« MUST READ FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: “DFL DILEMMA: EDUCATION VS. HEALTH CARE” | Home | COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “MINNESOTA VOTERS REMAIN DISENFRANCHISED” »
DFL NERVOUS ABOUT ITS GUV CANDIDATES?
By Ryan Flynn | March 31, 2009
The liberal blogosphere is all atwitter about Governor Pawlenty supporting term limits for Governor and other elected office holders back in the 1990’s. The fact that they are even bringing this up well in advance of any public announcement from the Governor shows a high level of nervousness regarding the fact that Governor Pawlenty may indeed seek a third term.
The thing that makes this a non-issue from the get-go is the fact that when then State Representative Tim Pawlenty was running for Governor he never made a pledge to serve only two terms. Contrast that with then Professor Paul Wellstone pledging to only serve two terms in the United States Senate if elected.
The nervousness this shows from the DFL bloggers is a complete lack of enthusiasm and confidence in their own field of Gubernatorial candidates, which includes a couple candidates with zero name recognition and an ethically challenged has-been.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 27 Comments »
27 Responses to “DFL NERVOUS ABOUT ITS GUV CANDIDATES?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I am always nervous about practically everything. As I recall, and please if someone has a link that adds to or contradicts me on this, Sen. Wellstone never ran on a pledge to serve two terms, he just said that to would serve only two terms to a reporter after he was first elected. Anyway, I thought term limits were a bad idea then, and I think they are a bad idea now.
If Gov. Pawlenty wants to run again, he has every right to do so, and if he does, I think the question of whether his time in office should will be limited should be left to the voters. As a voter myself, the fact that Gov. Pawlenty has been elected twice before, and might once have held a different position on term limits, counts for virtually nothing. There are a lot more important issues out there.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:03 PM
“The nervousness this shows from the DFL bloggers is a complete lack of enthusiasm and confidence in their own field of Gubernatorial candidates, which includes a couple candidates with zero name recognition and an ethically challenged has-been.”
I think it’s more suggestive of an unfortunate willingness to latch on to a really cheezy issue just for a cheap shot. I was on the other side of that issue during the Wellstone campaign, and my thoughts then were the same as my thoughts now, which is with all the important issues at stake in this campaign, term limits were going to be the one you focus on? Also, just in practical terms, I never thought term limits were an issue on which minds were changed. People’s attitudes toward the issue were pretty much determined by their pre-existing views of the candidates, and those pre-existing views were what determined how people would vote.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Hiram, are you too lazy to look it up yourself or are you just playing stupid again:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2002/races/mn_wellstone.html
For the record, Wellstone served less than 2 terms.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Hiram, still in denial?
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/03/us/wellstone-campaigns-in-race-he-pledged-not-to-run.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
”I want to give this all I have,” the rumpled political scientist from Carleton College said in the post-victory euphoria in November 1990. ”That means giving it 12 years — two terms. This is my post-campaign promise.” He repeated the vow six years later in his successful re-election campaign.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:23 PM
And another one Hiram,
“In an interview Monday with CNN, Wellstone — who in running for a third term had reneged on an earlier term-limits pledge — said his tenure in Washington had changed him. Wellstone said he had learned to appreciate the procedure and the need for “leverage” to get things done. ”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/elec02.mn.s.wellstone.obit/
March 31st, 2009 at 1:28 PM
You notice the quote is from a post election rally, and that the article itself was written years after the 1996 campaign. And it’s from the New York Times, nobody’s idea of a reliable news source on Minnesota politics.
But that said, I thought it was a silly issue to use against Wellstone, and I think it’s a silly issue to use against Gov. Pawlenty. If the governor’s views on term limits have changed with time and experience, I think that’s great and a reason to support him. I coul only wish he were more flexible on important issues, instead of just the trivial ones.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Interesting take on this. While you seem to believe democrats are nervous about their slate of candidates, I tend to see this as a sign that Minnesota is growing nervous about Pawlenty’s loosening grip on his own honesty.
