Archive for the ‘Angie Craig’ Category

Earlier tonight, Democrat ‘moderates’ Angie Craig, Collin Peterson and Dean Phillips voted against censuring Democrat Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff for lying to the American people while delivering his opening statement in the Maguire hearing. For those who don’t remember that hearing by that name, it’s the one where Democrat Impeachment Chairman opened with this speech:

Here’s the heart of Schiff’s speech:

horn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.

In Schiff’s speech, it’s clear that he’s signaling that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky with the withholding of military aid. According to Schiff’s fake phone call transcript, that military aid would be withheld from Ukraine if President Zelensky didn’t “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it.”

The bottom line is this — Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, lied to Congress and the American people. This isn’t just a silly prank. Schiff’s speech is permanently part of the Congressional Record. Minnesota’s ‘moderate Democrats’ didn’t think Schiff’s dishonest speech was worthy of official criticism. These ‘moderate Democrats’ thought that the man leading an investigation to remove the president of the United States shouldn’t be officially criticized. Perhaps, it’s because they bought Schiff’s BS that this was a parody. If that’s a parody, how do Phillips, Peterson and Craig explain this paragraph from Schiff’s speech?

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff said it with his own words that “this is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine.” That’s a pretty fanciful interpretation of the transcript. Here’s what President Trump actually told President Zelensky:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation … I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Nothing in Schiff’s speech sounds like anything from Trump’s phone call. It’s appalling that Minnesota’s supposedly moderate Democrats bought Schiff’s BS and voted the way that Pelosi wanted them to vote. They aren’t moderates. They’re just gullible Democrats.

Democrats can’t pretend that they’re moderates because they’re doing things that are historically unprecedented. Recently, Schiff said that he’s essentially doing the work of a special counsel. I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was officially employed by the DOJ. Schiff’s biggest problem is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch. Impeachment chairs are fixtures of the legislative branch.

The Constitution matters

This says everything:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller led the Russia probe, but no new prosecutor has been tapped by Attorney General William Barr for the Ukraine matter. That leaves House Democrats with only a whistleblower’s complaint rather than boxes of investigators’ evidence to guide them. “Congress has to do that,” Schiff said, because the Justice Department believes “there’s nothing to see here.”

Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, is leading the probe at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and proceeding like the prosecutor he once was, staging a grand jury-like process that has been pilloried by Republicans. As Schiff works behind closed doors to build the case, Republicans accuse Democrats of waging an unfair, and according to the White House, illegitimate, investigation. But Schiff says the House has few other choices than to build the case on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that members of the legislative branch have the authority to impanel investigative grand juries. If the DOJ tells the legislative branch to pound sand if the House refers cases to the DOJ, that’s what happens when you lose elections. When Republicans made criminal referrals to Eric Holder’s DOJ about the IRS scandal and Holder rejected those referrals, Trey Gowdy couldn’t impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder. That was it. If the DOJ says no, then the answer is no. Period.

The thing is that Schiff didn’t bother trying to hide his attempt to be an investigator/prosecutor. He said this right out in the open.

Since Angie Craig and Dean Phillips announced that they supported impeachment proceedings, they’ve resisted making it a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus far, the ‘rules’ have been made up on the fly.

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of constitutional fairness, I don’t think many people will agree with Democrats. We’ve been told by Ms. Pelosi that this is a solemn matter that requires constant prayer and introspection. These hearings haven’t featured fairness, much less constitutional principles. Why haven’t Phillips and Craig insisted on investigative fairness? If this is supposed to be a time of solemnity, why hasn’t Schiff displayed fairness throughout?

Craig and Phillips flipped their opinions on whether to conduct an investigation into impeachment based on nothing. Let’s remember that these freshmen Democrats switched their opinions before the facts of the case changed. When Craig and Phillips switched to yes on the impeachment investigation, they didn’t switch their opinion on whether they think President Trump should be impeached.

