Phil Krinkie is My Guy
Posted by Andy on April 30th, 2006
The following is my own personal opinion and not that of any group I may be affiliated with.
I am supporting Phil Krinkie for the Republican endorsement in the 6th District. I do not mean any ill will to the other candidates, but I believe Krinkie is the best candidate of the four. He is the true fiscal conservative of this race.
I wish that all our state legislators would run for Congress. Since 3 of the 4 in the 6th are sitting state legislators, their votes were very carefully watched by the delegates, and it was very evident. They knew they had to vote a certain way to get the support, and all 3 did very well. But one of them didn’t need to change, that was Krinkie. He was the same guy he has been all 16 years he’s been in the House. He didn’t need to change his voting style for this race, it was already the envy of the others running which was clear to me by how they were trying to steal it from him.
Jim Knoblach: I had a conversation last week with a Knoblach supporting state Legislator who was trying to get me to support Knoblach, and he told me that “the fiscal conservative thing isn’t that big a deal and it was about getting stuff done”. I stopped him and asked, “If fiscal conservatism isn’t the big deal of this race, why are Knoblach and Bachmann trying so hard to make people think they are just like (or better) than Krinkie on the issue?” He replied back, “Good point.” I hardly even know who Knoblach was before this race, but the man that introduced himself to the 6th District in this race was not the man I barely knew. A true fiscal Conservative he is not. Sure this year has been good, but his lifetime Taxpayer’s League lifetime rating cannot be overlooked he’s got a 73 lifetime rating. He’s also been willing to throw in $200,000 of his own money just to say he has the most money. He didn’t need it, he could have always done it when he did it anyways. If he will throw his own money around like that, what will he do with mine? I am very worried about a Republican holding on to the seat if he does leave, considering the recent troubles the Republicans had during the special election in December. I think he’d make a fine Speaker of the House should the GOP hold it this year.
Michele Bachmann: From the very first moment that Bachmann came into this race, I was very worried. The marriage issue is her only claim to fame, and I did not want to see this race turn into a marriage referendum. The Democrats and the media would have a field day demonizing all Republicans by destroying Bachmann. It would be their only purpose of the year. Tear Bachmann limb from limb, and so go the Republicans statewide. There are too many other important issues before the District, and besides shouldn’t marriage be a right for states to decide, not Congress? Then why is she somehow the best candidate? The fumbling of getting the amendment through the MN Senate was just the last straw with me. Added on top of that all the other bungling from her campaign, the negative attacks, the lies and misstatements about her own and others’ records. Her lifetime rating from the Taxpayer’s League is 92. Then there is her campaign workers. I have never seen people so willing to alienate people even though those same people would be needed sometime in the very near future. (Cut their nose off despite their face.) I do not want some one to represent me in Congress who is willing to do and say anything to get elected. How can you trust someone like that? I’d like her to stay and finish what she started in the Senate. The Marriage Amendment and the Tax Payer’s Bill of Rights were both her missions, and as of now they are left unaccomplished. Oh and I suppose I should be brutally honest here. The whole poor me, I’m a woman and they are being mean to me thing only works if A) You aren’t the one who launched the first attacks, and B) They are simply pointing out the facts that you have been lying about.
Phil Krinkie is a guy I grew up around. He was my Representative as a boy, and a friend of my Mother’s. He IS the fiscal conservative in the MN House, a record few even wanted before this race. He is opposed to Northstar and other boondoggle trains. He has voted more consistently against the expansion of Government and increased spending than almost any other Legislator. He is not afraid to look a Governor or fellow Republican in the eye and say that they are dead wrong on supporting taxpayer funding for stadiums with out their approval. He is known as ‘Dr. No’ for a reason, he has said it far more than Knoblach and Bachmann, a history they are trying to rewrite in this campaign. Krinkie has a 96 lifetime rating from the Taxpayer’s League. The facts of that one are undeniable.
I feel Krinkie is the best one to represent me in Congress, plus I feel he is the best one to keep Mark Kennedy’s seat in the red column. His record is unquestionable as a Conservative Republican, and no matter who the Democrats select, he has an advantage. Tinklenberg is a moderate Democrat and Patty Wetterling is well-known, but a big liberal who doesn’t know how to answer a question. Phil Krinkie is the guy who can beat them both because he is right on ALL the issues. He’s a tough campaigner, a true hero of the Taxpayer’s, and I’d be proud to have him as my next Congressman.
Sphere: Related Content
April 30th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Ahtsway upway ithwey ouryay oughtsthay onway Esmay? (Translation: What’s up with your thoughts on Esmay? - the last word wasn’t translated into Pig-Latin, because I think Jay already did that.)
April 30th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
I’m confused. Andy, for someone who is SO adament about pointing out the fact that Phil Krinkie is THE Fiscal Conservative in the 6th District race…. you abandon that rationale when it comes to the gubernatorial race? Sue Jeffers is, was, and always will be more fiscally conservative than any one else in the race (namely, Tim Pawlenty, in regards to your arguments).
A little double standarding going on?
I think so.
April 30th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
It’s interesting. I hear from some of the No Stadium Tax people that Krinkie would have been able to stop the bill in his committee if he’d been more strategic.
I’d agree with you about Bachmann - if someone else would have been pushing the Bachmann amendment, it would probably have passed.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:57 am
Gee Mary, what proof do you have that jeffers is a fiscal conservative? Where is her record? I remember talking to her on the phone, and one of her big points was that she wanted to reach across the isle and work with both Dems and GOPers.
