I thought Zack posted on this last night (tisk, tisk, Zack), but for those who haven’t yet heard the great news, Pioneer Press is reporting that El Tinklenberg will be running in the 6th:
Elwyn Tinklenberg, a former state transportation commissioner, will announce soon that he is running for Congress in the 6th District, a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party official said Thursday.
…
Until recently, he was not expected to run for the seat. But Schumacher said the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge Aug. 1 prompted him to change his mind.“As a former transportation commissioner, he says he can’t stand by on the sidelines and watch our infrastructure be faulty,” Schumacher said.
When he declared his candidacy last time, he said he was a social conservative who reflected the values of the Republican-leaning district, which extends west from the St. Croix River through the northern suburbs to the St. Cloud area.
Tinklenberg was former Gov. Jesse Ventura’s transportation commissioner from 1999 until 2002. He was a Methodist minister for 10 years and also a former mayor of Blaine, where he was involved in developing the National Sports Center.
More analysis on this later, but for now I can say that this is very good news for Minnesota.
Loading ...
It will be good news if if someone else (who shall remain nameless) decides to run. What El needs to do is run the type of campaign that Walz ran, where the campaign is in charge and gets the big support from the national party at the end. That way, the national party and their brainiacs can’t screw it up.
El should be okay early on with raising money as I suspect the Minnesota labor movement to get behind him right away as they did last time.
Let’s have the number one priority be “winning” this time, not seeing how confused and weak in policy we are.
El is a good man. He has been a dedicated public servant. He is doing good work representing important transportation interests. He is also anti-choice and supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions.
In my opinion, people who vote pro-life and “Defense of Marriage” will vote for Bachmann. People who vote pro-choice and pro-civil union will have no options and stay home. Bachmann will win.
Transportation is an important issue, but not one to drive a voting decision. Elwyn should have won two years ago. But Elwyn should not do this year what was done to him and the activists in the the 6th two years ago, which is pull a Washington DC(CC).
How many false starts has this guy had? Regardless, it doesn’t matter who the DFL picks in the 6th because Bachmann will win.
I have to believe that Democrats won’t be excited about helping a candidate who is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and who supported the war in Iraq.
That’s Elwyn Tinklenberg.
Michael Brodkorb I agree with you.
I ask those saying that this is a good thing; what is the difference between Tinklenberg and Michele Bachmann on social issues and the Iraq war? Why should we support someone who does not hold democratic principles except for his stance on transportation and taxation? Haven’t you seen what happens when ‘conservatives’ like the Blue Dogs are elected to Congress? As well, he won’t pull Republican votes, they will still vote for Bachmann.
There is no way in jell-o that I as a constituent will support him let alone vote for him if he becomes the candidate.
If he does enter this race he will only split the party as Wetterling did when she jumped in.
Nope it is NOT a good thing.
You do realize agreeing with Brodkerb is agreeing with a man who with precisely zero positions independent from the MN GOP. Probably, I don’t know ‘entirely my own. My massive consulting fees, like the man behind the curtain, of course do not exist.’
Yes, I realize that agreeing with Brodkorb is not the PC thing to do. But in this case the facts are the facts. Tinklenberg in the CD6 race is sure to bring about another loss for the Democrats. Split the party, lose the race.
I’ve learned that whichever way i see Brodkorb running, run the opposite.
The GOP’s rhetorical hitman is suggesting that El can’t win. I’m going with the - ‘yes he can’ crowd. He didn’t get spanked by Patty folks. He lost by literally a couple of backstabbers switching their vote at the convention. It was stalemated for a while.
That was 2006. In 2007 we a record for Congresswoman Bachmann and she has been pretty consistent on voting against her districts best interest. She started off with 50% of the support and through her Vulcan Death Grip video, lies on future Iraq/Iran plans, status quo support of the war (even the President left her hanging), and MIA in the district- Tinklenberg or Hill has a real chance.
