« MUST READ OP-ED: “HERE’S WHY THIS CLINTON SUPPORTER BACKS MCCAIN” | Home | VIDEO: COLLEGE REPUBLICANS ASK PEOPLE IF AL FRANKEN’S JOKE ABOUT RAPE IS FUNNY »
MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “ASHWIN MADIA DISHONEST ABOUT HIS CAMPAIGN RECORD”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 26, 2008
St. Paul – Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Ron Carey today released the following statement after 3rd District DFL candidate Ashwin Madia falsely asserted his campaign had not taken any corporate PAC contributions.
“While Ashwin Madia has traveled to Denver to pick up checks for his campaign, he has continued to claim his campaign has not taken corporate PAC contributions. His campaign has admitted he has taken corporate PAC money and returned at least one contribution for that reason. The residents of 3rd Congressional District deserve a leader who will be honest with them, and Madia is failing the leadership test.â€
Ashwin Madia Lies About Corporate PAC Contributions. “’It’s a 50-50 district. It’s one of the top ten races in the whole country right now, mostly likely to flip from Republican to Democrat,’ Madia told the crowd. ‘We’ve raised about $1.5 million, so far. I haven’t taken a dime of corporate PAC money this entire time. We’ve been doing it brick by brick, inch by inch. The poll numbers look good. We’ve got a great field operation. We’ve got great mentors. We’ve got the best volunteers in the entire country.’†(Curtis Gilbert, “Madia Takes Gamble And Heads To Denver,†MPR, August 26, 2008)
Madia’s Campaign Acknowledges Contribution From Corporate PAC. “The Madia release said ‘Madia has never renounced money from individuals or partnerships.’ One of the contributions came from a New Jersey-based firm called Sterns & Weinroth, which is organized as a ‘professional corporation,’ and not a partnership. Pollock said the campaign was returning that $500 donation, a gesture he called ‘symbolic.’†(Curtis Gilbert, “Polinaut: Paulsen, Madia Camps Trade Attacks Over PACs,†MPR, August 20, 2008)
Madia: “What I Haven’t Been Taking Money From Is Corporate PACs.” “What I haven’t been taking money from is corporate PACs. And the reason I haven’t is because I think right now that corporations exercise too much influence in Washington D.C…whether it’s the energy companies, insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies… and I think it’s undeniable that they have effected policy by paying…by funding campaigns of both parties, and so I’m proud of the fact that I’m not taking money from them.” (Midday, Minnesota Public Radio, April 11, 2008)
August: Madia’s Campaign Manager Says He Will Not Accept Any Corporate PAC Money. “Madia has called for removing corporate tax breaks for oil companies, something Paulsen did not address in his presentation. Rosenberg said Madia will not accept any corporate PAC money from the energy industry or any other corporate political-action committee.†(Paul Wahl, “Paulsen Calls For Energy Plan That Boosts Use Of Wind, Solar And Nuclear,†MN Sun, August 13, 2008)
FEC Reports Show Over $10,000 Received From Corporate And Business PACs
·      Dorsey National Fund, $500.00 on 03/20/2008 (Madia For Congress April 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
·      Lockridge Grindal Nauen Political Fund, $1000.00 on 03/21/2008 (Madia For Congress April 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
·      Sterns & Weinroth A Professional Corporation Federal PAC, $500.00 on 06/19/2008 (Madia for Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
·      Lockridge Grindal Nauen Political Fund, $4000.00 on 05/27/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
·      Robins Kaplan PAC, $2000.00 on 06/09/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
·      Faegre And Benson P.L.L.P. Federal Political Committee, $500.00 on 06/18/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
·      Dorsey National Fund, $2500.00 on 06/23/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
###
This is a reminder that I am a part-time research consultant to Erik Paulsen for Congress. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is my personal blog and it is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee.