Craig and Phillips switched their opinion the Friday before Queen Nancy declared the impeachment inquiry was official. Let’s not forget that the Trump-Zelensky transcript wasn’t released until the day after Queen Nancy’s declaration. Let’s not forget that the CIA snitch’s complaint wasn’t released until that Thursday. It’s fair to ask Craig and Phillips why they changed their minds.

Let’s ask this Democrat duo what rules must be put in place to ensure fairness and constitutional due process. Should President Trump’s attorneys have the right to confront President Trump’s accusers? If not, why not? If defendants’ representation are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn’t a man have that right if he’s about to potentially be thrown out of office?

Craig and Phillips haven’t pushed for a real impeachment vote. Apparently, they won’t vote for a real investigation. Apparently, Democrats are willing to vote for articles of impeachment without an investigation:

House Democrats believe they have the 217 votes needed to pass articles of impeachment against President Trump stemming from his Ukraine call, enough votes to impeach Trump and send articles to the Senate, even before their planned hearings or formal investigation.

That’s breathtakingly stunning. At least 40 of those Democrats just signed their political death certificate. It might reach higher; perhaps as much as 50-55 might get defeated. These Democrats just said that they’ll vote to undo an election without conducting an investigation. Remember this moment of solemnity?

That’s when Ms. Pelosi said “The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says that “Article II says that I can do whatever I want.” It’s time Ms. Pelosi went to law school. She apparently hasn’t figured out that due process is a constitutional right. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn’t know that the right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean skipping the investigation.

Angie Craig and Dean Phillips are part of that 217 vote majority who will vote to impeach President Trump without investigating him. If that isn’t the definition of radicalism, then such a definition doesn’t exist. Craig and Phillips should join a lengthy list of radical Democrats who’ll need to look for work come New Years Day 2020.

When I read Angie Craig’s quotes in this article, the first thing I thought of was that Craig wasn’t happy with Speaker Pelosi’s initial actions. Craig is quoted as saying “The speaker listened. That’s all she did today. The speaker listened to us. I’m in a district where I think I’ve been reluctant to move forward only from the perspective of, I want to be disciplined, I want to look at due process, and I want to make sure we have all of our facts. And this inquiry will allow us to do that. And I’m very supportive of Adam Schiff and what he and his committee [are doing].”

The first thing that jumps off the page at me is that she’s “very supportive of Adam Schiff.” That’s a stunning admission on Craig’s part. She’s representing Minnesota’s 2nd District, not Minnesota’s 4th or Fifth districts.

Further, asking the most tone-deaf Democrat politician how to message something in a Minnesota House race sounds a little desperate. I’d also suggest that people who don’t know how to message an issue probably shouldn’t have staked out their political position. I’d point Ms. Craig to this article, which says this:

According to a Quinnipiac University national poll published Wednesday morning, Limbaugh may be on to something. The poll, which received 1,337 responses from registered voters across the political spectrum, indicated that support for Trump’s impeachment sits below 40 percent. Opposition, on the other hand, is at 57 percent.

My point is that this isn’t a packaging issue. It’s a content issue. This is how Doug Collins expressed it in his opening statement for the House Judiciary Committee’s Lewandowski hearing:

Collins said that “I’ve never seen a majority who’ve been so amazed with packaging in my life. You know why? It’s because they can’t sell what’s inside.” Craig has the same difficulty. It isn’t the packaging. It’s the crap that’s inside. Just a third of registered voters want Democrats to impeach President Trump. The American people are trying to tell Pelosi’s Democrats that this isn’t that big of a deal to them. They’re saying that this doesn’t rise to the level of “treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.”

Ms. Craig has a Schiff problem. She’s listening to Chairman Schiff too much. That won’t play well next October because Schiff has said a thousand things that are perfect for campaign commercials. Schiff is a California nutjob. That might play well in Minnesota’s 4th or Fifth districts but Minnesota’s 2nd District is a totally different critter.

The Democrats are heading for a difficult year whoever they pick as their presidential nominee. The bad news for them is that things can get worse if Democrats are pictured as Do-Nothing Democrats or Impeachment Democrats.