Krinkie has a record of being a fiscal conservative, where is Jeffer’s?
How the heck can you claim to stand on the right, and then say you want to work with the Dems and that not mean spending more money? (Since that is all the Dems want.)
I also think your whole publicity stunt/campaign strategy for Jeffers (belittling Pawlenty and the State Party) is a little double standardish, considering she says she wants to change the way people work together in St. Paul. If she is so good, why is it necessary for you to tear down the other people. Double standard?
May 1st, 2006 at 9:13 am
Good choice! If I were living in MN and in the 6th District, Krinkie would be my guy. He is, as you say, a true and real FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, in addition, you know where he comes from and won’t be guessing where he stands. This country needs more politicians like him!
May 1st, 2006 at 9:30 am
Mary,
You forget that the GOP members are mostly about protecting incumbants than anything else. That is why they rallied around Eibensteiner (”we don’t know enough about Carey, he might be worse”) and why they are trying to stiffle discussion about Jeffers (”Pawlenty is abandoning his base, but we will still carry his flag cuz it is all about winning.”)
Don’t expect any kind of intellectual consistency from party members of either the GOP or the DFL.
Remember, you’re are talking about the same group of people that rallied around Kennedy, pushed out Grams, ignores Uldrich & Shudlick, chased away Gutknecht (and who knows who else) because you need to be “united” behind a ‘valid’ candidate (what is the criteria to be considered a ‘legitimate’ candidate?) and then does not support the same for the 6th GOP race.
Consistency is not possible from Partisans. “It’s all about character, that’s why Hilary must be stopped. But dammit, we have to stand behind Bachmann if she is the endorsed candidate because winning is actually the most important thing.”
May 1st, 2006 at 9:47 am
Tony, watch out for that sudden stop at the bottom of that ledge.
Yes you are partisan. It can be for or against a Party. You’ve decided the GOP is not what you want it to be so it is evil. You’re making up situations that didn’t happen. You’re claiming wrong doing when you have no proof. Jeffers started as a Libertarian. If she wanted to be a GOPer, than she should have started there. She isn’t telling you the whole truth. She was first approached by the local GOP to take on Chaudry in the State Senate. She refused to do so with out making the race about Pawlenty and since it is the Republican Party that approached her what do you expect. Oh yeah, you expect a public prosecution of his policies and anything less is partisanship over politics, I forgot. The GOP did say no thanks back then, can you blame them? (OH wait you can, you hate Pawlenty too)
She hates Republicans just like you do, you run around calling all sorts of names, and then get pissed off when we don’t take you seriously,.
You want to talk about honesty, try being honest with the readers Tony. You have personal grievances with Republicans, and are taking it out on the whole party. You are being dishonest with people. You are making allegations that cannot be proven.
Anything less than Pawlenty’s head on a stick and making sure the non-incumbant wins is unethical to you Tony, I believe you have A) turned in your resignation to the Party, and B) pledged not to vote for a single incumbent.
Nose meet spite, damn the face.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:14 am
Oh and Tony,
Are there any other people you care to falsely claim wrong doing of? Why not just throw around more false allegations? Come one Tony, I know you are just trying to draw attention to yourself. Pull the Rove card, come one. Say Rove is running our party. You are getting about that fringe now.
I see your list is growing more and more. Do we eventually have to make sure that when ever we Republican faithful breath that you give us permission? Wait, would that make you king?
May 1st, 2006 at 10:44 am
Andy,
Facts would help you out here.
1) Yes, I left the party. Why? Because of the intellectual inconsistency that runs rampant with the party.
2) No, I have not pledged to make certain the incumbants win. The challengers get the benefit of the doubt with me to start a race. I support strongly my State House rep. I support the Auditor. What incumbants am I against? Governor, yes, and why? Because he has gone against much of his campaign platform to become less than the fiscal conservative he ran on. There is a platform out there that is more fiscally conservative. I have a positive outlook towards people which means that I assume they will hold to their promises. That being said we have Jeffers’ platform vs Pawlenty’s performance. Yep, he did great the 1st 2 years. But his last 2 years suck. Sorry, he has proven to be unable to hold a fiscal conservative platform. NEXT. Other incumbants I am against: My State Senator who is planning to vote for the Twins stadium and is NOT a fiscal conservative. Sec of State: provides poor service and is turning an office I believe should be devoid of partisan politics into one of pure partisanship. Who else? By my count that is 2 of 5 incumbants I support. Not bad considering how much I dislike typical politicians. Oh, if you want to count 2004 Pres, I supported Bush for one reason (foreign policy) which at the time outweighed his poorest positions (domestic policy). So that is 3 of 6.
3) I’m not AGAINST a party for the sake of being against the Party. Thanks for playing America’s favorite game, “Misread, misquote and miss the point.” Yep, I left the GOP. I explained clearly why. It has more to do with the delegates and members than the elected officials. I think the intellectual dishonesty from the GOP leaves them as vulnerable to fair and objective attacks as the DFL. Sorry, that is how it goes when one sacrifices their principles for the sake of winning.