Topics: Ashwin Madia, Uncategorized | 60 Comments »
60 Responses to “MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “ASHWIN MADIA DISHONEST ABOUT HIS CAMPAIGN RECORD””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Madia must really think we are a bunch of suckers. Why else would he return a corporate PAC contribution he took, and then less than a week later claim he never took a dime of corporate PAC money. Madia will soon find out that we voters in the 3rd are not as gullible as he thinks.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
As Erik Paulsen’s spokesman, do you really want to be making an issue of this when your own candidate takes money from ExxonMobil?
August 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Jeff: I am a part-time research consultant to Erik Paulsen for Congress. I helped with some press work while the campaign was between communications directors.
Madia’s double-talk/dishonesty on accepting corporate PAC money is fair issue.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Are you kidding me Jeff, Ashwin Madia just got caught in a big lie. There is no way for him to get out of it. He said he has not taken a dime of Corporate PAC money, less then a week after returning a contribution because it came from a Corporate PAC. Ashwin is either stupid, or he thinks the voters of the 3rd district are stupid.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Jeff: If you read MDE and can’t figure out that MBB is a partisan Republican, then you are a moron, writes MBB on MDE.
It’s not MBB’s finest piece of writing but, nevertheless that is what he displays.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
So let me see if I have this straight. Madia says he hasn’t taken corporate PAC money. Michael then expands the field to include corporate AND buisness PACs. He then finds seven contributions from five organizations that fit his new definition of Madia’s claim. All of which are law firms, not what most people consider when the think of corporation. Especially the ones legally defined as an LLC or LLP things Madia never mentioned and are quite different from a pure corporation. So which of these are truly from pure corporations?
Since none of the contributions that Michael has listed are from sources that are commonly referred to as corporations it doesn’t seem as though Madia was intending to deceive anyone. At worst is looks as though he was a little sloppy.
I don’t even live in the 3rd but the more Michael pulls this kind of crap the more I feel like sending a check to Madia.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Paulsen must really be desperate to try and return to the same dumb PAC attack. At best, you can point to a single returned 500 dollar LAW FIRM organized as P.C. contribution as a basis for this attack. And, you realize how weak the argument is by trying to bunch it with 9500 dollars in nonxcorporate contributions.
Hasn’t Paulsen taken several hundred thousand from stripper and business contributors?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am
“August 26th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Madia must really think we are a bunch of suckers.”
I don’t know if Madia thinks that, or not, but:
I sure do.
Paulsen claimed at his announcement that he’s a moderate in the mold of Ramstad and Frenzel.
Yeah, “right”.
Paulsen’s a far-right extremist, that’s running from his philosophy AND his record AND his party, and you chumps are falling for it.
If Paulsen had any spine whatsoever, he’d PROUDLY be running on his philosophy, his record, and his party.
He doesn’t; he isn’t.
But you bootlickers couldn’t care less.
Let me repeat: You Paulsen supporters are a bunch of suckers.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Kerosene Hat: Ashwin Madia’s campaign, while claiming they won’t accept corporate PAC money, accepting a contribution from a PAC with “corporation federal PAC” in their name.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Michael: Carey said this: “The residents of 3rd Congressional District deserve a leader who will be honest with them, and Madia is failing the leadership test.â€
Well, Paulsen has failed to be honest about his philosophy and his record – doesn’t that make republiCon Ron a hypocrite – AGAIN?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Madia’s excuse is that he only takes PAC cash from his friends, not the people he’s bashing…and that’s supposed to show what a stand up guy he is?
Pfft.
No wonder the only cheerleading teams we see for these pathetic Democrat pultroons are the likes of Leroy, Aaron the Airhead and their pet pot bellied pig, Cheeto boy.
A guy has to be pretty desperate to be willing to climb down the food chain that far…which explains why he is no longer a Republican; we wouldn’t take him on a bet.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Michael,
One of them does. The others you listed do not. Were they added for effect? Why did you expand Madia’s claim from corporate PACs to include business PACs?
Like I said before. They are all law firms. A type of company not commonly understood to be under the corporate definition. So while you have shown that $500 of the more than $1.5 million Madia has raised came from a organization labeled (though not commonly thought of as) a corporate PAC your presentation seems more consciously deceptive than Madia’s.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“Hey, I only take PAC cash from scumbag lawyers…I’m one of you!”
