Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
Following up on What went wrong with Margaret's campaign, what about the other two? Like I said in the piece about the MAK campaign, I devoted the most pixels to that campaign because it's the one I volunteered for and knew best, but Dayton's is even more important to look at right now because it's the going concern rather than useful lessons for the future. Yes, we want to get better at this long-term, but right now, I really really really want to win the election for governor (next up in what makes me unique: I breathe oxygen).
I'm applying my own advice to get past the assumption that the winner did everything right and losers did everything wrong. Even a distant third place campaign might have done something right.
So on that note I'll take Matt Entenza first, and it seems from outside (those of you who were inside the campaigns will I hope chime in with corrections and details, and likewise Dayton supporters) that the Entenza campaign did a whole lot right. I'm going to look at two things most worthy of notice.
- From Think Progress, a 'libertarian' propaganda mill 'analyst' lets it slip out, as to where much of his funding originates.
- The US shadow wars in about a dozen countries, from The New York Times.
While the stealth war began in the Bush administration, it has expanded under President Obama, who rose to prominence in part for his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Virtually none of the newly aggressive steps undertaken by the United States government have been publicly acknowledged. In contrast with the troop buildup in Afghanistan, which came after months of robust debate, for example, the American military campaign in Yemen began without notice in December and has never been officially confirmed.
Lame duck Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty had more bad news today. Pawlenty has 1% of Iowa Republicans supporting him. Pawlenty has consistently been unable to rise above the low single digits in 2012 presidential polling.
Pawlenty scored 1 percent in a poll of Republican presidential hopefuls released Monday by the Iowa Republican, putting him in a distant tie for sixth out of 10 candidates in the poll.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa caucuses, led at 22 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 18 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 14 percent and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 11 percent.
As Pawlenty's presidential campaign trundles down the runway unable to achieve flight, I wonder how long the runway is and how long until his campaign loses its wings amongst the trees?
Pawlenty continues to be misleading about his record on the national stage. This time its not at a political event, but at an education conference. His bio on the Education Commission of the States web page, happens to be the same one on the National Governors Association page.
TIM PAWLENTY was first elected governor of Minnesota in 2002, with the state facing a $4.5 billion budget deficit - the largest in state history. Just months after Pawlenty took office, the legislature adopted his plan to eliminate the deficit without raising taxes. In 2005 and 2007, Governor Pawlenty balanced the state budget again without raising taxes.
Yes, he was elected governor in 2002 and he balanced the state budget without raising taxes. What he fails to mention was the dramatic increase in fees and property taxes on all Minnesotans.
Paul Krugman had a column yesterday in the New York Times about the unfairness of the current round of attacks on Social Security.
Krugman ends with this ringing call to action:
So let's beat back this unnecessary, unfair and - let's not mince words - cruel attack on working Americans. Big cuts in Social Security should not be on the table. *
It's a good read and worth your time.
But what too many such articles don't focus on is how we got here and the basic fact that current proposals to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of Social Security eligibility and payments represent:
1. A betrayal of a promise used to justify 30 years of tax increases on the middle and lower income workers in America.
2. An almost inconceivable assumption that the US Treasury Bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund are worthless or toxic assets (an assumption that could undermine faith in our country's willingness and ability to make good on its debt to other lenders that hold those same assets (including China and Japan) which could trigger the very soveriegn debt crisis that is used as justification for fiscal parsimony and poltical fear-mongering.
Courtesy of the UpTake, we have a great way to start the week: with Tom Emmer apparently getting himself confused about his own record on important issues.
In last week's debate with DFL candidate Mark Dayton, the candidates discussed the constitutional amendment which dedicated a portion of the state sales tax to arts and outoors programs:
On Saturday while debating before outdoor enthusiasts at Game Fair, Emmer said he was no longer in favor of repealing the legacy amendment.
DFL candidate for Governor Mark Dayton welcomed Emmer's change, but called it a "deathbed conversion" and remarked that deathbed conversions seldom last if the patient recovers.
Emmer said he was against the legacy amendment because "I didn't agree on putting the tax in...into our constitution." However, in 2008 Emmer sponsored a bill that did put a sales tax into the Minnesota constitution. HF3035 was never passed, but it called for a constitutional amendment that would require the sales tax on items used for fishing to be dedicated to game and fish programs.
You get that? Emmer said Saturday that he didn't support enshrining the sales tax in the Minnesota constitution, but as recently as two years ago he sponsored a bill that did just that.
This is the same candidate who said recently that he supported a new Minnesota G.I. bill -- one much like the one which he opposed in the legislature and which was signed into law over his "no" vote.
There's a rather startling pattern emerging with Emmer's campaign: one of a candidate who is both way too focused on instilling fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the electorate, and simply unprepared to discuss his own record honestly and clearly.
Not Governor material, at any rate. Bravo to Sen. Dayton for calling a spade a spade and nailing Emmer for his "deathbed conversion" on the issue.
