Down in polls, McFadden offers ‘Contract with Minnesota’

McFadden for Senate
Mike McFadden

Another “contract” is out. Says Mark Zdechlik at MPR, “Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McFadden said Wednesday that in his first 100 days in office he would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution to require the federal budget be balanced. He would also sponsor bills in support of building the proposed Keystone pipeline and other pipelines, he said. It’s part of what McFadden is calling his ‘Contract with Minnesota,’ which he said would also  have him supporting legislation to repeal the medical device tax and to simplify the tax code.” Every time someone starts in with another of these “contracts” someone else revs up the Godfather and Sopranos jokes.

More or less simultaneously … MPR’s Tom Scheck says, “The manager of Republican Mike McFadden’s U.S. Senate campaign is disputing a poll that shows DFL Sen. Al Franken with an 18 point lead over McFadden. The poll conducted by Survey USA  for KSTP TV shows Franken with 55 percent support and McFadden with 37 percent. The survey of 577 likely voters was conducted from Sept. 30 through Oct. 4. … A poll showing Franken with a wide lead could have ramifications for the entire ticket especially if DFL Gov. Mark Dayton is also polling well ahead of Republican Jeff Johnson. If Republicans voters believe that they can’t win either statewide race, competitive U.S. House races and legislative contests could also suffer.”

Not quite yet … Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today reports from Texas, “Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson’s arraignment on a felony child abuse charge was delayed here Wednesday after the prosecution said it would file a motion to recuse the judge from hearing the matter. Peterson, a Texas native, who is expected to plead not guilty, could not do so until a resolution was reached on the motion and his attorney, Rusty Hardin, said no plea would be entered Wednesday.”

Meanwhile, Deadspin is cutting Peterson no slack. Certainly not for his social media skills. Says Kevin Draper, “Adrian Peterson took to his Twitter account Tuesday night. This was a really bad idea. … The text message seems to be a series of 11 talking points — presumably sent to Peterson by a PR flack — relating to a recent investigation by the Star Tribune into Peterson’s charitable activities. The Star Tribune investigation was incredibly damning, revealing that Peterson’s foundation is essentially a sham. It appears that Peterson’s PR strategy is to assert inaccuracies in the Star Tribune’s reporting, and instead deflect people to an earlier report on his charitable activities from ESPN. (Peterson’s people, who have also urged us to read this report, may not have actually read it, given that it connects Peterson’s foundation to an anti-gay bigot and isn’t particularly helpful to his image.)”

Whose carbon footprint is bigger? Yours or this guy’s? At ABC News Rheana Murray has a story, with video, of a Minnesota-to-Manhattan “commuter.” “Ian Bearce, a self-described ‘super-commuter,’ travels every week from Minneapolis to work in New York City, before heading back home to his family. He posted a time-lapse video online of his extreme commute, showing his early-morning drive and shuttle to the airport, the flight to New York, the airport shuttle-to-the-subway ride and, finally, his arrival at the office where he works. Then, he does it all over again to get home.”

Do we have to start talking about Christmas shopping already? The AP says, “Many of Minnesota’s biggest companies say they aren’t expecting to achieve an anticipated 4 percent growth in holiday sales this year.The National Retail Federation issued its industry forecast, which anticipates the biggest gain in three years, on Monday. Despite the good news, local companies such as Best Buy, Supervalu and women’s clothing store Christopher and Banks aren’t very optimistic about the retail industry trade group’s prediction … .”

Bill Maher’s campaign to dump Second District Rep. John Kline continues to draw national attention.  Ana Marie Cox (the original “Wonkette”) reports for the Daily Beast, “I was a guest on the six-person panel (three team blue, three team red) there to take account of Kline and his fit for the district. … The audience — who looked themselves to be very student-loan-aware, if you catch my drift — was enthusiastically on [Maher’s] side, to such a degree that Maher directly acknowledged how difficult it must be to be on the conservative side of the debate. And it’s true. There was nothing about the panel’s set-up that was fair, exactly. Nothing about coming to a small town and telling them how to behave (or vote) is exactly democratic. But there’s not much about our electoral system acts that’s exactly fair, either. The Flip-a-District project is a clown-gloved thumb on the scale. Democracy may deserve better than a publicity stunt disguised as a voting drive, but then again, MN-2 deserves better, too.”

Here’s a YouTube of the young woman who played one of the token conservatives. “In this video, Katie Kieffer explains why free enterprise is the route to pursuing the American Dream.” Please don’t let me get trapped in an elevator … .

Talk about a soap opera: Paul Walsh of the Strib says, “A newly fired Catholic high school math teacher in Austin, Minn., carried out a months-long sexual relationship with one of her 17-year-old students and the two discussed in recent weeks that she may be carrying their child, according to felony charges. Mary F. Gilles, 28, who lives just northeast of Austin and taught at Pacelli High School, was charged with six counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, a charge leveled based on the boy’s age and the defendant being more than four years older than him.”