If he said it, he should stand by it. You can’t make that case against Wellstone without making the same one against Pawlenty.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:47 PM
The fact there is a long list of candidates lining up to run against the governor is evidence that a lot of Democrats like their chances of winning. But Gov. Pawlenty is a popular governor, and if he does run again, I think he has a very good chance of winning a third term. It should be an interesting race.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:00 PM
When did Pawlenty say he would limit himself to two terms in office Leroy? Since he did not there is nothing for him to stand by.
However, if legislation was passed that created term limits then he would have to leave at the end of this term.
From your whining it is obvious that Ryan Flynn struck a nerve with this post. It is obvious that the Democrats are struggling with finding a candidate that can go up against Pawlenty and have even a slim chance of winning.
As always when liberals are looking at losing they will lie, twist facts, and just plain make up stories to discredit their opponent.
Leroy has lots of experience at telling lies.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:40 PM
“It is obvious that the Democrats are struggling with finding a candidate that can go up against Pawlenty and have even a slim chance of winning.”
When there are about a dozen DFLer’s running for the nomination, finding a candidate shouldn’t be a problem. Nor would I characterize the DFL nominee’s chances as slim at this point. I think they are better than that. A whole lot depends on what happens in the next year and a half. But no matter what happens, should he decide to run, the governor will be a very formidable candidate.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Hiram,
Good for you being honest. However, on this blog, these are the hardcore, bitter, loser Republicans. Saying this is a non-issue for Pawlenty is not enough for them. They need you to kick Wellstone around too (though if you were to do that, it would contradict your supportive statements for Pawlenty).
Stick to tying these losers around their own words, it works best.
So, any of you see those numbers on the President. Man, people just like him.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:46 PM
There was a curious dynamic at work in the 2006 election which still might play out in the 2010 governor’s race. Tim Pawlenty is a likable candidate from an unpopular party. In 2006, I thought Mike Hatch was a basically unlikable person from the more popular party. So in the conflict between likable and unlikable candidates, popular and unpopular parties, who wins out? In 2006, it was Gov. Pawlenty. However, if the Democrats in 2010 somehow manage to find a candidate who doesn’t come off like a complete jerk, the dynamic of the race could change in some very interesting ways.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:53 PM
“They need you to kick Wellstone around too (though if you were to do that, it would contradict your supportive statements for Pawlenty).”
I knew Paul slightly and was very committed to him personally and although he was considerably to the left to me politically I was a strong supporter. But Paul was not without his faults. He could be naive politically. I think the term limit promise was silly. I think the term limit trivializes politics, and I thought it was a lousy issue for Republicans, and as a Democrat I will argue as loudly as I can that we and indeed both parties should focus on the issues that confront us, not the silly things that may or may not have been said decades ago when all of us were younger and one can only hope, were less wise.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Chile F-
You make a good point. Pawlenty didn’t approve of term limits. He just supported legislation that would create them.
Since inconsistency and flip flopping seem to be the hot new trends for republicans, I guess I see why y’all are so proud of two face Timmy.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Heh? Not even an attempt to spin the Court’s decision today in the Coleman case?
March 31st, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Wrong Nancy Jenkins. The only way anyone should be held to term limits is if everyone is held to term limits.
I never supported term limits. We already have a process in place to limit terms. Unfortunately many people of your ilk prefer to tell lies and cheat where ever possible in order to get you party elected.
The good news is that people are starting to wake up and see the mistakes they made in November.
The Democrats are drunk with power and are stumbling all over the place but accomplishing nothing but promising the largest spending and tax increases in history.
2010 is looking better everyday.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Plymouthdem, whats the matter, no one paying attention to you on the other post? You are a silly little girl.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Game over.
I hope Norman is asking his PR/Lawyer team to explain the media coverage in the morning. Note to the former senator: you will be laughed at even further if you keep this up. Minnesotans want a senator seated. As painful as that may be to you, you should concede after the ballots are opened April 7.