TwoPuttTommy suggested an after action report, like was routine when he in the service, and I agreed with the concept. I just didn't agree with the timing, the morning after the election. With results just in and reactions raw, it seemed a bit like starting the after action report as soon as you stick your head up out of your foxhole. Now however, it's been a few days, and hopefully heads are clearer and more facts are at hand. It's possible none of us have changed our minds from Wednesday, and I'll admit that my opinion of the core error in the campaign hasn't since I formed it even before election day.
From what I observed, there was one problem from which others flowed, one that might have changed the result.
What I do find weird is I haven't seen it stated anywhere else. I've seen it hinted at, and smaller mistakes identified that struck me as too little to account for the loss. Margaret's supporters, me included, point out that she was up against two wealthy candidates, one with huge name recognition, but that doesn't explain the mistake, just the disadvantages she was up against.
Critics of the endorsement pounced of course, but the endorsement process had nothing to do with how the campaign was run, nor did it hurt her. In fact, without the endorsement, and with the same disadvantages, Margaret would have been a minor candidate. The endorsement is why she nearly pulled off a huge upset, which indicates it's pretty potent; more potent, I suggest, than when Dayton defeated the endorsee for senator in 2000. It's possible the endorsement is the only way a non-millionaire candidate can run statewide, at least if a millionaire is among the candidates.
Let's also be aware of what makes up the box we're trying to think our way out of.
Actually, the fact that her picture's there on the cover of newspaper distributed all over the country--is more important than the story that follows the picture. Here's the link to the USAToday story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...
That's something that a lot my friends on the liberal/progressive side don't understand. How can the fact of (her "picture" on the cover of the dead tree media) be more important than the fact of (her mendacity caught on video tape so many times; her career based in propagation of wild right wing conspiracy theories, etc.)? How can that picture (*any* picture) make a lying demagogue into a serious character, someone that the left and the center have to take seriously as a political phenomenon?
(CONTINUE)
- Yeah, it's 'bash corporate media day,' here at Mud Soup. Every day could be that. Moreover, it would take me about five minutes per day to find enough relevant, accurate posts. This is from Salon's War Room.
In this week's inaugural general election debate, Tom Emmer dodged the question of whether he supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
His excuse was, Well, it's not an issue for a Minnesota governor. We'll get into that in a moment, but for right now, I want you to consider how candidate Emmer, who has been against gay rights for his entire legislative career, couldn't own up to his record on the tee vee. Neither of the Almanac hosts were willing to follow up and say, Wait a minute, Tom, of course you support such an amendment; you authored one of the damn bills!
So let's go over the past month or so in the Life of Tom Emmer for Governor:
Emmer came out in support of penalizing tipped workers in favor of their employers, as though those employers might take those "savings" and employ more workers than they needed instead of simply increasing profits. Emmer later tried to back off of Waitergate, to mixed results
Emmer then tried to change the subject by coming out in support of a Minnesota G.I. bill -- and then took another PR hit when he was told that such a bill had already been signed into law -- over Emmer's objection and "no" vote. Oops.
Now Emmer is trying to avoid talking about his longstanding opposition to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples by saying "it's not an issue for a Minnesota Governor." But Mr. Emmer is not the Governor of Minnesota, and this is the worst sort of political dodge - one rooted in fact (such an amendment, if passed, would go to a referendum rather than being signed by the Governor) but in fact simply does. not. answer. the. question.
In reality, Tom Emmer has always opposed equality for same-sex couples along with the most extreme elements of his base, and has gone out of his way to lend support to extremist anti-gay organizations.
The right answer to the question was "Yes, I would support such an amendment. In fact, I authored one." But that answer wouldn't convince anyone that Emmer wants or is equipped to be a Governor for all of Minnesota. Because he doesn't and isn't.
- This is from a Daily Kos frontpager. I didn't check the comments, to see whether something as sensible as the sentences reproduced below got slammed by the purity trolls (on either side), because I don't care.
I know it must be frustrating for people in the White House to be held to such high standards; after all, by ordinary standards, they've accomplished a tremendous amount, and yet they are still receiving incoming fire. But fair or not, these aren't ordinary times. These are times that call for greatness.
- James Clay Fuller is extremely skeptical of economic recovery, for fundamental reasons that corporate media avoids mentioning.
- Well, well, well! Speaking of corporate media, people don't trust it, according to Gallup. Who would've thought?
- mnpACT! deals with Republican talking points (loads of drivel, as usual), regarding light rail.
Here's what President Obama said about the controversy about plans for a mosque near Ground Zero in New York:
"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."
And of course, the headline from your liberal media:
This was in response to the president himself clearly making this distinction. He's not getting into the identity of the builders or whether he agrees the exact placement. They have the right to build on private property. We're Americans. We'd don't discriminate on the basis of religion.
What stands out here is that there is nothing surprising about Obama's stance since I believe this is the stance of most people who take a 1st Amendment stance on this. Who the people behind the project are is beside the point. Getting drawn into the design of the building is irrelevant. We don't discriminate on the basis of religion. Call it the American values position.
Lame duck Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty had 
In last week's debate with DFL candidate Mark Dayton, the candidates discussed the constitutional amendment which dedicated a portion of the state sales tax to arts and outoors programs:
