Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives is in the Goober race.
The Entenza campaign has tried very hard to develop an air of inevitablity — that he is going to be the DFL candidate for Governor.
MAK’s candidacy is a bowling ball off an overpass for the Enetenza 18-wheeler and right now I’d have to speculate that she will be the DFL endorsed candidate for Governor(catch the edit at the end) [in which Broom fudges his prediction a bit].With the entrance of the Speaker and the expected entrances of the mayors in the next few months, the long summer Entenza has had to develop momentum and image will be quickly coming to a close.It’s game time.
Please, Democrats, I beg of you – nominate her. Nominate a hard-line tax and spender. Nominate a woman who put Cy Thao’s classic dictum, “when you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money” into action with every breath she took on Capitol Hill.
Endorse a woman who couldn’t compromise enough to squeedge a budget past a governor that was outnumbered two houses to none.
Endorse someone whose main qualification for office is “she’s less mind-warpingly camera-hostile than Larry Pogemiller”.
I beg of you. Endorse her.
That is all.
Camera-hostile. Heh. You’re a bit more diplomatic than I am. I was thinking “the Scandinavian Rosie O’Donnell”, or “Moby Anderson-Kellher”.
I was commenting on style, not looks. Pogey is a gaffe machine. Kelliher is a little more polished.
If he’s so hot for MAK, why the image of a bowling ball? Not a good idea when the speaker’s shape already brings that to mind.
I can’t wait until Entenza or Rybak or Theissen pushes her off the stage. I am getting really tired of the Margaret! campaign already for some reason.
And Pogey isn’t a gaffe machine. He actually believes what he says. It’s only a gaffe when you inadvertently tell the truth.
I hope and pray that the run MAK (either at the top or bottom of the ticket) with any of the other dolts mentioned. PLEASE, PLEASE.
One thing has to be noted in the ‘please nominate a tax and spend liberal’ plea here, Mitch.
Two years ago conservatives (me included) were salivating at the thought of a one term Senator from Illinois with no executive experience, loose ties to 60’s radicals and a product of the Chicago machine being the Dem nominee for president.
Then the GOP shot itself in the foot by putting up a moderate (at best) conservative who agreed with the other party as often as his own and didn’t run a very good campaign.
Now we are stuck with the radical liberal president who is currently spending us into debt oblivion.
So while I welcome the thought of the DFL putting up a far left candidate in what has the potential to be a Republican year, the state party could repeat what the national party did by nominating, say, Norm Coleman for governor because the party bigwigs think he can raise tons of cash.
Then we could be stuck with a tax and spend liberal in the governor’s mansion for the next 6 years.
“Then we could be stuck with a tax and spend liberal in the governor’s mansion for the next 6 years. ”
Do you mean Coleman or Kelliher?
I for one wasn’t optimistic about Republican chances in these last two elections. I am much more optimistic about Republican chances in the upcoming cycle but it’s a long time before November 2010.
The Republicans under GW Bush became spendthrifts passing a great deal of the Democrats agenda. Now the Democrats under Obama are proving they can spend much more, much faster.
IF we put Republicans back in power they need to remember why they were out of power.
Dave,
Two years ago conservatives (me included) were salivating at the thought of a one term Senator from Illinois with no executive experience, loose ties to 60’s radicals and a product of the Chicago machine being the Dem nominee for president.
So far, so good.
Then the GOP shot itself in the foot by putting up a moderate (at best) conservative who agreed with the other party as often as his own and didn’t run a very good campaign.
Here, we diverge.
The GOP shot itself in the foot from 2000 through 2008 by with a whole belt from an M240Golf by spending money like they were Democrats with different accents, and by making Clinton look like a Friedmanite.
They put their feet up on a wall, racked up an M2 and burned up a whole box of hardball by abandoning conservative principle and becoming part of the problem for two whole presidential terms.
And it was a disaster for the party and, thus, the nation. McCain’s “moderation” wasn’t the problem (although he wasn’t my first, or even fourth, choice), but Ronald Reagan could have sprung from the grave in full 1980 fighting form and still lost this last election.
What JPMN said; the party needs to not only learn the lessons from these last two drubbings, but remember them.
“a moderate (at best) conservative”
He was a maverick right up until he actually got the nomination, right Flush.