Oh, yeah…that’s a sweet message!
HAHAHAHA!
August 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Voter: “What have you got?”
Madia: “Mumbling obfuscation, trivial misrepresentations, outright distortions and PAC.”
Voter: “Have you got anything without PAC?”
MAdia: “Well, there’s non-corporate, scumbag lawyer PAC, that’s not got much PAC in it.”
Voter: “I don’t want ANY PAC!”
Moonbat supporter: “Why can’t they have non-profit, free range Wellstone! PAC?”
Voter: “THAT’S got PAC in it!”
Man: “Hasn’t got as much PAC in it as PAC Oil company and PAC does it?”
Chorus: “PAC, PAC, PAC, PAC, PACITTY PAC, PAC,”
August 27th, 2008 at 9:56 am
““Hey, I only take PAC cash from scumbag lawyers…I’m one of you!—
Except, Paulsen does the same thing.
Madia isn’t taking from companies which Paulsen is. Specifically, he’s been focusing on oil, insurance, energy, etc. companies that are at the heart of essential policy decisions that need to be made in the next couple of years.
Feel free to attack him for taking money from lawyers (personally, I think lawyers do as much if not more good than corporate citizens for their local communities) but all of those attacks will stick right on Paulsen. But, the distinction is who is taking money from the likes of big oil, insurance, utilities.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:57 am
“While Ashwin Madia has traveled to Denver to pick up checks for his campaign”
Is it Paulsen’s position that he won’t be picking up checks at the RNC?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Kerosene Hat: Ashwin Madia’s campaign, while claiming they won’t accept corporate PAC money, accepting a contribution from a PAC with “corporation federal PAC†in their name.”
Michael,
Doesn’t this logic stick right on Coleman? Even if he returned some dirty contributions, he still must agree that it’s okay to accept dirty money because he originally accepted the check?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Erm, PlyDem?
Paulsen hasn’t made any idiotic PAC promises which he is now busy covering up with idiotic PAC justifications and PAC lies.
That’d be your boy, Madia doing that….yupper.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“Erm, PlyDem?
Paulsen hasn’t made any idiotic PAC promises which he is now busy covering up with idiotic PAC justifications and PAC lies. That’d be your boy, Madia doing that….yupper.”
That’s a nice attempt at waving your hands and trying to change the argument. Your above posts argue PAC money is bad, and that PAC money from lawyers is especially bad. Those arguments have nothing to do with a promise not to accept PAC money from companies.
You can’t argue PAC money is bad and look Madia takes some and not have that argument stick on Paulsen (even more so). Just because Paulsen hasn’t said PAC money is bad (which, incidently, HE HAS in the past) doesn’t mean it’s not bad when he takes it.
The only argument against Madia here is whether he broke a promise — the only evidence of which is a SINGLE RETURNED $500 contribution from a LAW FIRM.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Oh, so the argument is that Madia broke his idiotic PAC promise, but only a little bit.
*blink…blink*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“Except, Paulsen does the same thing. ”
Except Paulsen never made an issue of it. Madia, another phony, DFL idiot, did.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:21 am
“Specifically, he’s been focusing on oil, insurance, energy, etc. companies that are at the heart of essential policy decisions that need to be made in the next couple of years.”
So what. Why the hell do you think law firms are giving to Madia? Might have something to do with either A) the lobbying efforts they engage in on behalf of insurance, oil, pharam, etc.; or B) because tort reform continues to be an issue in Washington and they’re buying off Madia to make sure that doesn’t happen.
My guess is that you’re not really saying that industries that have a vested interest in national policy decisions should refrain from political contributions.
“But, the distinction is who is taking money from the likes of big oil, insurance, utilities.”
No, the distinction is which of the candidates said he wouldn’t take money from special interests, but is doing so anyway.
Paulsen is at least honest enough not to lie about where he takes contributions from or make entire industries into juvenile bogeymen like these DFL turds.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
And by the way, PD… you’re the only one bitching about whether PAC money, or specifically that PAC money from certain groups is bad.