4) I don’t hate Republicans. I hate the Republicans’ (and all parties for that matter) hypocrisy. Notice that you have yet to address what happened to the “Character Matters” mantra that the GOP uses to oppose evertying that Clinton said in 1996 all the way through the present. That is the equivalent of, well, speaking out of both sides of the mouth because when the tables get turned (Bachmann, DeLay, Libby) the GOP does exactly what they criticize the Dems of: circling the wagons. “Character Matters” is a line for political expediency and nothing more within the party. I hate that dishonesty. Are all Republicans dishonest? No. Just like not all Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitution Party, are not either. Is the party line dishonest. Yep, just like the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitution…etc. I actually bought the line during the 1990s. I realized over the past 4 or 5 years that it is just a line anymore. A few Republicans actually are closer to my beliefs than any other party…most just claim to be until it affects them. But I don’t hate the Republicans. I’ll tell you what, next time I want to know what I think and believe I will ask you, though, since you seem to be the expert on what I think.
5) “Anything less than Pawlenty’s head on a stick”–No, what would be best is Pawlenty to be a fiscal conservative this session. Time’s running out for that one and I’m not going to buy his BS during the campaign this time around. I would rather he came back to the good side of fiscal responsibility…and not be one of the rumored considerations for 2008 VP. I am first to admit that his 1st 2 years were great and I long for THAT Pawlenty to return before the election. In lieu of that, I’m looking for someone else that may be a fiscal conservative.
6) “She was first approached by the local GOP to take on Chaudry in the State Senate”–yeah, I sense you have no problem with the GOP picking and choosing who will run for what office and who will not run against whom in other offices. I find that is along the lines of “Kingmaking”. And no wonder you like it…it is the sole reason that Kennedy has been treated as the only candidate for over a year now. It is nice to prevent competition, isn’t it, at least when it is your horse that get the help. I noticed that you have not yet answered my question on why not pick one GOP candidate for the 6th last year (like the Senate race) be chase everyone else away? Then all the money could have been used against the DFL. Why the inconsistency?
Get a grip, buddy. I have been incredibly honest with my readers. Explain how I have not, please. I have laid out very clearly the reasons I think the Kennedy campaign has been playing below board (you have obviously chosen to ignore that I have answered every single question of yours on this…and I refuse to re-answer them. Go find the answers if you HONESTLY want your questions answered. I think this is just a rouse to act like what you say is fact.) I have explained very clearly why I support or don’t support various candidates.
I think what is the most telling thing is that even liberals with whom I disagree vehemently on policies are actually understanding my complaints. They address them when the complaint is directed at them. On the flip side the GOP engages in personal attacks (e.g. you against Jeffers), ignore the answers to their questions, distort the truth and (intentionally?) misquote or miss the point of complaints against them.
So, attack me personally, make up crap (”You are being dishonest with people. You are making allegations that cannot be proven.”)–I expect that from partisans who care more about winning than anything else. THAT is the mentality that now permeates the GOP delegates and THAT is the reason I left the party. THAT is the reason other friends of mine (in radio broadcasting) have also left the party in recent months.
Why are you so afraid of opposition? Did you or did you not try to talk Jeffers out of even running as a Republican against Pawlenty? Then she runs instead as a Libertarian and THAT becomes the SOLE reason for your opposition. Why are you so afraid of her? What is your opposition to her…aside from being a non-Republican? I mean, that is literally the ONLY reason that has been articulated.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:53 am
Andy,
What false allegations have I made?
Just because you don’t like what I’m saying does not make it false.
You know what cracks me up in this. You whine that people won’t let you talk about you candidate…but I have not heard you talk about your candidate. Why is Pawlenty better than Jeffers? But then when someone (me for example) voices displeasure you piss that they require permission.
Don’t put words in my mouth Andy. You have 0% of your efforts in this matter correct. And I will tell you what I told Mike McIntee: I fight fire with fire…so if you don’t want that battle then don’t vomit the fire first. If you wish to continue blatantly misrepresenting and creating what I believe, want, think, say, etc. I will do the same playing by the standard that YOU set forth. So knock it off or get ready for a wild ride.
I have answered every one of your BS claims that I’m making false allegations. Go back and read those answers, or at least stop perpetuating the lie that they are (a) false allegations and (b) unanswered questions.
Think before you respond…I do not appreciate your continued speaking on my behalf especially after I have addressed your fabrications. I will engage in the same manner from here on out with you as you have been with me if you continue this crap.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:08 am
So, Andy, what is it going to be. A civil discussion on differences (and articulating those differences instead of labels) or a flame war where we speak for each other while ignoring when each speaks for ourselves?
You decide. It is all up to you.
Retract the places where you put words in my mouth here? We can continue on civil in nature.
Or
Just move forward in a civil manner and ignore the crap up to this moment.
Or
Continue telling what each other thinks, feels, wants, says, believe?
I’m more than capable of playing under any of those standards…and the first scorching podcast will go online tonight as my return salvo
May 1st, 2006 at 11:13 am
Tony, why are you so opposed to having everyone else in the Party (You QUIT BTW) support a candidate that you do not like for your own personal reasons?
Why should we put our selves through these attacks from you? You quit. You took your ball and went home. You don’t get a say anymore.
When you do that, it proves to me that you really don’t give a crap. You are trying to get attention outside of the party, because no one with in it listened to you.
If you really cared about the crap you complain about, you should have stayed. Just because everyone didn’t run to agree with you might be proof enough that you are in the minority.
And, you have no clue how the party works if you think that leaders are not suppose to look for candidates. Kingmaking, give me a break. Saying it doesn’t make it so. If no one goes out looking for candidates, guess what, there will be no candidates. If a candidate gets more support from others early on, guess what, that is not a crime. You don’t get it. It is ok for people to talk to people about running for stuff.