I wish I could say that I’m surprised to find out that Angie Craig and Dean Philips aren’t moderates. I’d be lying if I said that they were. Simply put, they aren’t moderate. According to this article, we now have proof that Craig and Phillips aren’t moderates. We know that because they’re now on board with impeaching President Trump for the flimsiest of reasons:

Minnesota Democratic Reps. Dean Phillips and Angie Craig have been moderates on impeachment, but an accusation that President Donald Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a political rival is changing that. Trump is accused of pressing Ukraine’s leader to help investigate political rival Joe Biden at the same time the White House was withholding $250 million in aid to that country. Trump says he’s done nothing wrong.

Phillips says it appears Trump “invited foreign interference in our democracy” in a way “that is corrupt at best (and) treasonous at worst.” He says if the accusation is proven, “we must pursue articles of impeachment.” Craig went farther in her statement on Monday, saying it is time to open impeachment proceedings now.

Nobody has seen the transcript of the call. Further, Phillips should know better than to say that President Trump’s alleged statements can’t amount to treason because it’s only possible to commit treason when we’re at war. Further, Phillips flipped based on a rumor. If he doesn’t know what’s in the document, what’s the justification for flipping? I suspect that Phillips wanted to support impeachment but he had to act like a moderate until the next faux indignation happened.

Here’s what Phillips is quoted as saying:

“Our Constitution transcends any person, politician, or political party, and I call on the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees to use every legal mechanism possible to obtain all relevant evidence.

If the reports are corroborated, we must pursue articles of impeachment and report them to the full House of Representatives for immediate consideration.”Think about what Phillips just said. He admitted in plain language that he doesn’t have evidence that President Trump has done anything wrong. Let’s contrast that with the Nixon impeachment. In Nixon’s case, there was a crime that’d been committed. There was something solid for Congress to investigate. In this case, the Democrats’ faux investigation is actually a fishing trip. They’ve heard a rumor and their hatred of President Trump pushes the Democrats’ buttons.

Instead of doing real work, like fixing immigration or keeping the Trump economy strong, Democrats have invested most of their time on investigation after investigation after investigation. That’s why I’ve nicknamed these Democrats the Do-Nothing Democrats.

Craig didn’t even do that. She said “It is clear that the sitting president of the United States placed his own personal interests above the national security of the United States. When there is an abuse of power of this magnitude, it is our responsibility to stand up for what is right. This is why I am calling to open impeachment proceedings — immediately, fairly and impartially.”

First, I demand to know what President Trump did that constitutes abuse of power. In his explanation, President Trump said that he demanded that the Ukrainian president clean up the corruption so that America’s money wasn’t stolen by international grifters (my words, no President Trump’s.). That doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment. It isn’t close.

Constitutional definition of impeachment

They should especially highlight Article II, Section 4, which says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Here’s hoping that this duo is booted out after a single term. This time, I hope We The People throw them out via the vote, not by having a Dayton-like temper tantrum..

According to this article, Democrat activists have pushed Angie Craig into supporting President Trump’s impeachment. Ms. Craig hasn’t been a portrait in courage since getting elected. Instead, she’s been part of the Do-Nothing Democrat Caucus since its inception. To her credit, Craig has admitted (in a roundabout way) that President Trump’s economy is working but that government is failing to provide Minnesota’s workers:

We have a major skills gap in the Minnesota job market. Minnesota employees cannot find the skilled workers they need with the right qualifications, and right now job seekers are having a difficult time getting the skills they need for the high-paying jobs that are available today. College isn’t the right path for every student and we shouldn’t be limiting the options of Minnesota students by underfunding or de-emphasizing technical education and career skills programs.

If employers are having a difficult time finding workers with the right qualifications, that’s an endorsement that President Trump’s economy is working. It’s also an indictment that government isn’t doing its job of training students to be productive members of the workforce. But I digress. That’s a topic for another day.