You’re the dumb ass who changed the subject. The subject is how Madia, a stupid, phony DFL idiot, made a ridiculous campaign promise not to accept money from corporate PACs (he selected that narrow definition so he could appear to reject special interests), meanwhile he actually did accept some corporate PAC money… and is in the bag for millions more from leaches like ATLA and the lobbyists who represent the same corporate interests he has cast as evil.
Madia is a turd. He’s a good Democrat.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“No, the distinction is which of the candidates said he wouldn’t take money from special interests, but is doing so anyway.”
We’ve had this debate before. Law firms have interests in politics and Madia needs to live with the perception that he’ll support those interests by taking their money. So does Paulsen.
Corporations also have interests. Usually, much different. Law firm’s don’t have the same interest an oil company has in drilling or energy company tax breaks. And law firms don’t have the same interest in health care reform that a big insurance company does. Paulsen has to live with the perception of him taking money from those organizations as well. Madia has chosen not to.
But, you can’t piss and moan about how horrible PAC money is when your candidate is taking it hand over fist — certainly way the hell more than $500 of it.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“Except Paulsen never made an issue of it.”
Sure he did. Paulsen has even said that “eliminating PAC contributions will restore integrity to the political process and give citizens the confidence that their voice is more important than special interests groups.”
August 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“But, you can’t piss and moan about how horrible PAC money is when your candidate is taking it hand over fist”
It’s the Democrat party that is engaging in this smarmy, disingenious obfuscation, not us.
Only a
pinheadDemocrat would believe that monied interests won’t ever be completely deterred from getting their fingers into political campaigns, and only those samepinheadsDemocrats would buy the idiotic argument that some kinds of PAC money is better than others.And only a complete moron is buying your
“She’s just a little bit pregnant”“certainly way the hell more than $500 of it” line.Give it up PD, you’re just making a bigger ass of yourself and your candidate.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“Law firms have interests in politics… ”
Then “Corporations also have interests. Usually, much different.”
Bullshit. Both law firms and corporations of every strip are out for their self interest. Both contribute as part of their desire for representation that favors their interests.
Businesses create jobs, wealth and prosperity. Law firms create jobs, wealth and prosperity.
There’s NO difference.
“Law firm’s don’t have the same interest an oil company has in drilling or energy company tax breaks.”
Not exactly, but they have interest in tort reform and regulations on jury awards, etc. Moreover, they also have the interests of their oil, pharma and insurance company clients to represent. Buy purchasing Madia now, they can lobby later.
That’s the cold, hard truth.
Madia is the fraud who wants to appear as though he doesn’t accept money from special interests. That is a lie.
“But, you can’t piss and moan about how horrible PAC money is when your candidate is taking it hand over fist — certainly way the hell more than $500 of it.”
AGAIN, you’re pissing and moaning about PAC money. Madia is pissing and moaning about PAC money. Not me, not Paulsen.
$500 is just the actual ‘CORPORATE’ PAC money. Madia’s taking a hell of a lot more than that in special interest cash, and it’s stupid of that phony bastard to pretend he’s against special interests. He’s bought and paid for.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“He’s bought and paid for.”
Like your boy Erik Paulsen, R=Target, isn’t??!?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Tommy, I know you’re too dense to understand, but the point is that rejection of special interests isn’t a point of differentiation between Madia and Paulsen.
Madia was just stupid enough to try to fool people that it is. And you’re stupid enough to follow along.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Chestnut, speakin’ o’ “stupid”, did you fall for Erik “The Hustler” Paulsen’s like of crap about bein’ a “moderate in the mold of Frenzel and Ramstad”?
Why are you backin’ a boy that’s tryin’ to claim he’s a RINO?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hey Tommy,
Paulsen’s not in my district, but I hope he wins. Sure. On many issues, I’m pretty hard conservative but on many others, I’m moderate.
I’d rather support a RINO, than some lying liberal piece of shit, such as anyone you support.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“Then “Corporations also have interests. Usually, much different.â€
Bullshit. Both law firms and corporations of every strip are out for their self interest.”