You know what will happen if no one ever thinks about talking to people, NO ONE WILL RUN.
Are you really this anal about this, or are you just trying to get more points scored as being anti-GOP leadership?
And I am going to finally take my own advice and stop trying to reason with you. It is impossible. I am going to delete your comments in the morning, because they have nothing to do with this post. So if you want them, copy and paste them.
Go tarnish me and the GOP on your own blog from now on.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:23 am
I have deleted some comments because they had nothing to do with the topic of this post.
My blog. My rules.
Don’t like it, go start your own blog and tear me to shreads, I don’t care.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:26 am
I’m not looking for a say in the GOP. I am pointing out the problem with trying to silence opposition…and on what basis? Because she does not have the correct letter behind her name. That is all.
Again, you speak for me. You know what. Why don’t you author my blog since you seem to be so adept at doing my thinking for me. You seem to know better than I what I “really cared” about and you seem to have the inside track on my motivations (”trying to get more points scored as being anti-GOP leadership”) and you seem to know better the I do about what I know (”you have no clue how the party works”).
E-mail me so I can make you the author of the blog. That will include the radio show since you know better what I believe and care about.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Figures…can’t handle the heat so delete the comments.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am
THIS post on MY blog is about why I like Krinkie, not why TONY doesn’t like the GOP. We were way off topic. Period.
I just put them into moderation. As soon as I get time from my busy schedule of kingmaking, I will try to address your complaints.
But as you are not one of my constituents, I feel I need to address their needs first by helping get Republicans elected. Sorry.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Party above principles.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
boo hoo, Tony isn’t happy with me. Oh shucks, I may actually lose some sleep …
… wait a minute, I’m over it.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Andy, you are one of the party’s best and brightest…… Or so you think. Being blind doesn’t mean you are making the right choices.
As for Sue Jeffers, she understands what this country was founded upon. Liberty and Justics for All. Or have you forgotten the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, the writings of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and every other great document that arises to the nature of the foundation of this great country?
Ron Carey and his Exec Board, along with several narrow-minded delegates like yourself, prove that you are NOT the people that this state, this country wants.
There is nothing more important than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sue knows that. But apparently Tim Pawlenty and his cronies at State Party (did you know T-Paw called Carey to tell him to drop out of the chairman’s race?) have put power and alliances above what is BEST for this STATE, its PEOPLE, and the general well-being and happiness in OUR LIVES.
I am so sick and tired of people like you who are blind followers of the Party. For instance, Tim Pawlenty is not a candidate for Governor in 2006. Yet you have said, in less words, that you will do anything in your power to make sure he STAYS governor. You are all for taking the PEOPLE OUT OF POLITICS.
Republicans are going to get their asses handed to them in November if State Party continues to play dictator.
Stop kissing their toes and start thinking about the future of our state.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
As for Sue Jeffers wanting to work with ALL parties once she’s in office……..
Gee, maybe that’s not such a bad idea. Seeing that when one party or another pouts and talks trash about the other party and why our party is better and why THEY are the ones causing this mess….
Come on. We shut down government, there’s a media-driven power campaign, and NOTHING GETS DONE.
Maybe it’s best that we have someone coming into office that we can TRUST. Someone who doesn’t play the GAMES that apparently now come with jobs in politics. Someone who DOESN’T pander to PAC’s and Special Interest groups. SOMEONE WITH THE COURAGE TO STAND UP FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR STATE AND ITS PEOPLE.
Just because Sue doesn’t have the PROVEN, CAST IN STONE VOTING RECORD, doesn’t NOT make her a Fiscal Conservative. She does something even beyond that. When most people don’t take the time to find out how their reps and senators vote on some issues, Sue broadcasts her thoughts for the world to know about. You ask her, she’ll tell ya—-straight up.
Back to the ORIGINAL ISSUE…… I’m glad you support Phil Krinkie. Good Choice. Good FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. But I DO NOT applaud your choice to blindly support a RINO over a fiscal conservative, aka, Sue Jeffers.
….And if you delete these two posts, you have no spine at all. Why don’t you respond instead? Seeing as I’m still on topic with your posts.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Apparently it’s not enough for Mary to harass MDE, now she’s over here to heap her scorn and vitriol upon poor Andy because he has the gall to support Tim Pawlenty. Give it a rest — your obnoxiousness does not do you nor the candidate you support any favors.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
In case anyone is still sifting through these comments, don’t forget the post is about Krinkie!
May 1st, 2006 at 6:58 pm
“But I DO NOT applaud your choice to blindly support a RINO over a fiscal conservative, aka, Sue Jeffers.”
If Ms. Jeffers is such fiscal conservative Mary, why did she choose to run as a Libertarian? Why should the Republican Party hand over ANYTHING to a candidate who has filed and won the endorsement of another party? Why would Republicans choose to nominate an individual who has ALREADY WON THE ENDORSEMENT OF ANOTHER PARTY??????
May 1st, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Sorry to continue off topic Andy - but that comment of Mary’s could not go unchallenged…..
May 1st, 2006 at 8:03 pm
I applaud your choice of Phil Krinke. He has been my man since he stood up against the waste of light rail.
