Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Tina Smith’ Category

In one of the most cowardly decisions of this campaign cycle, Tina Smith refused to debate Karin Housley. According to the article, “KSTP interviewed Karin Housley who is the Republican nominee for the special election for former Sen. Al Franken’s seat as part of its day of debates. Sen. Tina Smith declined the invitation to participate due to scheduling conflicts.”

That’s code for Tina not wanting to debate. If Tina had scheduling conflicts, she should’ve eliminated them to participate in the debate. By dodging the debate, Tina Smith sent the message that her other event, if it actually exists, is more important to her than informing Minnesota voters.

In one sense, it’s perfectly understandable. Tina Smith has been a do-nothing senator. She’s done what Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats’ special interests have told her to do. Why would Tina Smith want to defend that indefensible record?

That isn’t the question, though. The question is whether Tina Smith owes Minnesota voters an explanation of her record with her opponent asking uncomfortable questions. I think she does. I’d say the same thing if a Republican didn’t show up. Here’s the video of Karin Housley’s interview with KSTP:

According to polling from a company called Change Research, which is described as a Democratic polling company, Minnesota’s top statewide races are tightening:


Jeff Johnson trails Tim Walz 47%-44% and Karin Housley trails Tina Smith by a 46%-43% margin. I can’t say that I’m surprised with those results. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the DFL loses both of those seats. I’m not ready to predict GOP victories in those races — yet. That’s similar to my position on the MN AG race, where I think Keith Ellison keeps sinking each week.

Newt Gingrich is one of the best predicters of races in my lifetime. Here’s what he said this morning:

If Democrats don’t retake the House or the Senate, that will be a crushing blow going into the 2020 cycle. At this point, it’s safe to scrap the ‘blue wave’ myth. It doesn’t exist.

Tina Smith isn’t as awful as Al Franken. (We haven’t heard that she’s groped anyone.) Still, she’s a do-nothing politician who needs to be defeated on Nov. 6. Actually, the do-nothing characterization requires an asterisk. When it comes to investigating President Trump’s nominees, she’s a passionate activist for action.

There’s no disputing whether she’s pushed for investigating Judge Kavanaugh. That’s a stark contrast to her do-nothingism regarding Keith Ellison. Karen Monahan has provided this documentation from a doctor who examined her:

Tina Smith has campaigned with and endorsed Keith Ellison. Ellison is so far out there that President Obama won’t endorse him. Think about that a second. Tina Smith is farther left than President Obama. The former Divider-in-Chief steers clear of Ellison.

There’s a simple way to cut through the clutter. Vote for the candidate whose values don’t change based on which way the political winds are blowing. Vote for Karin Housley. She’s the only candidate that’s called for a real investigation into Ellison’s alleged abuse of Karen Monahan:

Ellison announced last week that he would request the House Ethics Committee look into the accusations he faces. He told BuzzFeed, “I am taking this step now because I am innocent and eager to see this entire matter resolved.” Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is currently awaiting the findings of an independent investigation it launched two months ago.

But Housley, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) in the Nov. 6 election, says those investigations are inadequate. “Recent calls for a congressional ethics investigation, made by Keith Ellison and echoed by my opponent, amount to nothing more than political cover,” she said in a statement. “Ellison will have left Congress by the time an investigation could be completed.

“These are serious, recent and substantiated allegations that deserve immediate attention and raise significant doubts about Keith Ellison’s fitness to serve as Minnesota’s chief legal officer,” Housley added.

Ellison calling for an Ethics Committee investigation is a sham. In other words, it’s like Ellison. Anyone that thinks that this would be a real investigation is kidding themselves.

Tina Smith is satisfied dragging her feet to help Keith Ellison. If she’s going to call for a full-fledged investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, she should demand the same of Ellison.

Otherwise, she’s just another do-nothing political hack.

Don’t let anyone kid you about Karin Housley’s chances for victory 5 weeks from today. Running against Tina Smith is a tough challenge. Running against Smith and her millstone, aka Keith Ellison, give Sen. Housley a better shot than just running against Smith.

I’m not overstating things when I state that Keith Ellison acts like a millstone around Tina Smith’s neck. Ellison will continue to be a millstone around Smith’s neck as long as Smith doesn’t distance herself from Ellison.

First, Housley said Smith has “been critical of Kavanaugh. Smith called Kavanaugh ‘a serious threat to women’s freedom. Yet Judge Brett Kavanaugh denied his allegations under oath,’ she said. ‘Democrats, when it’s one of their own, it didn’t happen. To use this for political power is disgusting,’ Housley said. ‘I had to call the attorney general to do an investigation [of Ellison].'”

Let’s be clear about this. Karin Housley is exactly right when she said that Democrats don’t want to talk about this when it’s one of their own. They’d rather focus on Brett Kavanaugh. At the end of the interview, though, Hannity say something that I think will be prophetic. Check this out:

Housley brought up a good point when she said that Smith is still campaigning with Ellison because Ellison “categorically denied” the charges. Then Housley highlighted the fact that Judge Kavanaugh categorically denied the charges against him, too. What’s the difference?

Expect Keith Ellison to be hung like a millstone around Smith’s and Klobuchar’s necks the rest of this campaign. At the end, Hannity replied “Karin, you can win this race. This is now a game-changing moment for the country and I wish you all the luck in the world.”

The truth is that Karin Housley isn’t running against Tina Smith. She’s running against Tina Smith and Keith Ellison. Factor in the Trump Frenzy effect, too. Tina Smith isn’t a lock by any stretch of the imagination.

Karin Housley and Jim Newberger are making a point of highlighting Tina Smith’s and Amy Klobuchar’s hypocrisy when it comes to Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

When contacted by the Duluth News Tribune, Sen. Housley said “I believe the Judiciary Committee should hear directly from the accuser so that all the facts can be known by the public. Tina Smith and national Democrats should apply the same standard to Keith Ellison, who has been accused by two victims of horrific accounts of abuse.” The Committee should hear from Judge Kavanaugh after they’ve heard from Dr. Ford. If Dr. Ford decides not to testify Thursday, then the Committee should immediately proceed to a vote on the nomination.

If Dr. Ford thinks that it’s ok to drop this uncorroborated bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh, then walk away from testifying, then it’ll be apparent that she’s afraid that she’ll be exposed as telling whoppers. Dr. Ford’s attorney apparently agrees:

“This hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich wrote. “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor,’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations.”

He added: “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Grandstanding senators would turn the hearing into a circus. I suspect Democrat senators will deploy that strategy if Dr. Ford shows up. Having an experienced sex crimes prosecutor question Dr. Ford would eliminate the circus.

Jim Newberger raised questions about Sen. Klobuchar in a tweet, saying “Where is her call for further action regarding Keith Ellison’s repeated reports of abuse, which are now supported by medical records?”

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.