Tinklenberg has to be considered the front runner because he ran a damn close one for the endorsement. His expertise are the issues of this year, and the divisive social issues are off the table.
Could it be that Brodkorb, Rove and others know that Democrats will automatically oppose any Republican suggestion and have figured out how to use this predictability? Maybe Brodkorb ripping into Franken is away to help his nomination run with the knowledge that he would be the weakest candidate against Coleman. Maybe they would like to see a pro-war, social conservative Democrat run against Bachmann since even if they loose they win on the big issues. Maybe he just wants to see the Democrats implode on the social issues Tinklenberg will be forced to confront. Plus if Tinklenberg gets elected based in part on his social conservative stance and then has to vote with the Liberal leadership in Washington his reelection bid would be difficult at best.
In that is part of the problem with die-hard party loyalists. The same characteristics that make them loyal make them suggestible.
“He lost by literally a couple of backstabbers switching their vote at the convention. It was stalemated for a while”.
I respectfully disagree. Patty only needed 3 additional votes to take the endorsement from the first vote, then it went back and forth from her needing 5 then back to 3. We were there for 8 rounds of voting. El never had the votes to win and he never would have won. No one from Patty’s camp were going to break away, that was very evident.
Brodkorp or no Brodkorp, El will divide the party, there are too many in the CD6 that do not want him to run especially with him on record as supporting the marriage amendment and his stance on a woman’s right to choose. Those two issues will not gain him any votes from moderate Republicans and surely will turn off many Democrats that probably won’t vote if he is the candidate.
It is time for a change in the CD6 and El is not that change. The old party boys need to find a way to support a new candidate instead of putting up the retreads.
Hey “Kate”,
When advocating supposedly from an objective viewpoint, your name shouldn’t be a link back to your blog http://beyondsoundbitesandheadlines.blogspot.com/
Being an Olson supporter, you’d have a bit to contend with if Elwyn gets in. Your efforts on this thread alone smells of desperation.
You do make my point that it was only a few delegates that made the difference. Eight rounds is no slam dunk against Elwyn and we can assume he starts off with 40% of the most likely delegates- if everyone who supported Patty stands opposed to him. It’s not a bad starting off point and I’d wager its higher than Olson or Hill.
I haven’t heard anything on what Elwyn will support but, as we all learn from our mistakes, I’m sure the marriage amendment will be off the table. People are focused on their crumbling infrastructure that we thought we were paying for already.
DJZ,
Your arguments are pathetic……
El had to gain an additional 10 votes at the least to be endorsed, and no I don’t have the exact number. You really think the marriage amendment will be off the table? Look at the newspapers……………
We should take what we can get.
A liberal Democrat will never win the 6th district. Ever. Jesus could come down, proclaim to be a very liberal, progressive Democrat and even he would have a very tough election here in the 6th.
I think it’s important to be realistic and to think, what is electable here. If our district can willingly elect someone like Bachmann, that doesnt bode well for our chances to electing a real progressive. She is probably in the top 10 of most conservative in the House while she represents a district in MN, not Mississippi, and she won by a comfy margin in a very Democratic year against an opponent and establishment that outspent her by a couple million dollars. I don’t see how we can expect to put a Democrat in office if we want to pick one whose values us core Democrats share.
Tinklenberg may suck on many issues (and I’m gay so yeah, he definitely sucks on some issues) but I would willingly vote for him because it is an improvement over that horrible woman. Furthermore, think of how many times he would honestly vote on abortion, gay marriage or the Iraq war. Also, think of the MANY issues that he will side with us on that Bachmann wont, we can’t allow three issues, even as hugely important to us as they are, be the issues that allow us to not see the bigger picture, more Democrats in office and more votes towards other progressive leglislation, the environment, transportation, health care, ending the cycle of poverty etc.
This is definitely NOT good news. Tinklenberg has repeatedly endorsed a federal ban on gay marriages, complete ban on abortions as well as less stringent gun laws. What’s the difference if he’s elected? So what if we can say that we’ve “gained the sixth district.” What does it matter if he’s really just a Republican in disguise?
