I could’ve recited much of Tuesday’s Michele Bachmann-Tarryl Clark debate in my sleep. It was that predictable. Three things shined through though. Two of the three items were said by Tarryl.

Tarryl denied that she’d vote for EFCA, aka Card Check. She’s been endorsed by every alphabet union imaginable. Ditto with organizations like EdMinn and the Teamsters.

Should I believe that the biggest item on the unions’ priority list isn’t a priority anymore? Should I believe that Tarryl told a great big whopper? It isn’t that she’s stood up to the unions before.

The other thing that stood out was Tarryl’s repeating her contention, which I’ve debunked before, that she’s kept taxes low “for 97 percent of Minnesotans”? I debunked that myth in this post.

If Tarryl voted for tax increases that increase progressivity and tax increases that reduce progressivity, doesn’t that mean that she has’t “consistently kept taxes low for 97 percent of Minnesotans”?

The other thing that stood out for me was that Michele mostly stayed on offense without engaging Tarryl. In fact, at one point early on, Tarryl said that Michele “isn’t running against Nancy Pelosi.”

Michele stuck with talking about how she’d voted against Obamacare, the stimulus and other reckless spending initiatives. When you’re part of a small minority, the best you can do is prevent bad things from happening. That’s what Michele has done.

I said months ago that Tarryl’s biggest problem was that she’s a terrible fit for this district. I haven’t changed my mind.

Tarryl needed a game-changing slip from Michele. Tarryl didn’t get what she needed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Bachmann Stays True to Character, Tarryl Not So Much”

  • Gretchen Leisen says:

    After 23 hours and 45 minutes without power, I am finally back in business. So, I can now testify that Gary’s evaluation of Tarryl Clark’s performance was spot on. Listening to her responses to the very clearly enunciated questions required an exercise that plastic man would have envied.

    In nearly every response Tarryl meandered through descriptions of conversations she has had with people in the district. I would give her an “A” for evasion and obfuscation. After she finished answering, the listener had to really reach back into the memory bank to recover the actual question that she was supposedly responding to.

    Michele clearly won the day.

  • eric z says:

    You people. Power down and complaining.

    Think of all those candidates, of every party, for every office; relying on yard and highway signs for influencing voters.

    Out in the wind and cold, pounding rebar. Reattaching those plastic ties. I was out in the yard this morning bending all the yard sign wires back from the 45 degree or steeper slant they ended at overnight.

    I had to chase one Tarryl sign a half a block down the road, in a now leafless lilac hedge row.

    Anyway, we had no outage, so you have my sympathy. How dependent we become on being online.

    Again, I really sympathize with the rebar-and-tie-down armies out now in the field. Bless them all, especially the volunteers.

  • King says:

    Eric, thanks. We’re out tomorrow doing just that, decided to let the weather pass.

    I actually think it would be fairer to say that Tarryl didn’t answer the question on EFCA, even after being given a second chance to clarify her position. She didn’t deny or affirm. She simply avoided giving a direct answer. I understand her plight given the audience, but her non-answer was all people I spoke to talked about after the debate.

Leave a Reply