(It is more false propaganda that the light rail is a success. They are still moving/accelerating well over 1000 pounds of steel on average to transport a 200 pound person. And you call yourself an environmentalist?) Sorry, back to message. Krinke will not bloat the federal budget to pander to his constituents like the other two with records in this race. He thinks the Camber of Commerce is wrong to come out for the change in MVT amendment. ( I would rather slog through mud boils every spring than dump 40 % of MVT into transit, moving over 1000 pounds of steel to transport a person, even an over weight person.)
May 1st, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Krinkie’s campaign recently sent out an email saying…
Today, one of the most important Conservative bloggers in the state, who
happens to be a leader among 6th Congressional District Republicans,
endorsed Representative Krinkie for the Republican nomination for Congress.
You’re on a roll, buddy, not only are you the MOB’s most eligible bachelor, but you are now one of the most important Conservative bloggers in the state!
May 1st, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Good for you, Andy. I got the Krinkie update also. This was an excellent endorsement for Krinkie. And congrats for the mention on his elert.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 am
I’m telling you folks–you’re missing out on Esmay.
We have another Mark Kennedy (probably even more-so on the conservative side) and you’re dismissing him because he’s not one of the party machine.
Esmay has the military experience (a consultant to the Joint Chiefs, special ops, etc.) (Can you say John Klein?) and the business experience (Can you say Mark Kennedy?).
Like Klein and Kennedy, who also ran without political experience, there is no past record to disparage. Esmay will not run defending his record, but will run on issues and issues alone, something that Patty Wetterling is totally ill-equipped to do.
The time is ripe, and Esmay is the guy.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Not to denigrate Klein, but it did take him 3 times to win. Jay is my number 2 guy. He is a great guy, but his lack of experience in campaigns is something I cannot ignore. He’s gotten so much much better as the race goes on. Mostly due to the fact that he’s talking to people one on one and he is getting more comfortable, but he can’t win this race one vote at a time like that. There isn’t enough time between now and the election for Jay to spend 20 minutes in every voter’s home talking to them one on one.
Having a strong record as a Republican speaks louder than words in some cases. This is one of them.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:53 am
IMO, Jay is on a roll. He has totally lost the “jitters” that he had early in his campaign. He’s going to make the speech of his lifetime at the CD 6th convention. After gaining the endorsement, he’s off to the races, where his campaign will take off on a much more macro scale.
I’m telling you, we’re on the heels of something big here.
Again, JMO.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
“Not to denigrate Klein, but it did take him 3 times to win.”
True but when he ran the first two times Scott County was not as red as it is now. Plus he had to battle a long time incumbant who had big time name recognition.
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Hi Andy,
I’m also a lifelong Republican activist, one of the delegates who will be voting at this weekend’s 6th CD Convention. Like you, my mailbox is overflowing with last minute ‘updates’ from the four candidates currently seeking the endorsement for Mark Kennedy’s seat in Congress.
A major difference between us may be that I still recall Michele Bachmann’s entry into politics, and her triumphant struggles to overcome not only the sleazy politics of the DFL, but also the bogus Sierra Club indictment as a ‘Toxic 12’ candidate and the obscene efforts of Eva Young and her friends. Your current ad hominem attacks are reminiscent of Sammy Garst’s and Eva Young’s efforts over the years…
Yet Michele persisted, and soundly defeated Jane Krentz in the redistricting match-up of the decade…
I’m also disappointed in Phil’s recent spate of ad hominem attacks against Michele… Make no mistake about it, Andy… Phil is the instigator, and these uncharacteristic attacks would indicate — to me, at least – that Phil tragically underestimated Michele’s strength in the 6th District.
Today I received two new Krinkie ‘updates’… a copy of your endorsement of Phil in this blog, and a reprinted article from the Star Tribune highlighting Eva Young’s endless diatribe against Michele. Apparently Phil equates your endorsement with the ‘support’ of Eva Young and her friends; and you haven’t voiced an objection…
Your choice of political allies is disappointing…
kooch
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Actually Bob, if you dig through the archives here, I have been very hard on Eva, and just short of Swiftee at restraininorder. I also received information from Eva since she thought we were now somehow allies in this, but I did not use it. I thought of pointing out that fact that I decided not to use it, but I thought it would just aid Eva’s obsession with dumping Bachmann.
I can tell you that the attacks have been flying in but also out of Bachmann’s campaign.
She is still trying to convince people that she has the highest taxpayer rating in this race. When you look at all their careers, which is how you must grade politicians, Bachmann does not have the highest rating from the TPL.
She had a dismal 2005, and I know she blames Pawlenty for making Republicans choose,(her words) but choose she did. She choose to vote for a tax increase, and she has to live with that, not mislead people about it like she is still doing.
There is a taxpayer’s rating for 2005, why doesn’t Bachmann want you to know that?
For people like me, character matters, and twisting facts to suit your goal is not what I’m looking for.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Oh and Bob, care to explain the charges against Bachmann that Eva brought up? Are they true?
The Strib, as antiBachmann as they are, don’t just publish anything w/o fact checking it al least.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Excuse me, Andy… Eva Young is an often self-proclaimed Republican, but I do not believe she has ever been a member of the Republican Party. She was actively involved in the election campaign of a Democratic congressional candidate in Sioux Falls, SD, a few years back. According to Krinkie’s allegedly ‘fact-checked’ Strib article, Ms. Young once gave money to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1999… $5 or $10? Why no recent contributions?
