Has Franken found a communications fix?

I have not been quiet about suggesting that Franken has some major communication problems. In fact, his communications problems have been the only real reason Norm Coleman has been in the lead so far during this campaign. Norm certainly can't run on his record!

Now it looks like Franken has finally gotten the communications help he needs. Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reports:

Eric Schultz, national spokesman for former North Carolina senator John Edwards's 2008 presidential bid, has signed on as deputy campaign manager for the foundering Senate bid of entertainer Al Franken in Minnesota.

Schultz, who was heavily lobbied by national Democrats to take the job, will have a broad role in the campaign -- overseeing the communications, research and speechwriting arms.

That, dear readers, is the best bit of news I've seen in some time. In my mind, Schultz has three major tasks ahead of him, none of which have been done properly yet:

1. Institute a "zero-tolerance policy" against Norm Coleman's attacks. All attacks should be cleared up within 24 hours, whether that involves responding directly or getting the subject changed.
2. Re-introduce Al to Minnesotans. The first introduction was mired by irrelevant "scandals" dug up by Coleman to distract us from his own record.
3. Relentlessly turn the conversation to the issues, where Coleman is the most vulnerable.
   

By mid-August, maybe even the Republican-biased SurveyUSA will show Franken gaining.

Cross-posted to MN Campaign Report.

Person John Edwards's

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Like this post?
Has Franken found a communications fix?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Conservative-to-English dictionary

After reading enough conservative commentary, I start feeling like I need a translator to cut through the spin. So, I thought I would put together a translation tool myself. This project is a work in progress; as I argue with and write about conservatives, I will take notes on their language choices here. Please feel free to leave a contribution in the comments.

Attacks, negative: discussing the issues.

Christianity: the books of Leviticus and Revelations.

Fiscal conservatism: reducing spending for healthcare, education, and other pieces of the social contract, and transferring that money to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Liberal: someone we don't like.
See also proper definitions:

1.	favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.	(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.	of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.	favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.	favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.	of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Obstruction: a filibuster. Note: this only applies when Republicans control the Senate.
Protecting minority rights: a filibuster. Note: this only applies when Democrats control the Senate.

Small businesses, taxes on: taxes on people making over 1 million dollars

Supporting the troops: warmongering and reducing veterans' benefits.

Tax and spend: invest in infrastructure and the social contract.

Tax cuts: tax reductions for the wealthiest one percent. May be financed by:
1. Reducing spending for healthcare, education and other pieces of the social contract (see fiscal conservatism)
2. Adding to the federal deficit.

Voter fraud: helping poor people and/or minorities to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Weak on national security: protecting inalienable civil rights.

Like this post?
Conservative-to-English dictionary	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Do Bachmann and Kline really care about oil prices?

The Minnesota Independent noted yesterday that the Democrats' plan for gas prices was voted down in the House.

The Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, cosponsored by Rep. Tim Walz, would create a "use it or lose it" policy for oil companies leasing government lands—they have to drill on current land in order to lease newly opened lands—and would prohibit the exporting of Alaskan oil to countries other than the United States.

The vote on the bill failed to get a two-thirds majority at a vote of 244-173 (roll call). Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad joined Democratic Reps. Walz, Ellison, McCollum, and Oberstar in voting for the measure. Bachmann and Kline voted against it.

"Oil companies are leasing 68 million acres of federal land that are just sitting idle," Walz said in a statement after the vote. "The DRILL Act makes it clear to Big Oil that when it comes to leases, they need to use it or lose it."

How can Bachmann and Kline justify voting against this bill? They have been complaining about gas prices for months--and yet they voted against requiring oil companies to use their leased lands wisely. I understand that Bachmann would rather we Drill Here, Drill There, Drill Everywhere. But she must understand that the Democrats won't pass this ridiculous bill. So why wouldn't she do something to help improve gas prices?

It just goes to show exactly what Bachmann and Kline are all about: playing politics. They don't want gas prices to go down, because they want to be able to blame the Democrats.

Crossposted at Minnesota Campaign Report

Like this post?
Do Bachmann and Kline really care about oil prices?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

I'm sick of hearing about "flip-flopping."

"Flip-flopping" is yet another Republican phrase that Democrats have allowed into our communications. We need to stop using it ASAP. Call them liars, crooks, etc., but not "flip-floppers."

So many Democrats out there don't seem to understand that when we use Republicans' language, we lose. In fact, we love to use the same attack language they use. Here's a tip: it does not help our cause. A great example came during the DFL convention in Rochester. Howard Dean spoke against John McCain, and one of his biggest applause lines a list of policies which "he voted for, before he voted against it." Now why would the leader of our party want to remind people of one of John Kerry's biggest flubs of the campaign?

Democrats, on balance, are amused with the irony of using Republicans' language. But the irony doesn't translate well. Instead, we just wind up as the party that can't come up with its own message.

Like this post?
I'm sick of hearing about "flip-flopping."	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Dean Barkley: The Most Effective Senator in Minnesota History?