Far-left activists and politicians have been demanding the impeachment of President Trump since the first day he got elected. The problem is that according to a recent poll by Monmouth University only 35% agree that President Trump should be impeached.

University of Minnesota Professor Richard Painter who previously challenged Tina Smith for the US Senate in the Democratic Primary raised some eyebrows when he implied he was unhappy that he didn’t feel that Angie Craig was aggressive enough on impeaching President Trump.

No problem for Angie Craig:


All it took for Angie Craig to admit that she’s pro-impeachment was getting called out by a far left activist. If that isn’t a profile in courage, what is? Angie Craig is an empty pantsuit. How left is Richard Painter? This far left:


Angie Craig is now admittedly pro-impeachment and pro-single-payer health care. Whoever is the Republicans’ candidate against Craig should remind voters of those 2 things morning, noon and night every day through Election Day, 2020. I’ll buy that CD-2 is shifting demographically. I don’t buy that they’re shifting to a hard-left district that’s as far left as MN-04 or MN-05.

After reading Tina Smith’s quote in this article, it isn’t difficult to not trust Democrats when guns are concerned.

When asked if she thinks Congress would pass universal background checks this year or next, Smith is quoted as saying “I’m not optimistic. We’ve seen this cycle over and over again: concerns, promises to take action and then backtracking.”

Then there’s Angie Craig, another Democrat who sounded like an idiot when she said “The fact is most Americans support common-sense gun legislation. The only thing stopping it is the special interests that seem to have control over some politicians in Congress. I’m sick and tired of the NRA.” The article nots that “Craig supports universal background checks and banning what she called ‘military-style assault weapons.'”

What’s appalling is that neither Craig or Smith know the first thing about guns, yet they want to tell gun owners what they can’t do. As for Craig saying “I’m sick and tired of the NRA”, that shows how ignorant of who the NRA is. The NRA are people from all across the United States determined to prevent politicians from gutting the Second Amendment. Before people say that that’s conspiracy theory talk, I’ll show you a trio of Democrats running for president who support firearm confiscation:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) told reporters in New Hampshire on Friday that mandatory buybacks were “a good idea.”

Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from El Paso, spent the final weeks of August demanding mandatory buybacks of millions of assault rifles currently owned by law-abiding Americans. “All of them,” he tweeted defiantly.

Elizabeth Warren is the other Democrat presidential candidate who supports a mandatory confiscation of assault weapons.

Democrats love using the euphemism buyback instead of confiscation for obvious reasons. Confiscation is the right term. It’s impossible to buy something back that wasn’t your property previously. Since the government didn’t own the guns previously, it can’t buy them back. Democrats know this but that won’t prevent them from using that dishonest term repeatedly during this debate.

Here’s something to contemplate: if felons commit crimes, is it logical to violate law-abiding citizens’ Constitutional rights? Here’s another question worth pondering: will any of the Democrats’ solutions stop even 1 mass shooting? Thus far, the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

That’s because the Democrats aren’t looking at what’s caused mass casualties. With the Parkland shooting, the shooter told people that he was going to kill students. Rather than taking him seriously, the people running Marjorie Stoneman Douglas turned a blind eye towards the shooter. That was just a continuation of what they did earlier in his school career:

Cruz’s eighth-grade language arts teacher, Carrie Yon, kept diligent notes on his behavior for Cruz’s “Functional Behavior Analysis”:

Sept. 3: While reviewing [a] homophones worksheet, when another student mentioned the amendment that talks about ‘the right to bear arms’ Nick [sic] lit up when hearing the word that related to guns and shouted out “you mean like guns!” he was overly excited thinking that we were going to talk about guns. Nick later used his pencil as a gun … shooting around the classroom.

Then there’s this:

Yon provided her opinion for the “Functional Behavioral Analysis”:

“I feel strongly that Nikolas is a danger to the students and faculty at this school. I do not feel that he understands the difference between his violent video games and reality. He is constantly showing aggressive behavior and poor judgment. His drawing in class show violent acts (people shooting at each other) or creepy sexual pictures (dogs with large penises) … I would like to see him sent to a facility that is more prepared and has the proper setting to deal with this type of child.”