If your self-analysis is correct… “For people like me, character matters, and twisting facts to suit your goal is not what I’m looking for.”… then you really need to review your relationship with Eva Young. You’ve become her hatchet man…
—————————
“Oh and Bob, care to explain the charges against Bachmann that Eva brought up? Are they true?”…
Allow me to quote the second paragraph of Krinkie’s allegedly ‘fact-checked’ Strib article: “Eva Young, active in the Log Cabin Republicans, said a supporter of a Republican competing with Bachman for the party’s endorsement next month (Are you Ms. Young’s source, Andy?) told her about Bachmann’s expense statements from a cable firm. Young would not identify the supporter or the candidate…”
You know Ms. Young far better than I ever will, Andy… and you’ve obviously already made the call…
Both you and Phil Krinkie have attempted to smear Michele Bachmann on the unsupported testimony of an unidentified source, leaking this information to the Strib using Eva Young, whom you identify as a person ‘obsessed’ with dumping Bachmann…
Wake up, Mr. Aplikowski!
And you expose your incredible naivete when you state further: “The Strib, as antiBachmann as they are, don’t just publish anything w/o fact checking it al least.”
Andy, do you really believe that Pat Doyle checked out all those “facts” about Eva Young before he wrote his incredibly supportive article?
Perhaps you need to spend more time reading Power Line Blog.
Bob Martin
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Bob,
I’m not Eva’s source, and I have no clue who it is. I think Eva is freaking nuts, always have felt that way, always will. She’s been a troll around RF ever since I first posted on the marriage issue way back when, which is what led me to Bachmann. Eva in fact saw me as an enemy. So please do not try to say we are in cahoots or something.
I’m getting used to this though, raise a question about Queen B, and you get smeared to high heaven. Is it wrong to bring up issues that might be problematic? Apparently so.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Andy says, “I’m not Eva’s [Eva Young] source… So please do not try to say we are in cahoots or something.”
I most certainly accused you (and Phil Krinkie) of being in cahoots with a rights activist who is, to use your words, “obsessed with dumping Bachmann”. And you haven’t refuted the charge…
Andy says, “… raise a question about Queen B, and you get smeared to high heaven…”
When you (and Phil) do not “fact-check” unconfirmed charges attributed to an unknown source, you are “smearing” Michele Bachmann. Expect immediate criticism for engaging in such unprofessional behavior. Expect continued criticism if you do not apologize…
bob martin
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Uh, I think I was pretty clear about that. But here are just a few to get the point across.
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2006/04/26/where-did-the-issue-go/#comment-16496
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2005/12/29/a-party-in-need-of-a-leader/
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2005/12/23/dfl-disenfranchising-st-cloud-voters/
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2005/12/14/st-cloud-gop-caucus-leadership/
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2005/12/07/new-st-cloud-blog/
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2005/05/23/outraged-outgunned-but-not-taking-it/
You better fact check yourself.
Again, I had nothing to do with that. Please stop insinuating I did. OK bob. I have never helped Eva do anything. Get it yet?
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Bob - answer Andy’s question. Are the facts about the cable TV reimbursements wrong in the Strib article? Sen. Bachmann didn’t even dispute them. She said it only happened a few months and she will pay it back if the Senate wants her to.
You can argue the relevance or the importance of the information, but the facts are not in dispute.
The larger point is for delegates to imagine how the Democrats in Washington are going to go after Sen. Bachmann over these sloppy reimbursements and statements if she is the nominee in November.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Bill Walsh (BW) says: “…answer Andy’s question.”
I already did, Bill…
BW says: “… the facts are not in dispute.”
Bill, at this point I just don’t believe Eva Young’s facts, Andy’s facts, Pat Doyle’s facts, or even your facts… I’m going to wait until this weekend for resolution.
BW says: “… imagine how the Democrats in Washington are going to go after Sen. Bachmann…”
Bill, it’s comforting to know that you believe she will defeat the Democratic candidate here in Minnesota. But if your ‘facts’ won’t derail Michele Bachmann’s candidacy here in Minnesota, who gives a damn about what opponents in Washington will think?
If you’re present this weekend, perhaps we can obtain ‘all the facts’ together…
bob martin
May 4th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Bob - just to clarify - when I reference the Democrats in Washington, I’m talking about the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). They are the ones who are going to pay for all of the advertising against our Republican candidate this fall here in Minnesota.
This confirms one of my fears - that many delegates do not understand how tough this election is going to be and how many outside forces are going to be involved. That’s why it’s important for Sen. Bachmann to be more careful with the facts.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Bob-”at this point I just don’t believe Eva Young’s facts, Andy’s facts, Pat Doyle’s facts, or even your facts… I’m going to wait until this weekend for resolution.”
Those were not made up, they came from actual state reports, and as Bill points out, she’s offered to pay them back. Would she offer to pay back something she never received?
Open your eyes up just a bit people, she is not the perfect flawless candidate she is leading everyone to believe, and all these things will be cannon fodder to the National Liberal special interest groups. Think this marriage debate was bad, just wait to see how much money they’ll dump in here for this race. MN is a targeted state, and the 6th is a pick up opportunity for them, they’ll do and spend whatever they have to to take the seat.
You need to go ask Bachmann if she is really being truthful, or if there are more skeletons in the closet just like her step-sister. Remember we went into the year with 70% plus approval for the marriage amendment, isn’t it at or below 60% now, and with out the amendment on the ballot?
These things do matter, because the Democrats will use them to sour the public. We have got to make sure we pick the Best conservative who is the most electable.