It took you all of two sentence to concede my point. If they each have SELF interest they are likely different. A law firms interest is different than an oil company (usually) which is different than a union which is different from an insurance company. Often, those interests are polar opposites. PAC contributions, to the extent they are evil, must therefore be weighed in light of organization giving the money.
He’s rejected money from companies like oil companies. As I said, attack all you want that he’s in the pocket of anti-tort reform because he takes money from law firms (but, so does Paulsen). But, to the extent that you don’t agree with oil company interests Madia is NOT fair game to attack whereas Paulsen is.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Are you really this stupid, PD?
“It took you all of two sentence to concede my point. If they each have SELF interest they are likely different.”
You don’t comprehend simple sentences well, do you? The POINT is that the MOTIVE of political contributions whether a law firm or a corporation IS THE SAME. Representation of their interests.
You are an idiot.
“A law firms interest is different than an oil company (usually) which is different than a union which is different from an insurance company.”
Tactically, maybe. But since you missed the point, I’m probably better off letting you wander around the desert chasing your tail and arguing with the voices in your head.
“Often those interests are polar opposites.”
No, actually, often their just irrelevant to one another. More often, a law firm’s interest in buying Ashwin Madia’s attention is fully aligned with it’s Big Oil company client’s interest in having its law firm buy Ashwin Madia.
Other times, those interests are just irrelevant to each other. Seldom are there “polar opposites”.
Madia is just another Dense Fraud and Liar (DFLer).
August 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Madia is stupid enough to make a bullshit claim that he can’t be bought by special interests.
Bullshit. He’s bought and paid for just like anyone else. It’s not a point of differentiation.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“You don’t comprehend simple sentences well, do you? The POINT is that the MOTIVE of political contributions whether a law firm or a corporation IS THE SAME. Representation of their interests. You are an idiot. ”
Who the hell cares about the existence of a motive? There’s a motive in individual contributions as well. You have to look at the specific motive (ie, where it’s coming from) and critique based on that. Or, I guess as you propose, ban ALL contributions.
“Seldom are there “polar opposites—
Heh? Tort reform vs. a law firm? Unionization vs. corporate efforts to fight unions? Giving tax breaks to oil companies as compared to some other organization?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
To Madia Supporters:
I for one am not taking any money from anyone except my employer who pays me for my time. Now the Government is taking money from me and lots of it. My biggest issue with Ashwin Madia is that he plans on taking a bigger chunk of my hard earned money and will enforce it with the IRS as his collection company.
So answer me this, why would I or anyone who pays taxes want Ashwin Madia to take more of my money? Especially when he’s going to tell me later that I should be doing more and he is going to vote to insure that I do. WTF, are all Liberal Kool-Aid chuggers stupid or just greedy?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So the answer, PD, is “yes,” you are that stupid.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“WTF, are all Liberal Kool-Aid chuggers stupid or just greedy?”
Both. They are stupid AND greedy.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
So, quid, it’s all about cutting taxes and only getting and keeping yours. How do you propose to pay for roads? Bridges? Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan? Schools?
The problem I have with the GOP philosophy is nothing is ever their responsibility. Everyone else is supposed to pay but never GOP’ers. It’s time to pay as you go….balance the budget. We’ll be paying for Bush’s war in Iraq for years to come. Who should pay for it? This generation or our grandchildren? You can’t cut cut cut taxes and start more wars. It doesn’t work that way. Madia is suggesting that we pay for our obligations. I agree.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Ladybelle,
You have bought the Democrat Party line totally. There is plenty of money available for education, bridges, etc., but much of it is wasted by the govt? Your party won’t be satisfied until they control everything, and make more people dependent and on the govt. dole.
Why not go ask “how much is enough” sometime to a teacher or the superintendent of your local school district. I’ve tried and gotten no answer, only a red faced glare.
