Archive for the ‘Tina Smith’ Category

The closer we get to Election Day, the more Tina Smith goes into hiding. About 2 weeks ago, Outdoor News sent a questionnaire out to all 4 Minnesota candidates for US Senate. Of the 4 candidates that received the questionnaires, (wait for it) only Tina Smith didn’t respond:

Sunday night, she didn’t attend the KSTP debate. Smith insists that she’s a great listener. That’s impossible to believe when she consistently doesn’t show up for debates or doesn’t answer easy questionnaires. Not filling out that questionnaire is disrespectful. Does Tina think that she doesn’t need to answer to the people? Apparently.

At some point, Tina Smith will be rightly labeled an elitist snob who doesn’t thinks she has to answer to the people. It isn’t difficult to argue that you aren’t a listener if you ignore opportunity after opportunity to respond to constituents. That’s what Tina Smith is doing.

Let’s remember that she doesn’t have a gigantic lead. Tina’s lead is within the margin of error. Acting like she’s got this wrapped up won’t help her image. Frankly, I don’t know why Gov. Dayton picked Tina to replace Al Franken. It isn’t like she was the Democrat with the most impressive resume in the state.

This is a race to watch. Karin Housley is running a great campaign and is gaining ground fast. If Tina Smith keeps acting like she’s already won, she’ll soon be delivering a concession speech.

Howard Root’s counterpoint op-ed highlights the one big mistake that might sink Tina Smith.

In his op-ed, he wrote “When the Star Tribune endorsed Tina Smith over Karin Housley for the U.S. Senate special election (“They’ll do nation’s teamwork,” Oct. 21), its editorial board had a major advantage over the voters of Minnesota — they got to hear Smith answer questions. While Smith couldn’t find 30 minutes the other evening to participate in the only publicly televised debate in this campaign, she somehow managed to find the time to sit down for a private interview with the newspaper.”

By not participating in the debate, Tina Smith essentially admitted what Minnesotans are increasingly finding out — that she’d her butt kicked in a substantive debate if she went up against Karin Housley. We also saw the terrible campaign being run by Tina Smith. The optics couldn’t get much worse than this:

What campaign manager thinks that having an empty podium sends the right message?

Why was Smith a no-show for the Oct. 21 debate that was broadcast live statewide on KSTP and its four affiliates? Five days before the long-planned debate, her campaign cited “a complicated schedule” that precluded Smith from participating and cameras were left showing Karin Housley on stage answering questions next to an empty podium.

This was the only televised debate in which voters could see and hear the candidates provide impromptu answers to questions asked by an impartial moderator — yet the unelected senator refused to show up.

Let’s state something fairly obvious. Tina Smith is pretending to know and/or care about parts of the state she knows nothing or little about. She doesn’t know anything about pipelines. She knows even less about agriculture. It isn’t like Tina Smith is winning over Trump voters in rural Minnesota.

If Tina Smith keeps running a terrible campaign and Karin Housley keeps running a positive, upbeat campaign, it’s likely that Mrs. Smith won’t go back to Washington.

In their Our View Editorial endorsing Karin Housley, the Duluth News Tribune included a quote from Tina Smith, Karin’s DFL opponent.

In the quote, Smith said “Minnesotans are sick and tired of the partisan bickering. They don’t have Republican problems or Democrat problems, and so my whole approach has been to listen really hard, to work really hard to do my best to solve problems for people. That’s what I’ve been doing, and that’s what I want to continue to do.”

She couldn’t have listened that hard on then-Judge Kavanaugh. Within minutes of President Trump nominating Brett Kavanaugh, Tina Smith had announced that she wouldn’t meet with him and that she wouldn’t vote to confirm him. That doesn’t sound like listening to me. This is what listening looks like:

This is the video of Tina Smith ignoring Minnesotans by not attending a debate with Karin Housley that was televised statewide:

Karin Housley respected Minnesotans by showing up and answering questions. She has legitimate legislative accomplishments. Tina Smith is just another politician hoping you won’t notice that she’s ignoring you.

Minnesotans are smarter than that. I’m betting you’ll notice and make Tina Smith pay for her elitism.

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.