After reading this Strib article, my first reaction was that Tarryl Clark would benefit from these endorsements…in the primary:

Tarryl Clark has garnered a long list of top-shelf Democratic support in her bid to defeat powerhouse Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann. But when talking to Hot Dish about how she would go about unseating the darling of right-wing cable commentators, the DFL state senator from St. Cloud listed some unlikely folks she admires.

Tops were former Govs. Arne Carlson and Al Quie, and former U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad, all Republicans. “Governor Carlson put us on a path to outcome- and results-based budgeting,” Clark said. “Under his leadership, we had some of the highest per-capita income and job growth in the country.”

Tarryl getting endorsed by Govs. Quie and Carlson or Rep. Ramstad won’t help Tarryl in the general election. I’d suggest that their endorsements have everything to do with firming up her support for Tarryl’s primary challenge against Maureen Reed.

Let’s remember that Dr. Reed has cast Tarryl as too liberal:

“After fully analyzing the situation, I have decided that if I do not receive the endorsement at the convention this spring, we will proceed to the DFL primary election.

We used thoughtful consideration to reach this conclusion since I have such a great deal of respect for the dedicated individuals in the DFL who generously give their time working to improve our state and nation. However, the Sixth District is unique in that it is more moderate and independently minded in its political leanings than the state as a whole. In fact, we conducted a poll which showed that the profile of the Democratic primary voter is more diverse in political philosophy than those who participate in the conventions.

Recent campaign results in the Sixth District show that a big-tent Democrat who appeals to independent voters has the best chance to defeat Michele Bachmann.”

Dr. Reed saying that the DFL needs a “big-tent Democrat” to defeat Michele this November. I’d modify that statement a bit. Here’s how I’d phrase that sentence:

Recent campaigns show that a Democrat who can’t appeal to independents doesn’t stand a chance in the Sixth District.

Tarryl ran as a centrist in the 2006 election. Since the start of the 2007 session, Tarryl has voted for unsustainable spending and the largest tax increases in Minnesota history. Because of her voting record, Tarryl’s centrist credibility is essentially nonexistent.

It isn’t likely that Dr. Reed will win the primary but she’s picked the right approach for defeating Tarryl. The other thing that will help Dr. Reed is that she’s pretty well-financed. She’s got the resources to give Tarryl a fight.

Tarryl is running a pretty traditional DFL campaign thus far in some respects but getting the endorsements of liberal Republicans like Carlson, Quie and Ramstad is a definite departure from a typical DFL campaign.

When the primary winner is determined, CD-6 voters won’t pay much attention to Carlson’s, Quie’s or Ramstad’s endorsements. They’ll pay more attention to Michele Bachmann’s commitment to stopping Washington’s reckless spending, repealing and replacing the Democrats’ unpopular health care legislation and her commitment to America’s energy independance by drilling in ANWR and on the OCS.

They’ll compare that with Tarryl’s record of voting for the biggest tax increases in state history, not looking for government waste and her support for EFCA, aka Card Check.

When that comparison is over, the likely result will be Tarryl be calling Michele to congratulate Michele on winning her third victory.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “These Endorsements Help Tarryl…In August”

  • ericz says:

    Gary, you are reaching.

    The Reed quote speaks for itself.

    It is not an attack piece on Clark.

    Also, Clark legitimately can call herself a moderate. Because she is a moderate.

    You are so far right everyone to you is a liberal if agreeing with Eisenhower Republicanism.

    I think most people understand your extreme [aka Emmer] conservatism in reading your work, and take due regard that way.

    I do. And within that context I appreciate your publishing a view.

    But to the mainstream world, both Tarryl Clark and Maureen Reed are moderates. It’s a coin toss which is more or less moderate compared to the other.

    Bachmann, their common foe, is an ultra-right-wing extremeist; and most mainstream people would, I believe, agree with that characterization.

    That said, I agree with the right wing contention that the recently passed healthcare legislation is a wrongful taking – my reasoning being if it were tax for single payer it would be for a public purpose, but a mandatory taking of one’s money, to give to private ventures, the uber-rich insurance magnates and their pirate crews, that’s overreaching. I agree it is an unconstitutional taking; even with the argument existing that assuring a healthy voting public – work force is a public purpose. Generally that is true, but you do not aim there by fleecing little folks to enrich those already having more than enough.

  • ericz says:

    I should add, Gary, as to the several Attorneys General going to litigation, there exists the situation long established, which they do not challenge, of paying an assessment [fee, tax use your favoriate term] for a driver’s license and plates and tabs for an auto. Then, to drive, you have to buy, from private suppliers, liability insurance. The argument there is driving an automobile, unlike being healthy and having suitable baseline care, is a “privilege” and not a “right.”

    Also, I have always thought that liability insurance would be cheaper if government supplied, as with nuclear power plants under the Price Anderson Act. Without that market bias [aka subsidy], nuclear power would have an even harder time taking hold.

    Just so people do not forget there are analogies and nuances, I thought it worthwhile to say so.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, Dr. Reed is taking a shot at Tarryl’s liberalism. Why else would Dr. Reed portray herself as the centrist with the only chance of winning?

    Michele Bachmann, who you characterize as “an ultra-right-wing extremist” believes that companies that supply products that the public wants should be able to turn a profit. You, on the other hand, have said in the past that they’re greedy profiteers. Guess which perspective is considered mainstream by the American people? HINT: It isn’t you.

    Michele also thinks that drilling for oil & mining for coal, thus producing affordable energy prices, is how you get an economy to prosper. You don’t, again characterizing these companies as greedy in need of havng their tax burden increased. Your view, which you’ve stated repeatedly on here, isn’t the majority opinion.

    Tarryl is great at characterizing herself as a reasonable, moderate person. Her votes say the opposite. Her votes say that she’s far left lefty who prefers a single-payer health care system. (That’s what she meant when she told an SEIU rally on the Capitol Steps that there’s still work to do with the health care system.)

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, There’s a reason why these attorneys general aren’t challenging those things: They’re administered by the individual states. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t prohibit states from doing these things because the Tenth Amendment deals with prohibiting the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from USURPING rights reserved to the individual states.

    The individual mandate requiring people buy health insurance is administered by the federal government as a condition of your existence. The Founding Fathers would give these extremist Democrats the tongue-lashing of a lifetime for attempting this stunt.

    Speaker Pelosi was questioned by CNSnews.com what gave Congress the authority for this. She cited the Interstate Commerce Clause. That’s a flimsy argument, especially since the federal government prohibits the selling of health insurance across state lines. It’s made even flimsier by virtue of the fact that each state has its own unique mandates, making this not an apples to apples comparison or even an apples to oranges comparison but rather an apples to beef comparison.

Leave a Reply