That doesn’t include talking about the other government failures prior to Cruz’s Valentine’s Day massacre. Those things don’t fit into the Democrats’ narrative so they’re ignored. The Democrats’ constant focus is on things that won’t stop these shootings. Democrats only want things that are ineffective or are marginally effective. For instance, the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t prevent a single mass shooting.

Until Democrats study what’s causing these shootings and become interested in connecting the dots with the people pulling the triggers, I’ll remain skeptical of the Democrats’ gun-grabbing plans.

I had to pinch myself to be certain I’d read this article right. I wasn’t imagining things. Sure enough, it really opened by saying “Two of the largest trade unions in Minnesota are backing the reelection campaign of Republican representative Jason Lewis against a Democratic business executive. The carpenters’ union and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49, both of which endorsed Hillary Clinton, will support the first-term congressman in the midterm elections in his rematch against former health care executive Angie Craig. Labor leaders praised Lewis’s record in Congress, highlighting his support for domestic energy development as well as his willingness to buck his political party. Lewis has supported Davis-Bacon, which favors union wage levels in federal projects despite the push in the conservative movement to abolish wage mandates.”

Here’s their explanation:

“In Jason’s time in Congress he has cast repeated votes in support of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage and has led on the issue of changing school curriculum to encourage more people to look at careers in the construction industry,” carpenters’ spokesman Adam Duininck said in a release.

First, if the name Adam Duininck sounds familiar, it’s because he was Mark Dayton’s chair of the Met Council. Then there’s this:

“Jason Lewis has made an effort to get to know our Union, understand our issues, and has taken politically tough stances in support of good paying Union jobs,” George said in a statement. “We don’t always agree on every issue, but we know that when it comes to supporting our jobs, he has stood with us, and that is why we are standing with him.”

Lewis offered this reply:

“I’m working hard to make certain we get Enbridge so we get the Pine Bend refinery in the second district … the oil it needs to grow the economy,” Lewis said in the Oct. 21 debate. “My opponent says, ‘well Sierra Club won’t let me endorse that.'” Lewis pledged to continue advocating for local laborers in Congress. He said he will continue to focus on workforce training and revamping the apprenticeship system, one of the Trump administration’s priorities, “so labor groups are able to thrive with adequately trained laborers.”

“This nation was built on the backs of hardworking Minnesotans like those belonging to these two groups and it is important we support them with our policies in Washington,” he said in a statement. “I am proud to have supported them in my first-term in Congress and look forward to continuing to work on their behalf.”

This is a major victory for Lewis. This can’t help Angie Craig.

One of the things that Angie Craig criticizes Jason Lewis about is cutting the corporate tax rate. Like a good DFLer, John Croman wrote this article, saying “She said the historic tax overhaul signed into law by President Trump missed the mark. ‘I’m all for tax reform if it’s for middle class families and small businesses but Jason Lewis voted for a tax bill that put $2 trillion in additional debt on the backs of my children and was a tax giveaway to large corporations and the top one percent.'”

Let’s explain something to the mathematically- and economics-challenged, aka the DFL, especially Angie Craig. President Obama’s corporate tax hike triggered a mass exodus of US-based multinational corporations. Simply put, these multinational corporations left. While leftists like Angie Craig and President Obama flapped their gums about Warren Buffett’s secretary paying a higher tax rate than Buffett himself, companies left, causing economic growth to stagnate.

President Obama famously said that manufacturing jobs had left “and are never coming back”:

Jason Lewis helped pass the Republicans’ Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, which President Trump hastily signed right before Christmas, 2017. Suddenly, manufacturing jobs returned. The economy grew faster. Wages started rising.

Angie Craig sees what’s happening. Despite that, she wants to tear down the policies that’ve built the strongest economy in 50 years or more. People should ask Angie Craig why she’d want to wreck this high octane economy. I’d love hearing that answer.