Anytime you feel like giving the state or feds more of your money, feel free to write that check out. Nobody is stopping you. I love how liberals complain about taxes, charity, etc., but are the last to do anything about it.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I pay my taxes and I am far from rich so why should my family budget be sacked to support those who are illegal, choose not to work or are able to fool the government into paying for what is not my responsibility. If I’m responsible for everyone else then what is my motivation for earning a living? I might as well vote for a democrat and wait for a check to pay for my utility bills like those on welfare are doing.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
By the way, Bush is your President and his war is also yours unless you are one of the 12+ million illegal’s hiding from the US Government.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
quid,
Definitely NOT by choice….not hiding out – busy working and paying taxes.
Dashrock,
I was one of those teachers. I went back to grad school and changed professions because teachers are so underpaid for what they do. I got sick and tired of paying for school supplies for kids whose parents either wouldn’t or couldn’t afford to purchase them. I got sick and tired of working hours at night talking to parents and writing lesson plans and grading for wages I could earn as a secretary without a college degree. Trust me. Teachers are not overpaid for the work they perform. Schools may get too much money but it’s not going into teacher salaries nor classrooms. Why not ask how come some of these high schools have 50+ non teaching positions paid? I’ve been battling that for years in my local district. Money wasted isn’t wasted in the classroom.
FYI….it’s not “liberals” complaining about taxes. It’s the GOP. That’s all the GOP does is bitch about taxes – tax cuts, keep more, don’t spend a penny. I want bridges that stand up. I want roads that aren’t crumbling. I want my streets plowed. I want schools that teach. I want college educations to be affordable.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
It is the republican administration of the last 7 years that has increased the size of government by over 25%. It is this republican administration that added to the federal deficit by TRILLIONS.
And it is this republican administration that created No Child Left Behind, a HUGE unfunded mandate.
Put blame where blame belongs.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
And even if our govenment cut EVERY SOCIAL PROGRAM, it would only cut the federal budget by about 12%. That doesn’t even come CLOSE to making up for the TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT your party has racked up for my grandkids to pay off.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“You can’t cut cut cut taxes and start more wars. “
Sure they can, and if Bushy McSame is elected, they will.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
And I know now some of you will come back with a “the war” crap. So, PAY FOR THE WAR WITH EITHER BLOOD OR TREASURE OR BOTH. I don’t remember republicans during WW2 complaining about paying for the war. Anyone today who complains about paying for the cost of our government with all of those baseless excuses is UNAMERICAN and UNPATRIOTIC.
Ashwin Madia calls for our shared sacrifice. That is what I call patriotic.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I think we are all getting off topic here. This is supposed to be about Ashwin Madia, and his lie about not taking a dime in corporate back money. Let’s get back to talking about that.
Why do people think he told Minnesota delegates to the DNC in Denver that he hadn’t taken a dime of Corporate PAC money, less than a week after returning a $500 contribution because it came from a Corporate PAC.
A. He didn’t know he was being recorded by MPR.
B. He thought none of the delegates got the news about the returned contributions.
C. He thinks the voters of the 3rd are stupid.
D. He is a pathological liar and just cannot help himself.
E. He thinks if you give money back, it means you never really took it in the first place.
F. He honestly thinks a Professional
Corporation is not a Corporation.
G. He said he didn’t take a dime, which is true he took $500. $500 is clearly not a dime.
H. Other, please explain
August 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
My vote is for D, and A. I think we have a lot of evidence that he has trouble telling the truth, starting with who he voted for in 2000, and also including telling the Indian-American media that he is active in the Hindu Temple of Minnesota, and then telling the local media he is not really into his Hindu faith. I think these are all signs of a pathological liar.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The only one lying here is Tom.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Nice try Ladybell, but you are wrong, I was telling the truth about Madia’s lying. What I list are all well documented fibs told by Madia.
He “misspoke” on MPR before his endorsing convention saying he voted for Al Gore, and then confirming it when the reporter double checked to make sure Madia heard the answer correctly. With the endorsement in had he then switched his story on who he voted for, since he thought it would have greater appeal to the 3rd District voters.
Then he told the India Post that he was active in the Hindu Mandir(Temple) of Minnesota.
http://indiapost.com/article/communitypost/1364/
Then he down-played his relegion when he was not trying to raise money from Indian-Americans.
http://www.minnpost.com/douggrow/2008/04/18/1562/paulsen_isnt_counting_on_reliably_republican_district
So it is well documented that Madia is a liar.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not intestinally lying when you called me a liar. I’ll go with the theory that you have just been deluding yourself into thinking that Madia is an honest man.
August 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Say, Tom?
That second post didn’t prove squat.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Go ahead Tommy Johnson, and live in a state of denial. The fact of the matter is you guys endorsed a pathological liar, and not a very talented one at that. (Bill Clinton was a very talented pathological liar). I know you really hate Erik Paulsen, and have since before you even heard of Ashwin Madia. It is just unfortunate you endorsed such a weak candidate, now you are going to be stuck with Erik as your Congressman. If only you had endorsed Bonoff, you may have actually had a chance.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Lady,
My wife is a teacher, and yes we pay for a lot of things out of pocket. She almost was fired for buying clothes for some of her poor students, as this is not allowed.
Since you know all about MN Education, then you know how much is getting wasted by the districts. The entire system needs to be overhauled beginning with scrapping tenure. There is entirely too many teachers who suck at there jobs, but are protected by the union.
Let’s start with merit pay also. Decades of failure by the DFL controlled govt. in MN is to blame.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Erik Paulsen is a snake-oil salesman that denied who he is, what he believes, and his record on the day he announced. And he hasn’t stopped running from his philosophy, his record, and his party since.
Remind me of all that “reaching accross the aisle in Saint Paul” he claims, will ya?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Michael,
What gives?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Tommy Johnson:
You’re just so filled with hate that you cannot even see the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that Erik Paulsen is an extremely nice guy that knows how to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. You should talk to your Democrat Friends in the State House or Senate, and ask them what they think of him. They will likely say that they don’t agree with him on every issue, but he is a nice guy that they can work with.
As far as the snake-oil statement goes, the comment just shows that you do not know Erik Paulsen. I have known him for over ten years, and he hasn’t done anything different in this congressional race from what he normally does. He has not been running from his philosophy, his record, or his party.
He has said that he is more of a Tim Pawlenty Republican when it comes to his political philosophy. He also talks about how he has learned from Jim Ramstad, about how to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, which is also true. As far as running from his party, what evidence do you have that he is doing that? Is it because he doesn’t print his party affiliation on his campaign literature? Well, he has never done that; isn’t that what you would expect from someone that was not hung up on party affiliation and is willing to work with people from both parties?
August 28th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Hey Tom,
You’re wasting your time talking reason with Tommy. You’re right that he’s filled with hate. He’s also absolutely stupid.
Watching him try to write a coherent comment is like watching retards trying to hump a door knob.
I love that line from Dodgeball.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
“You should talk to your Democrat Friends in the State House or Senate, and ask them what they think of him.”
I have.
“They will likely say that they don’t agree with him on every issue, but he is a nice guy that they can work with.”
Bullshit. They say he’s a backstabber, and shut the state down rather than compromise. They also say he was in bed with the Racino people during that time. Why should Paulssen care how that shutdown affected schools? His kids were in private school back then, “right”?
“As far as the snake-oil statement goes, the comment just shows that you do not know Erik Paulsen. “
Say, pal? Paulsen door knocked me in 1994, back in the day when he stabbed Pat Pidcock in the back to get the endorsement.
“He has said that he is more of a Tim Pawlenty Republican when it comes to his political philosophy.”
That’s because people were laughing – LAUGHING – at his original claim that he was a moderate in the mold of Frenzel and Ramstad. Paulsen may be a snake oil salesman, but snake oil salesman are smart: Paulsen changed his message when he found out that line wasn’t working.
I’m very familiar with Paulsen, and I called him a “snake oil salesman” for the old-fashioned reason: he EARNED it.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Of course you love that line, ChinNuts – you’re too (cheney)in’ stupid to come up with an original line yourself.