A committee has been formed! The Strib’s Eric Roper says, “Business interests have officially formed a non-profit company, Greening Downtown Minneapolis, to oversee unique downtown parks in Minneapolis under a new public-private conservancy model. Following models in other cities, the entity is expected to eventually control maintenance, operations and programming of the future downtown east park – bordered by a new Wells Fargo campus and Vikings stadium. Their purview could eventually extend to other spaces including Peavey Plaza off of Nicollet Mall.”

Comments (19)

  1. Submitted by William Goff on 10/08/2014 - 03:36 pm.

    Just a couple comments for your good folks to digest. First, this is the survey company used by Hubbard Broadcasting. Enough said there. Second, I refer to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight historical analysis and grading of political pollsters. Of the big pollsters (for sake of this discussion, let’s say those with at least 100 political polls analyzed), SurveyUSA is the only one with an “A” rating. I compare their rating with the ones being mentioned by the McFadden.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

    Just saying, as a political poll junkie.

  2. Submitted by Jeremy Powers on 10/08/2014 - 04:22 pm.

    Balanced budget?

    This means so much coming from a member of a party that faced a balanced budget requirement in Minnesota so they forced the school districts to borrow money because they couldn’t.

    • Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 10/08/2014 - 05:19 pm.

      It Means Even MORE

      coming from a party which inherited a budget in SURPLUS from Bill Clinton,…

      and, mostly through padding the pockets of their friends and cronies through “no bid contracts” and similar ripoffs of taxpayers in the name of defense and homeland security,…

      turned that surplus into one of the largest, if not THE largest deficit in US history.

      Of course when THEY were padding their OWN pockets at taxpayer expense Cheney loudly and proudly proclaimed, “Deficits don’t matter.”

      Either he was lying THEN, or the GOP was lying LATER while whining about the deficit (which they had to give up whining about because President Obama brought it back under control,…

      but even MORE likely: they were lying BOTH times.

  3. Submitted by jody rooney on 10/08/2014 - 05:06 pm.

    Can someone please explain to McFadden

    that the economics and budgeting at the federal level are not the same as personal finance and state budgeting before some idiots believes him.

    I would venture that every person on the planet who isn’t trying to raise a family on double the minimum wage and those crafty 1%’s has an unbalanced budget. It’s called capital acquisition. Unless of course you paid cash for your house and cars then you have my since admiration.

    We can have a balanced budget tomorrow all the federal government has to do is raise taxes. Beware of people selling you these kinds of amendments because a few years down the road you will hear “gee we have to raise taxes to balance the budget.”

    Bush and the Republican’s inherited a balanced budget and a budget surplus but their decision was to rack up debt instead of raising taxes. At least the Democrats are honest about it. If you spend you have to tax.

  4. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 10/08/2014 - 05:13 pm.

    If McFadden Were Elected, It Would Soon Become Clear

    that his “contract with Minnesota” retread of the Newt’s “contract with America”

    was the same as Newt’s,…

    a contract taken out on the lives and livelihoods of the poor and middle class,…

    paid for by the richest of the rich,…

    who would be expecting to be freely allowed to strip those poor and middle class folks of even MORE of their ability to find and hold well-paying jobs with benefits, reasonably-priced healthcare coverage, property of all kinds, and any hope they ever had of a comfortable retirement,…

    all proceeds of which to be dumped into the pockets of those who already have far more money, property, and other assets than any single human or family could ever justify possessing,…

    based on their contributions to society,…

    and lacking that justification, should ever have had the right to accumulate.

    Remember folks, it’s not big government that is holding your life back and pushing you toward poverty, it’s big MONEY and big BUSINESS,…

    both of which Mr. McFadden is only too happy to represent.

  5. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/08/2014 - 05:23 pm.

    Contract on Minnesota

    A balanced budget amendment has always been a bad idea. There is no reason for Mr. McFadden to resurrect it, unless he is trying to make his campaign look so pathetic that he will get a strong sympathy vote.

  6. Submitted by jason myron on 10/08/2014 - 05:27 pm.

    That’s some serious desperation

    that McFadden has going on, right there. I almost reminds me of that old National Lampoon magazine cover where it has a picture of a gun held to the head of a dalmatian with the caption, “buy this magazine, or we’ll shoot this dog.”

    • Submitted by E Gamauf on 10/09/2014 - 06:50 am.

      Bang on!

      That takes it down to its essence!

      Your illustration may be more accurately phase 3.

      Right now he’s on phase 2: He felt that he had to appear to “Sweeten the deal!” — with newer promises.
      One might ponder: Why didn’t he offer this deal right out of the blocks?

      It reminds me of the deal you’d get in Las Vegas hotel lobbies –
      attend a vacation condo sales pitch in exchange for a cheap door prize.

      And the pundits / campaign managers wonder why some politicians are mistrusted!

