Mark Kennedy is getting desperate
It's customary for underdogs to challenge incumbents and frontrunners to debates. A debate is likely to raise the underdog's profile at the very least, and sometimes you can score a knockout blow against an opponent. Similarly, it's common for frontrunners to refuse or limit debates. They're already winning, so why take a risk? When a candidate is calling for debates, it's a sure sign that he's desperate.
That's why I was amused to see Ford Bell accept Mark Kennedy's challenge to debate. Bell is obviously an underdog -- he's been trying to get Klobuchar to debate him for weeks.
But why is Kennedy trying to debate the Democrats at this time?
It's simple. Polls show him getting crushed by Klobuchar in the general election. Mark Kennedy is getting desperate.
posted by Luke Francl @ 7:29 PM |
| 
18 Comments:
What is that crap on Kenney's website about Minnesota Democrats getting campaign contribution from Abramoff?
Tom, perhaps you should click to the full story. Of the 19,000 dollars given to various politicians via Jack Ambroff all came from his clients not from him directly. Of that Coleman got 3k, Kennedy 1k, the rest went to various DFL canidates Wellstone, Mondale and the DFL party. While Kennedy and Coleman have returned or donated to charity the DFL entities have not done so.
Since the ALL money we are talking about came from his clients, mostly Indian Tribes. What should the DFL do?
Dave
I tend to disregard all polling at this junture in any political race. The one real measure is the money poll, and we can see the results of that with last weeks withdrawal of Patty Wetterling. Beyond that it's like predicting the weather for Mid-march today, a wild guess at best.
Dave
The loss of native gambling kickbacks... er I mean donations to the DFL would be a significant loss. Especially as it comes at a time when the GOP is enjoying a very significant advantage in terms of the election warchest.
This is an example of reaping as you sew. Abramoff wasn't a GOP functionary. He was simply a corrupt man and he'd have gladly paid off whoever he had to in order get what he wanted. The GOP was in control in most places. As it so happens in MN, its the DFL that had the power and got the cash.
I'm not excusing what was done, just saying it was equal opportunity corruption. In order to spin it as a GOP problem the DFL is going to have to pay. (In this case pay back.)
They could make a very bad mistake by paying it back, but doing it so slow they still give the GOP lots to talk about. Time is off the essence.
-Censored
Censored: "Abramoff wasn't a GOP functionary. He was simply a corrupt man and he'd have gladly paid off whoever he had to in order get what he wanted."
Explain why every direct contribution Abramoff made went to Republicans - including a rather hefty sum to your boy George "I don't know him" Bush.
But back to Kennedy, he's polling atrociously, because he's an atrocious candidate. Everyone's mind is made up on him, because the whole state got to watch his attack ads during every Vikings game last year. They all saw what a petty, little man he is.
Sorry, Censored, a non-partisan study shows:
"in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up"
and
"Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern."
Read the rest.
Reggie,
I think I lost ya there buddy.
Jack paid off people in positions of power and influence. The GOP holds about a 2:1 advantage there. Hence, Jack's payola roughly matched that.
The line of "its really bad when he gives them money, but OK for us" isn't gonna play.
Paying the GOP when they have the power instead of the Democrats doesn't make Jack a GOP functionary. It just makes him a smart buyer.
Its going to be hard to paint just the GOP'rs who took his money as wrong. Its going to be hard to give back the money. Either is going to hurt, but waiting and then giving it back is the worst choice. You get blamed for keeping it and don't even get to. Looks like thats what they are doing too.
I'm not sure where the idea Kennedy is getting killed is coming from. I recall Coleman was deadmeat vs both Wellstone and Mondale.
Your polling has a bad case of the emperor's new clothese.
-Censored
"Jack paid off people in positions of power and influence. The GOP holds about a 2:1 advantage there. Hence, Jack's payola roughly matched that."
So are you saying that Republicans in office outnumber Democrats by 2:1 or that Republicans that can be bought outnumber Democrats 2:1? :)
Marko
Censored: "Jack paid off people in positions of power and influence."
So you're telling me that Jack donated to Bush, not because he and Bush are both conservatives who are in agreement on virtually every political issue, but rather because Jack predicted that George would win two virtually neck and neck elections, and thus be in power. Riiight.
Reggie,
The second election wasn't neck and neck.
Back to that denial - not just a river in Egypt thing.
-Censored
Yeah Reggie, perhaps you don't remember Bush's "landslide" victory in 2004? C'mon man, 51.2% to 48.8% isn't even close! That's a 2.4 point spread! Man, it was like Kerry wasn't even in the election!
Marko
I like Ford Bell. I will vote for Ford Bell.
Ford Bell is for single payer health care.
Ford Bell is for getting our troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Ford Bell is for public financing of campaigns for the US Congress and US Senate.
Ford Bell is the most authentic and honest voice in the U.S. Senate race.
Censored,
Re: polling reliability
Wellstone wasn't beating Coleman beyond the margin of error until after he came out against the war.
I never saw a poll that had Mondale over Coleman beyond the margin of error.
Yet more misdirection from the GOP shock troops in our comment section.
FACT: Jack Abramoff is a Republican.
FACT: Jack Abramoff has never given one red cent to a Democrat.
FACT: Accepting contributions from Indian tribes is completely legal.
FACT: Tribes employing Jack Abramoff gave more money to Democrats ("native gambling kickbacks" I believe our friend Censored called them) before hiring him than afterwards.
Conclusion: Democrats don't know Jack (Abramoff)
Yet ALL the money going to MN canidates (DFL or GOP) ONLY came from Abramoff clients. The link on the Kennedy site which got this whole discussion started rightly points out that the GOP canidates did in fact divest themselves of the much smaller sums than the larger sums the DFL has decided to keep.
Either all Abramoff client money is tainted or it is not, you guys must really pick a position on this.
Dave
Yadayadayada.
Paul Krugman said it best:
"Over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the 'Today' show's Katie Couric, have declared that Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients -- those Indian tribes -- gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he 'directed' to Democrats.
But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans."
Still ALL the money going to MN political groups came from clients NOT from Bad Jack. So the whole Paul Krugman quote is out of context with regards to the MN DFL NOT divesting themselves of the socalled tainted money's.
Dave
Uh, no:
"But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans."
Post a Comment
<< Home