Craig’s pat answer is to say that the best way to grow the economy is from the middle class outward. Obama said the same thing. The economy grew at a 1.9% rate per year during his administration. In 2 years under President Trump, the economy is growing at a 3+ percent clip. Consumer confidence and small business confidence are soaring like they never did under Obama.

If you want to return to the stagnant Obama economy, vote for Angie Craig. If you want to keep this high-octane Trump economy going, voting for Jason Lewis is imperative.

During their debate on KSTP, Angie Craig totally stepped in it. She brought up the fact that Jason Lewis voted with Republican leadership 96% of the time. During the KSTP debate, Jason turned that around on Angie Craig, saying “I was a lonely voice on breaking the budget caps. I’ve been willing to take on my party. I don’t know of one single issue where she can said ‘I disagree with Nancy Pelosi’, which she’s taking $30,000-$40,000 from, and whom she’ll vote for speaker for. I don’t know where you disagree there. I don’t know where you disagree with Democrats. Enlighten us.”

Angie Craig’s non-responsive response went like this:

Well, I’ll tell ya, one of the things that I’ve been disappointed in with Congressional Republicans has been on infrastructure investment. As I’ve travelled around the district, things like a new interchange at Elko-New Market, an additional lane on 35 near Lakeville. These are real issues that mayors and local officials talk to me about. I thought that this was the one area that we could agree on when President Trump ran that we could come to some agreement on, that we could push forward a $1,000,000,000,000 infrastructure bill but instead, congressional Republicans gave that $1,000,000,000,000 to large corporations that gave that money away to the top 5%.

I’m still waiting for a responsive response to Congressman Lewis’ question. I doubt that I’ll get it, though. DFL candidates don’t seem to be responsive to people. (More on that in another post.) Here’s the full video of the Lewis-Craig debate:

Why won’t Angie Craig enlighten us on where, or if, she disagrees with Nancy Pelosi or Democrats? Frankly, I’m betting that her unresponsive response says everything we need to know about her. I’m betting that she’s a lock-step, aka rubberstamp, Democrat. In the end, I’m betting that that’s Angie Craig’s Waterloo.

Saying that it was predictable that Rep. Jason Lewis was going to thrash Democrat Angie Craig in their Friday night debate on Almanac is understatement. Cathy Wurzer opened by asking Jason Lewis about Congress acting as a check “on the imperial presidency and I’m thinking that you might’ve been thinking that Hillary Clinton might be president. How’s Congress doing in its role as a check on President Trump?”

Jason replied “Well, you know, I think we did 16 CRAs taking back Article I power from the executive branch” before Eric Eskola asked “What are CRAs?” Jason then resumed, saying that CRAs are “the Congressional Review Act.” Jason then noted that those CRAs eliminated over $4,000,000,000 worth of regulations. Wurzer then said “It doesn’t really sound to some people like they’re a true check on President Trump as no one is standing up to him on things he might say.”

Jason jumped in and replied “Well, Cathy, I think we get confused between what gets said and substance. Now, if you’re talking about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which gives families in the Second District $3,000 back, I’m not going to stand up against that. I led the way in getting that done. If you’re talking about style, would I do the things that the President does? Probably not.”

That’s Jason Lewis’ opening shot against Angie Craig. It was crisp, filled with information and in a friendly, conversational tone. It was apparent that Jason felt relaxed and confident in that setting.

Whenever Angie Craig went on the offensive, Jason Lewis had a well-informed reply. When she tried attacking him on health care, Jason nailed her by highlighting the fact that she pushed for an exemption from the medical device tax for her company. While there’s no doubt that Democrats will be pleased with her performance, there’s equally little doubt as to who was the more informed, most adult candidate on stage.

While I don’t doubt that this will be a tight race, I still expect Jason Lewis to defeat Angie Craig. That’s because he constantly looked composed while she frequently looked flustered when he had substantive replies to her talking points.