  7. Submitted by Bill Schletzer on 10/08/2014 - 07:14 pm.

    What is really dumb about this strategy is…

    that it has been shown that no one but the tea party far right of the republican party wants a pledge like this. If he could pledge to consider the possibility of raising taxes in order to balance the budget if done in conjunction with cuts to things, if he could pledge to actually be moderate, not just look so, No one except a minority wants these kinds of locked in promises that only a right wing billionaire or tea party militia member wants and he’s already got those votes. How tone deaf can you get.

  8. Submitted by Pavel Yankovic on 10/08/2014 - 07:19 pm.

    Typical criticism…

    From the “Tax & Spend” Minnesotans who think that the solution to every financial problem is to tax those making a higher income than they do. Liberal greed at it’s finest.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/08/2014 - 09:20 pm.

      McFadden is not against taxing and spending….

      It’s who he would tax and who he would spend it on.
      He has advocated a ‘flat tax’ which would increase the taxation on the lower and middle classes and decrease the tax on the wealthy.
      Unless paired with massive spending cuts which he has refused to specify, this would result in a dramatic increase in public debt.

    • Submitted by Tim Walker on 10/09/2014 - 07:45 am.

      Oh, those poor, misguided …

      … “tax and spend” liberals.

      Or not.

      You know, like, because taxing and spending is the primary function of governments, and has been since Roman citizens rendered unto Caesar some of their coins so that they and their neighbors could enjoy civilization. You know, like aqueducts and roads, and other neat stuff like that.

      And for the record, I and other liberals are not all about taxing just those with higher incomes than ours.

      I have stated here and elsewhere that I would gladly pay, and indeed *want* to pay, more taxes so *all* of us don’t have to drive on pothole-filled streets, don’t have to drive over crumbling bridges, and don’t have to go without vital modern necessities such as, well, the modern equivalent of aqueducts: clean lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers to supply all of us with safe water to drink.

      So, no, your labeling of liberals as “taxers and spenders” doesn’t miff me one bit, but only showcases your ignorance of the fundamental role of government.

      • Submitted by Pavel Yankovic on 10/09/2014 - 03:59 pm.

        Tim,

        since you *want* to pay more taxes then I guess you wouldn’t mind paying my portion.

        • Submitted by Ralf Wyman on 10/09/2014 - 05:24 pm.

          Your offer!

          Well, no. We would not like to pay your portion. That is not the point. What those of us who advocate an increase in taxes are saying is, a bit of shared pain in order for all of Minnesota to do better is OK with us.

          The point is to remind politicians that not everyone screams non-stop “lower my taxes!” I want those tax dollars spent well. I want them invested in things like roads, schools, and clean water that will keep Minnesota competitive and our citizens healthy and working.

          We’ve strayed far, far from the days of the Minnesota Miracle, when people up here understood that we’re all in this together, and that paying our fair share is part of being a good citizen.

          Paying your share as well as mine? That’s what the 1% wants all of us to do for them. No deal.

          • Submitted by Pavel Yankovic on 10/09/2014 - 07:08 pm.

            Ralf,

            you’re absolutely right. We have strayed far from the “Minnesota Miracle,” as you call it. We have gone so far that some pay much more than their fair share and some pay a lot less than their fair share. As an unapologetic high income earner I ask very little of the state. I only ask that they leave me alone.

            • Submitted by jody rooney on 10/15/2014 - 12:17 pm.

              You might want to take your blinders off and look at

              your life and activities.

              The state or government provides the structure that provides you with the framework in which to do business and frankly live safely.

              Can you make more money here than in other countries and keep more of it? Can you own property that you can be reasonably certain that you will retain? Could you bank or brokerage house close tomorrow leaving you without funds? Is your family safe when you are away from them? Is your water killing you? How about a 1000 hog feeding operation moving in next door to your home? Will you die of a heart attack because the emergency room or will they only treat people of a certain race or nationality.

              If you earn more you, you owe more because of the government system that minimizes your cost for profitability and increases the probability that you will retain it, and keep you and your loved ones alive long enough to enjoy it.

              Yes you can also depend on your knowledge, skills, and abilities to get ahead but if the only skill that was valued. Look at two activities in your life and figure how much of a public subsidy is involved in those activities then rethink about how government plays a role in subsidizing that activity.

  9. Submitted by Matt Haas on 10/08/2014 - 08:35 pm.

    I wonder

    How the Senate Republican caucus likes his “If I vote with my party too much I’lI quit” ad. Nothing better than watching Republicans circle the drain.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/09/2014 - 09:16 am.

      Maybe what he means

      is that the few times that ‘his’ party backs reasonable legislation he’ll vote against it.
      Fortunately, it doesn’t look like he’ll have a chance.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/09/2014 - 12:17 pm.

      Begs the Question

      What is the acceptable maximum for voting with the party? Using his logic, if it’s wrong to vote “with” the President 97% of the time, would it be equally wrong to vote against him 97% of the time?

Leave a Reply