wasn’t just filled with cars. It was filled with people too. With a 4-way DFL primary set to determine who will face Stauber, expect that primary to beat each other up. I’m not sure if the DFL will be able to unite after that fight. I’d rate that race as leans GOP. As for Minnesota’s First District, the DFL doesn’t have a bench. Tim Walz was it. There’s a primary on the GOP side in MN-01 but there’s no signs of it getting bloody.

As for Sen. Housley, momentum keeps building, much of it due to the booming Trump/GOP economy. Liz Peek’s article highlights this beautifully:

President Trump wants you to quit your job! Well, not really; but the White House’s tax cuts and rollback of onerous regulations have encouraged millions of Americans to do just that. The economy is booming, opportunities are opening up all over the place, and workers are responding, by quitting in record numbers.

This may be bad news for Democrats hoping to take over Congress in November. They have no economic agenda that can compete with a buoyant jobs market that is making the American Dream come true.

Then comes the dagger:

But it is great news for American workers.

Tina Smith’s message is obstruction, resistance and socialism:

“The political revolution that Keith and I and others have talked about is not just a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working families, it is the need to create a national grassroots movement where ordinary people stand up to the billionaire class and take back this country,” Sanders said. “By electing Keith, and reelecting Tina and Amy [Klobuchar], you guys can help lead this country in that direction.”

Tina Smith’s socialist smile will turn upside-down when it’s revealed that she’s just another socialist who will do whatever Chuck Schumer wants her to do. Tina Smith wants to pretend to be a moderate. She isn’t:

Tina Smith rallied with Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison this week. If that’s her definition of moderation, I’m betting most Minnesotans will reject that definition. By rallying with Sanders and Ellison, Smith proved that she’s trying to appeal to everyone. Normally, that’s ok. This isn’t normally, though. She rallied with radicals from the #Resistance.

Meanwhile, Karin Housley can claim that she’d fight for Iron Rangers, the elderly and economic growth. Housley is smart, reasonable and has an overabundance of energy. She’s exactly the type of candidate that can defeat a check off the boxes candidate like Tina Smith.

The polls don’t show it yet but what’s likely going to help Republicans like Karin Housley and Pete Stauber are the Republicans’ closing arguments. The DFL doesn’t have a closing argument. All they have is #Resist and #AbolishICE.

Pawlenty tweaks Johnson

The Republican nomination race for Minnesota governor took a contentious turn Thursday with a hard-hitting TV ad from former Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

After months of Pawlenty ignoring his primary rival, he unloaded on Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson as part of a six-figure ad campaign, the first commercials he has run during the race. Johnson responded with his own swipes but probably won’t be able to match Pawlenty’s reach, given the relative cash positions of their campaigns.

Johnson is the tiresome gnat in the race. He tried firing back but this is the best he could do:

Johnson took the sudden attention as a sign “that the race is close. It was a good day in the campaign. I said the day that he attacks is a day he knows he might lose. Obviously, we got there earlier than I thought we would,” he said.

This race isn’t close. The Outstate.US poll shows Pawlenty leading by 34 points. Even if the margin of error was high, Johnson would still be miles behind.

The Pawlenty campaign replied:

Pawlenty’s campaign said Johnson threw the first punches months ago and they’re ready to respond in kind. “The Pawlenty campaign is not going to take anything for granted, and we want to ensure that Republican primary voters know exactly where Jeff Johnson has been on these important issues,” said Pawlenty adviser Brian McClung.

It isn’t that Johnson is being competitive. It’s more likely that Pawlenty has decided it’s time to all-but-officially end the primary.

Housley’s impressive fundraising quarter

Karin Housley’s campaign just reported “In Minnesota’s special election for U.S. Senate, the campaign of Republican-endorsed candidate Karin Housley announced a fundraising total of just over $1 million during the second quarter of 2018. Of the 6,209 total campaign donors to date, nearly 73 percent gave donations of $50 or less.” While it’s likely that Tina Smith has raised more, that’s irrelevant because Tina’s message is essentially Obstruct and Resist. Meanwhile, Karin’s message is “Minnesotans want a senator who will fight for them – but Tina Smith has shown us again and again that her marching orders come from the radical left, not the people she represents. Over the next four months, we’re going to work as hard as we can traveling the state, hearing Minnesotans’ stories, and making a case for why I’ll be a new voice in the U.S. Senate for the people of our state. Minnesotans want a senator who will fight for them – but Tina Smith has shown us again and again that her marching orders come from the radical left, not the people she represents. Over the next four months, we’re going to work as hard as we can traveling the state, hearing Minnesotans’ stories, and making a case for why I’ll be a new voice in the U.S. Senate for the people of our state.”

At this press conference, Sen. Smith sounded like a past president of Planned Parenthood, which she is:

The difference between Tina Smith and Karin Housley is that Tina Smith serves the special interests. Karin Housley serves people. Sen. Housley proved that by vigorously attempting to fix the elder abuse scandal in Minnesota. Rather than just hold a press conference, Sen. Housley put together legislation that would’ve fixed many of the problems. Unfortunately, Gov. Dayton, who Tina Smith served with for 3+ years, vetoed the bill.

In her short time in office, Sen. Tina Smith, (DFL-MN), has shown herself to be nothing more than a partisan hack. This week, Sen. Smith didn’t wait to hear who President Trump’s nominee to the US Supreme Court was before she announced that she would oppose whoever President Trump nominated.

Karin Housley noticed Smith’s actions and decisions, then highlighted them in this email:

Tina Smith is showing again why she is the definition of partisan politics. Even before President Trump announced who he would nominate to replace the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, Tina Smith announced she WOULD NOT support the President’s choice. Then, MOMENTS after President Trump’s announcement, Tina Smith said she’d join the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Jeff Merkley to vote NO on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. A no vote without as much as a hearing!

This is the kind of close-minded thinking that is dangerous for our country. Democrats are willing to ignore what’s right to support their broken agenda.

Close-mindedness is just part of the problem. First, what criteria did Smith use in reaching that decision? Did she use any substantive criteria to reach that decision? Did she just follow Sen. Schumer’s orders?

If she just follows Sen. Schumer’s orders, doesn’t that mean that Sen. Smith is nothing more than a piece of the machine? Doesn’t that mean that Sen. Schumer and Sen. Smith have abandoned the principles that once made the US Senate the most prestigious deliberative body in the world? Is Sen. Smith so hardened in her opinions that she isn’t even willing to listen to others?

That’s what I’d call a shill. Tell me the difference between Sen. Smith and Sen. Schumer. Will she always take Sen. Schumer’s orders on the most important matters? Apparently, she will. That’s disturbing. Minnesotans don’t need another political operative representing Sen. Schumer in the Senate. Minnesotans need someone who will represent us in the Senate.