Dean Barkley, running as an Independent candidate for Senate, has a new website claiming he's "The Most Effective Senator in Minnesota History." According to the Star Tribune, Barkley only worked for 8 days in the Senate following his appointment due to Paul Wellstone's death. However,

he pointed out that he played key roles on three important matters: creation of the Department of Homeland Security, preservation of Minnesota's welfare-to-work program and funding for the expansion of St. Paul's Neighborhood House as a memorial to Wellstone and his wife, Sheila.

Barkley was one of a handful of centrists that voted to kill a Democratic amendment that would have stalled the Homeland Security bill, then traded his support for the bill for a pledge from the Bush administration that Minnesota wouldn't have to revamp its successful welfare program.

First of all, give me a break. You'll have a hard time convincing us that you're more effective than Paul Wellstone, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, etc.

Second, it's pretty easy to do this sort of thing when you don't have elections to be concerned with. An elected Barkley would be even less effective than he was during his 8 days serving in the Senate.

Like this post?
Dean Barkley: The Most Effective Senator in Minnesota History?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

MnDOT's alternate reality

You know how George W. Bush never seems to think anything is going wrong? To hear him tell it, we're winning in Iraq, the economy is good, etc. Well, apparently that's a characteristic of all Republican administrations. Our very own Department of Transportation seems to think that our bridges are in great shape, despite the number which have been closed over the past year.

According to the Star Tribune, Congressman Jim Oberstar faults MnDOT "for using only 51 percent of its allotted bridge program dollars for bridges over the past five years -- a rate that ties it with Arizona for last (my emphasis)." In response, MnDOT had the audacity to claim that bridges were in great shape:

"Looking at one federal program does not capture our investment in bridges," said Abby McKenzie, director of investment management for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). "When you look at actual bridge conditions, we are one of the best in the nation."

Is McKenzie serious? How many other states have had bridges collapse lately? How many other states have shut down 3 major bridges because of safety concerns?

Thank god for our DFL legislature. While MnDOT seems content with the situation at hand, the DFL provided the funding needed to establish a $2.5 billion bridge repair program.

Like this post?
MnDOT's alternate reality	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Conservative math, part II

Sometimes I just can't help but respond to the local conservative blogs. Roosh at Shot in the Dark seriously believes conservatives have the answer to our national debt problem:

I maintain that our deficit spending habits and their product, our national debt have left our country in an increasingly precarious position and is in fact an issue of national security.

The extrapolation of the mathematics, an element of which is our evolving demographics (i.e. more people getting on the wagon and less people pushing it) will eventually result in a national financial meltdown and the collapse of the American dollar.

Liberals oft cited moral imperative to be a compassionate, civilized nation manifested in layers and layers of entitlements will be eclipsed by the fact that at some point we will simply be unable to service our debt let alone borrow more.

Soon we will all be conservatives. Fiscally-speaking that is. The question of what our federal government should or should not do for it’s citizens will become an academic discussion.

Unfortunately, he and the rest of the conservatives don't have a leg to stand on. Their hero "W" has the dubious distinction of being the only president to lead us into war while simultaneously cutting taxes. Republicans in Congress fought tooth and nail against returning to pay-as-you-go rules.

In typical Republican fashion, however, they don't want you to pay any attention to this. The tax cuts aren't the problem. The war isn't the problem. Deficit spending--which we didn't do under Clinton--isn't the problem. No, the problem is that the terrible liberals want to make sure we provide our citizens with proper healthcare and send our veterans to college.

Don't buy the hype. Conservatives these days are not interested in reducing government spending. They're just interested in redirecting it: from working families to energy speculators, from protecting our country to attacking others, and from the bottom 99% to the 1% that has more money than it can even handle.

Like this post?
Conservative math, part II	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

How serious are we about reducing fuel consumption?

This isn't very recent news, but it's new to me. Apparently, the 2008 "Green Car of the Year" award from Green Car Journal was awarded to the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. The Tahoe Hybrid gets 21 mpg city and 22 mpg highway--better than other SUVs, but still terrible numbers. Yet Green Car Journal editor and publisher Ron Cogan gushes about the Tahoe:

“The importance of GM’s accomplishment can’t be overstated,” says Cogan. “For years, consumers have been buying SUVs in increasing numbers because of their functionality, making them the number one class of vehicle on the market. The problem has been obvious: With larger vehicles generally comes poorer fuel economy because of greater size and curb weight. An ‘equalizer’ has been needed…and the two-mode hybrid system in the Tahoe is clearly that equalizer.”

To me, this award indicates that Americans are not serious about saving fuel or protecting our environment. Cogan cites SUVs' functionality. What exactly is their functionality? The amount of space inside hardly seems so important: the average number of riders in an American auto trip is 1.2. The most common function I hear from SUV apologists is that sedans are less safe in a crash... because so many of us are driving SUVs. Is it really important for us to be riding SUVs?

For too long, we've been stuck in the midset that we can have everything we want without making sacrifices. Well, we can't save our environment or our economy while refusing to give up single-occupancy SUVs. We need to get serious before it's too late for our environment--and for our wallets.