May 4th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Bill,
As a senior Republican ‘apparatchik’, you’ve stumbled twice early in this 6th CD contest. You’ve publicly announced your candidate preference, and now you’re publicly denigrating your candidate’s leading opponent, even before the delegates have reviewed the field, using what I would define as a ‘manufactured’ negative issue…
The sharp increase of motivated activists in this year’s political activities might be used as a measure of how 6th CD Republicans compare the candidates… or maybe not. But the delegates will certainly review your manufactured issue, and vote accordingly.
Andy,
You’ve hitched the cart before the horse… The DFL will attempt to sour the public, regardless…
And you’ve deliberately attempted to tarnish the reputation of our leading candidate. Maybe another of those recent ‘bad’ decisions you mentioned in recent comments? In any event, we’ll learn how successful such tactics are at this Saturday’s convention.
bob martin
May 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Have you been living under a rock? Just about everyone has made their decisions. We have all gotten about 300 lit pieces total. How can you even begin to say that the Delegates haven’t begun to view the field.
OK Bob, explain this, Why did Bachmann then mobilize all her supporters for Caucus and BPOU conventions with the strict orders only to vote for other Bachmann supporters? Huh? Why wouldn’t Bachmann have been predetermining the outcome “before the delegates have reviewed the field”?
I know she keeps saying she is ‘Keeping it positive” but then why did she mislead everyone on the Taxpayer’s league stuff? You cannot say lifetime, and then refuse to include one of the years, just because it doesn’t suit your goal. And what is that goal? Being more fiscally conservative than Krinkie.
Again huh, what is she afraid of? I thought she had it all locked up “even before the delegates have reviewed the field”.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Andy,
I don’t understand how the Taxpayer League claim constitutes an attack. Both Krinkie and Knoblach are claiming that Michele attacked, but I just don’t see it. I cannot think of a single piece of literature that Michele directly attacked her oponents. I cannot say the same thing from the other campaigns.
Krinkie sent a series of pieces claiming “Michele Bachmann is Unelectable”. Did Michele ever send a piece claiming that any other candidate was unelectable? That same piece claimed “a vote for Bachmann is a vote for Patty Wetterling.”
Krinkie sent a letter threatening a lawsuit to Michele’s home. Not an attack, until he CC’d every delegate in the 6th District. Has Michele done something similar?
Knoblach this week claimed that Michele raised our gas prices, quoting a bill (SF970) which had nothing to do with gas prices (SF970 was an attempt to repeal the No-Fault Insurance law). Has Michele done anything similar?
Both Knoblach and Krinkie makes absurd claims about Michele being an IRS agent. This is an obvious attempt to denigrate her personally and professionally, which is laughably ludicrous. Of course, the way they put it, (cue horror movie music) an EEEVIL IRS Agent (cue blood curdling scream), they might have just claimed she kicks puppies down the street. Can you point to one instance of Michele denigrating the candidates professional past?
The point of all this is that I think that it is unfair to claim Michele’s campaign has run on anything but a positive message. Even the “controverial” (heavy sarcasm) taxpayer’s piece. It did not challenge Krinkies ranking. It did not try to portray Phil as a spend-happy liberal. It simply showed that Michele CAN be considered a fiscal conservative. Why did she exclude 2005? Of course it was because the TPL rating was lower due to the cigarette tax. Anyone who followed MN politics over the last year knows what decision faced the legislators. But the point of the piece was that she has strong fiscal conservative values, not all that different from Mr. Krinkie.
Has a single piece said that her oponents are a bad person? That they are liars, cheats, or thieves? Has she ever said the they are the wrong candidate? I cannot think of a point when she has said this. Instead, she has focused on why she is the BEST candidate.
I expect that you don’t like my message. That’s fine, Andy. I absolutely respect your opinion. Thank you for allowing me to express my view of the 6th district race.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
The TPL thing is twisting the truth to suit her needs. Would it be ok for Krinkie of Knoblach to say they have the highest rating from MCCL from 1991 to 99? Since Bachmann wasn’t in their, would that be a fair statement? Or would it be trying to steal away people that would be her supporters. (Hypothetical)
And there was more than that tabacco fee on the 05 scorecard.
Michele Bachmann R52 - + + + + + + - + + +
May 4th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Andy sez, “Have you been living under a rock? Just about everyone has made their decisions.”
I don’t live under a rock, Andy. I really don’t know anyone who does…
Delegates may have a strong preference, but no one makes a final decision until we vote on Saturday. Isn’t that why you and Bill are working so hard to stir up uncertainty and doubt?
Andy sez, “…explain this, Why did Bachmann then mobilize all her supporters for Caucus and BPOU conventions with the strict orders only to vote for other Bachmann supporters? Huh?”
Are you saying you didn’t mobilize all of the Krinkie supporters you could find to attend your Caucus and BPOU conventions? Shame on you, Andy…
When you attend a political event for the first time, I think it’s human nature to vote for strangers who share your political preferences? You will agree with me on that point?
As far as receiving ’strict orders’ from Michele, that’s just more disinformation, Andy. Michele’s supporters showed up as individual volunteers, and acted accordingly…
I apologize, but I don’t normally respond to ‘Huh?’.