Point taken. McCain and his campaign weren’t the only reasons the GOP lost the White House. But it still leaves us in the same boat. The only way the GOP wins in 2010 is by putting up strong conservatives, rather than candidates whose sole qualification for the job is that they seem electable.
The best way to take the wind out of the Tea Party/Town Hall movement would be to run a couple of RINO’s for the top state offices.
Then the GOP shot itself in the foot by putting up a moderate (at best) conservative who agreed with the other party as often as his own and didn’t’t run a very good campaign.
The GOP ran a moderate republican who had been championed by the press over Bush in the 2000 primaries and an accomplished, highly popular female governor of a Western state. Not my choice, bit both McCain and Palin are well within the conservative mainstream.
The reason that they lost — and the reason that Clinton lost the nomination contest — was that the media shamelessly took the side of Obama. McCain/Palin could do no right, Obama could do no wrong.
If you want to find in-depth reporting on the connections between Illinois corruption and Obama, you had to read the Chicago papers. You won’t find in the national media.
You didn’t see Obama caricatured as a sleazy Chicago pol on SNL, though there was certainly enough material there that it wouldn’t be unreasonable to do so in his relationship with Tony Rezko alone.
When Rezko is mentioned in the news he is referred to as a ‘fixer’ in Chicago and Illinois politics.
What this means is that he got local politicians to steer money his way. In return he would give some of the money back to the politician, in the form of campaign contributions, jobs given to the pol’s family members and political supporters, etc. This is the Chicago Way.
What Rezko did was to convince the city of Chicago to give him a few tens of millions of dollars of public money to rehab slum buildings. It didn’t work, of course. The buildings Rezko’s company constructed were uninhabitable and lost the city millions, but then, making habitable, affordable housing was never the real goal. The real goal was to enrich Rezko so he could give political donations to the same people who signed the money over to him.
A ‘fixer’ like Reko needs a to be backed by a good law firm, and Rezko’s legal team was a firm called ‘Davis Miner Barnhill and Galland’. Guess who gave Obama his first lawyer job? Yep.
The ‘Davis’ part of the firm was Allison Davis. He later quit the law firm and got into the shady development business with Rezko. Davis was enough of a player that he was named to the Illinois State Board of Investment. This was the board that oversaw the investments of public employee pension $ in Illinois. Rod Clavichord appointed him to the position.
No one seems to know, or care, what Rezko’s relationship was with Obama when Davis Miner Barnhill and Galland gave Rezko legal advice. We do know, however, that at a time when Rezko’s developments were being shut down for not paying their utility bills, Rezko found enough money to donate a few thousand dollars to Obama’s campaign for the Illinois state senate. We also know that even after it was well known that Rezko took public money and used it to build uninhabitable buildings for poor people, Obama used his influence as state senator to steer more money to Rezko to construct more uninhabitable buildings.
That’s why the Rezko-Obama real estate deal is so important.
Even in Chicago you can’t simply hand a politician a paper bag full of money and expect to get away with it. One of the ways a ‘fixer’ can pay off a pol like Obama is by means of a real estate deal. The ‘fixer’ finds two pieces of property for sale by a single owner. He offers to pay the seller more than one piece of property is worth if he agrees to sell the other to his politician friend for less than its real value. Both deals have to go through at the same time or any of the parties can rip off the others — If the seller gets his high price from the ‘fixer’ he can refuse to sell at a discount to the pol, or if the seller gives the pol a discount before the more expensive real estate is sold, the ‘fixer’ may drop his offer.
When Obama bought his house in Chicago Rezko bought an adjoining lot from the same seller on the same day.
If you’ve read this entire comment you now know more about Chicago politics and the roles that Obama and Rezko played within that corrupt system than if you’d read everything written on the subject by the NYT or the major news networks.
‘Rod Clavichord’? Sheesh. I gotta get a new spell checker.
Govenor Green T Paw is out praising ethanol and wind again. Very disappointing.
Jesus, Terry. I don’t think you get to make fun of Penigma for long posts anymore.
I’m sure WCCO will be adorning Big Mak through a wide angle lense.
Except Terry’s post wasn’t paragraph after paragraph of drivel.
“If you’ve read this entire comment you now know more about Chicago politics and the roles that Obama and Rezko played within that corrupt system than if you’d read everything written on the subject by the NYT or the major news networks.”
Terry, I suspect Peevee/Flush/et al had their heads buried deep and refused to read it.
Their response speaks volumes. *crickets*