Like this post?
How serious are we about reducing fuel consumption?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Metro Transit's leadership problem

Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council have just finished holding hearings on their proposal to raise transit fares, just as ridership is finally rising. The increase is gas prices has the potential to help us remake our transportation system in a more efficient way. Not surprisingly, Tim Pawlenty and his appointed chair of the Metropolitan Council, Peter Bell, are planning to squander that potential through fare increases.

This shows a typical lack of leadership on the part of the Metropolitan Council. Peter Bell's refusal to stand up to his boss is shown by his excuses for raising fares in an editorial written for the Star Tribune:

The skyrocketing cost of oil has been a mixed blessing for transit. On the positive side, it has helped boost Metro Transit ridership to the highest levels in more than 25 years.

But the fuel costs of Metro Transit and suburban providers have more than doubled since 2005, the last time transit fares were increased. And we buy a lot of fuel. Metro Transit uses nearly 8 million gallons of diesel fuel per year.

Fuel is indeed expensive. Nobody can deny that. However, the rising price of fuel is precisely why the Metro Council should keep fares steady. They have the potential to be a source of help to Twin Cities residents squeezed by gas prices. They are abandoning that responsibility.

Bell continues:

The Metropolitan Council does not want to cut transit service. Indeed, our long-range transit vision calls for expanding service and doubling ridership by 2030. We are off to a good start with the opening of our first light-rail transit (LRT) line in the Hiawatha corridor, the construction of our first commuter rail line in the Northstar corridor and the planning for our second LRT line in the Central corridor.

Even with our proposed fare increase, riders will pay only about 30 percent of transit operating costs. The other 70 percent will come from the taxpayers -- in the form of MVST revenues and legislative appropriations.

If you ask me, this doesn't sound like the rhetoric of a man who wants transit to succeed. Pointing out that transit is "subsidized" is a red herring designed to make transit look like "big, bad government." The truth is that all transportation is subsidized, not just transit. According to the Department of Finance (PDF link), in the 2008-2009 biennium we allocated approximately $5 billion to transportation. The gas tax pays for approximately $1.3 billion. Which means that 74 percent comes from the taxpayers -- in the form of MVST revenues and legislative appropriations. Bell's arguments are typical anti-transit arguments. The numbers show that all transportation is subsidized--so why is it okay for cars, but not for transit?

So what's the real reason behind the fare increases? Well, bossman Tim Pawlenty has already proven he's against transit--in fact, he was willing to sacrifice the Central Corridor as a bargaining chip. Peter Bell hasn't had the cojones to stand up to Pawlenty and ask for real funding for transit. Until Bell decides to stand up to his boss, we'll continue in this vicious cycle of fare increases and declining ridership.

Like this post?
Metro Transit's leadership problem	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman's out-of-touch record: transportation

This is the fourth in a series of weekly articles exposing Norm Coleman's record on the issues. All data in this series comes from CQ Weekly.

---

Does Norm "W" Coleman hate transportation? I know, it seems unlikely. But how else do you account for some of these votes? He doesn't seem to be objecting to the size of the transportation bill, so what's the problem? Maybe he just doesn't want to spend money on transportation at all. Check out his voting record below:

2003

In Norm's first year in the Senate, he voted to privatize core air traffic control functions, system specialists and maintenance of systems and flight service stations. We saw how well privatization worked for TSA; do you want your safety outsourced to corporations?

2004

Norm voted AGAINST the Surface Transportation bill that would authorize $318 billion in federal aid for highways, highway safety programs and transit programs over six years. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 14)

So was the problem the cost of the bill? Not likely. He also voted AGAINST an amendment to reduce the total cost of the surface transportation measure from $318 billion to $256 billion, to match the president's fiscal 2005 budget request. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 13) What exactly does Norm want? the only conclusion I can make is that he doesn't want to spend any money on transportation.

2005

Norm voted an amendment that would increase revenue by $13.8 billion and use it to increase spending for surface transportation projects. It also would add a section designating $34.7 billion for highways in fiscal 2006 and $7.1 billion for public transit. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 71)

But once again, spending doesn't seem to be the issue. He also voted AGAINST an amendment would reduce funding for certain programs by $10.7 billion. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 124) So, what WILL he vote for?

Of course, as long as we have transportation, Norm doesn't want it to be environmentally friendly. He voted AGAINST an amendment that would mandate phased increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2016. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 157)

2007

To be fair, I report both sides of the story. Norm voted FOR an amendment to increase the obligation limitation for the Highway Trust Fund by $1 billion to repair aging bridges. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 329) Of course, right after the I-35W bridge collapse, you'd hope he would finally start taking our safety more seriously than he did in 2003.

The bottom line: Norm "W" Coleman has consistently voted against funding for transportation infrastructure. That's not even considering transportation security. Next week, I'll expose just how often Norm voted against improving security aboard planes, transit, and cargo ships.

Like this post?
Coleman's out-of-touch record: transportation	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?