Wall St. Journal:
Ballot Ruling Favors Franken in Senate Battle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854611413476215.html
Associated Press — international/national/state wire story:
Court cripples Coleman’s comeback chances in U.S. Senate race
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=392265
Star Tribune:
Coleman all but concedes, but will appeal court ruling
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42221767.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_nc:DKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Twin Cities Planet:
Ruling further diminishes Coleman’s election contest prospects
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/03/31/ruling-further-diminishes-coleman%E2%80%99s-election-contest-prospects.html
Reuters newswire (International/national), including Washinton Post:
Ruling on uncounted Senate votes favors Franken
http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE52U8M720090331
NY Times:
Minnesota Court Ruling a Setback for Coleman
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/minnesota-court-ruling-a-setback-for-coleman/
The Hill:
Court hands Coleman defeat in key decision
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/court-hands-coleman-defeat-in-key-decision-2009-03-31.html
And surprise, here’s the Fox News headline (can you say down-low play?:
Panel Allows Review Of 400 Ballots In Minnesota Election
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/panel-allows-review–ballots-minnesota-election/
April 1st, 2009 at 6:44 AM
Hey Hiram, you dumb fuck. You support tax increases. If taxes don’t go up, are you going to voluntarily pay more anyway?
Or, are you going to flip-flop?
April 1st, 2009 at 7:45 AM
If taxes don’t go up, are you going to voluntarily pay more anyway?
No.
Or, are you going to flip-flop?
Yes.
Maybe I should expand a bit. This is one of those knee jerk arguments often made in the hothouse atmosphere of talk radio but can’t survive once it’s removed from it’s protected environment. The response is that while I disagree with a policy, when it’s in place I follow it. This state has a huge deficit, and it isn’t within the power of any one of us to solve it individually. That will require a change of policy which will affect me just like it will affect everyone else in the state.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Hiram, there nothing “knee jerk” about asking Democrats to put their money where their mouths are – instead of demanding what hardworking people do with their money.
If you and the rest of the commies who voted for Obama, kicked in about $3000 a piece – the state’s budget “problems” would be solved.
Now, I realize that many dems don’t work. They could just forgo some of their welfare checks for the year. It’s a win-win!
April 1st, 2009 at 2:15 PM
“there nothing “knee jerk†about asking Democrats to put their money where their mouths are – instead of demanding what hardworking people do with their money.
Well of course, I would be subject to the same tax increase. My money would definiteley be where my mouth is.
“If you and the rest of the commies who voted for Obama, kicked in about $3000 a piece – the state’s budget “problems†would be solved.”
The budget deficit belongs to all of us. I don’t see why I should pay more than my share, or why you should pay less.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Hiram says, “I don’t see why I should pay more than my share, or why you should pay less.”
Spoken like a true Republican. Welcome aboard Hiram!
April 1st, 2009 at 7:26 PM
The problem is people like Hiram define his share different than he defines my share. His ilk want to take everything you have and give to themselves. They work everyday to take away the incentive of working people to succeed. Why work hard and better yourself when people like Hiram will just take everything away from you?
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 PM
And here after posting 23, I thought we had found agreement. I was even thinking about attending the local Republican meet and greet.
I can only speak for myself, not my ilk. What I know here is that we have a 4.8 billion budget deficit that is everyone’s obligation. If I could write a check or push a button and make it go away, I would. But that is not within my power. It’s not even within the power of my ilk.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Yes it is Hiram. If everyone of your ilk were to put their own money where their mouth is the deficit could disappear. Your problem is you want to take other peoples money to pay the bills. I don’t mind paying my fair share but your definition of fair is different than mine. I am willing to pay the same percentage of my income that everyone else pays.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 AM
Your problem is you want to take other peoples money to pay the bills.
Why not? They are everyone’s bills. Your problem is that you want someone else to pay yours.
‘I don’t mind paying my fair share but your definition of fair is different than mine.”
Perhaps. But my definition of what’s fair isn’t any more relevant than yours. Fair or not, each of us has an obligation here, and each of us must assume our share.
“I am willing to pay the same percentage of my income that everyone else pays.”
Obviously, I can’t say whether that means you pay more taxes or less, and the question of whether that would be fairer or less fair is very debatable. But we are required to pay taxes as provided by law, and the possibility that the tax laws could be improve in not the slightest degree can be used an excuse for not following the ones that exist.