And I believe 6th District Watch has refuted your Taxpayer League issue…
bob martin
May 4th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
This is what pisses me off about you Bob. You don’t know jack about me. You’re coming here now, and saying I’ve done stuff I never did. Had you been reading RF, you’d have realized that I was very upset with the notions of slates by all camps. I think a BPOU should select teh delegates that best represent the area so that the area is fairly represnted by the delegates. Rather than the delegates representing their candidate.
You go ask the campaigns, I played no favorites at my convention. No one knew who I was for. Stop lying about me, yes you are lying about me. Is this the panic mode setting in? “Everyone’s against me, everyone’s against me. Poor me. They must all be working against me.”
Again, stop lying about me and what I did. I demand an apology.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
The comment above got cut off for some reason. Here’s Bachmann’s record for 05. The year she refused to acknowledge.
Michele Bachmann R52 - + + + + + + - + + +
May 4th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
My question still remains…where was the attack?
May 4th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Straight out attacks, maybe not, but it is disingenuous to play with the facts so that you seem like the best cabdidate.
TPL scorecard.
TABOR, I think the bill was offered a hearing in committee, but the author didn’t take it. That was Bachmann.
DOMA, She claims she is leading the fight, but the fight died at her feet.
Tax lawyer, She sure made me think she fought against the IRS, turns out she worked for the IRS.
Empty nester, Um, not she isn’t.
So has she attacked, maybe not, but she sure hasn’t been truthful.
I’ve taken my share of attacks from her supporters though. My other huge problem is some of her campaign staff. One of the people at my BPOU convention was the rudest SOB I’ve ever met. Just look at the statements from Bob above, he’s attacking me and acussing me of things that are untrue.
May 4th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
You are awfully quick to blame Michele for the defeat of DOMA. Are you as furious about Phil allowing the Twins bill to pass in the GOP controlled house?
For the record, I am not. Rep. Krinkie fought the good fight in fighting the Twins stadium. He did everything he could, and he lost. Just like Michele with DOMA. A DFL controlled Senate was never going to give the bill a chance to make the floor. Michele did everything she could, but it failed.
As far as your BPOU convention, it is unfortunate that you had a bad experience with one of the Bachmann staff members. I know that sometimes, campaign staff members get over-zealous in their support of their candidate, and there are unfortunate results. I too had bad experiences with rude campaign people. They were from many different campaigns, Kennedy, Pawlenty, Knoblach, Krinkie, Esmay, and yes, even Bachmann campaigners. It’s too bad, but understand that these people, in many cases, are under extreme pressure, and are seeing months, even years of work come to fruition. I am not excusing it, but I try to accept it as the way it is.
May 4th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Andy,
Some of these folks offering comments obviously have no idea what they’re saying absent talking points from certain campaigns. I have to admit I’m sheltered up north in Duluth, but I had no idea it was that nasty down in the 6th.
For the record I agree with you that Michelle Bachman isn’t the best choice for the GOP. She can be too easily cast as a one issue candidate (read extremist). Farily or unfairly, it doesn’t really matter.
The outside ads will come in strong and hard from the lefty groups, and the vast majority of people who don’t pay much attention to politics, but do vote, may well buy the charge.
It’s scary to me that the Bachmann campaign would send out such vicious attacks against you. They were way to personal for me.
By the way, I prefer Jim Knoblach or Esmay (because I fear the one issue tag being applied to Krinkie as well as Bachmann), but want you to know that the majority of your readers stand with you on the Bachmann campaign attacks.
Erik
May 5th, 2006 at 12:11 am
For the record: Andy Aplikowski was NOT my source for Bachmann’s cable bills. I had two sources for that.
I’ve got scans of the cable bills here so you can review them:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/05/scans-of-michele-bachmanns-cable-bills.html
May 5th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Bob-”at this point I just don’t believe Eva Young’s facts, Andy’s facts, Pat Doyle’s facts, or even your facts… I’m going to wait until this weekend for resolution.”
EY: That’s fair enough Bob - but you should go down to Senate Fiscal Services and look them up. Michele did submit her cable bills for reimbursement by the taxpayers.
Here’s an example of the work Michele Bachmann did as tax collector:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/03/michele-bachmann-tax-collector.html
United States Tax Court
MARVIN JAMES MANYPENNY, Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 7159-91.
Filed May 6, 1992.
Mary J. Streitz and C. Ann Olson, for petitioner.
Michele M. Bachmann, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAJAK, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE:
This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. Unless otherwise indicated all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax in petitioner’s Federal income tax as follows:
EY: I went down to Senate Fiscal Services to check these out before sending the press release out to my capitol press corps list.
She also charged the taxpayers for mileage to go to the “Love Won Out” Exgay conference. I’m not sure what that had to do with the business of serving her district. There’s many other examples.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Bob Martin:
Excuse me, Andy… Eva Young is an often self-proclaimed Republican, but I do not believe she has ever been a member of the Republican Party. She was actively involved in the election campaign of a Democratic congressional candidate in Sioux Falls, SD, a few years back. According to Krinkie’s allegedly ‘fact-checked’ Strib article, Ms. Young once gave money to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1999… $5 or $10? Why no recent contributions?
EY: That is most certainly NOT true. I never worked on Stephanie Herseth’s campaign - in fact, I strongly criticized her.
I’ve been a member of Log Cabin Republicans - and paid dues, since 1998. I’d given more money to the organization in 1999 - at that time I was on the National Board of Directors.
My work on Dump Bachmann blog has nothing to do with Log Cabin Republicans. I am still a member of the organization, but am currently not on the local or national board.