If the DCCC wants to shove Tinklenberg down our throats, I hope they have lots of volunteers to go with him. Because many Democrats who would work hard for a candidate they agree with — one who at the very least represents the DFL platform — will sit on the sidelines if Tinklenberg is the DFL candidate.
Michele Bachmann won with 50.3% of the vote in 2006. That means 49.7% of the voters went for a socially progressive, pro-choice, pro-gay candidate (Wetterling or Binkowski). A .4% shift in the vote on those issues puts a socially progressive candidate in office instead of Bachmann. But you think we should just “take what we can get” because you don’t think a pro-choice, socially progressive candidate can’t win in the 6th, Andrew? Can you set the bar any lower?
As for those of you who let Michael Brodkorb set your agenda, I suggest you get a mind of your own.
The difference is simple between Bachmann and Tinklenberg: with Democrats in charge, gay marriage and anti-choice legislation do not get hearings. It’s that simple. Whoever controls the majority, controls the legislative agenda and priorities.
Let’s not engage in litmus test politics. I want it to be assured that the DFL is the big tent party.
Andrew and Yokel hit the nail on the head. A liberal progressive will not win the 6th District. Period. How many elections do we have to lose before the 2006 Wetterling supporters understand that? In this district you take what you can get, and if you have a guy like Tink who agrees with you 60% of the time and disagrees 40% it is a hell of an improvement over a Bachmann who votes against you 100% of the time. We have got to get rid of the purity tests in the 6th — that’s what the Bible-thumpers do. So ask yourselves: do you want to win, or do you want to feel smug and outraged while Bachmann stampedes to reelection?
I want to win.
Picking a winning congressional candidate also depends on who the opponent is in the race, and who is up and down the ballot. I could see a pro-life Dem man beating a pro-choice GOP woman. But against Bachmann, I think the only winning profile is a socially progressive, fiscally conservative to moderate man. El is the opposite of that, except that he’s a man. No matter who the Dem is for Senate and President, El won’t align with their Dem GOTV efforts. And probably worst is, El splits the local party and harms all those state house races. And the activists are weary and leery of Wash DC operatives. They want to reclaim their own party. And looking at past results, pro-life Janet Robert with DCCC support hit the all-time low of 35.06%, they are probably right.
This is the best discussion of the most interesting race in MN! So much to say so li1ttle time. I will try to be succinct: KeroseneHAT you intrigue me. Kate, you are right…excuse me… I mean CORRECT! DJZ…the fact, (as you say), “that we thought we were paying for already, (good infrastructure), shows that you are asleep at the switch and would probably vote to give “W” a green light to find WMD’s. Wake up dude! Andrew, please don’t sacrifice truth for half truths, (or lies!), too easily. I sense that you are too young to be this jaded. (Believe me you will only be tempted to chew your forearm off in the morning.) Karl you rock! Matt2 and DJZ and anyone else who feels this way, consider seeing a priest. (I will to). No…never mind.
Many of us held our noses and supported El last time thinking we could make a deal with the devil and outsmart the nut cases on the right in the 6th. Take 60% for 40%? We lost. The Democrats must stand for something to win. I need to say tis again: The Democrats must stand for something to win. Lets stand for something. I am tired of making deals with the devil and still loosing. El is not a devil. He is a fine and good man. His candidacy is a deal with the devil because he is willing to straddle the fence on issues for votes. Issues which involve HUMAN RIGHTS! That is a fact. Let us finally stand for something more than winning and maybe we will win. We will wake up and not feel so dirty at least. Has anyone seen Tonto?
What a great discussion. I was an early supporter of El last time around. Like many people, I thought triangulation on the issues might work in the 6th. I was aware of El’s nuanced position on abortion which troubled me but agreed with the big tent concept. Reasonable people can disagree. El’s position on gays is much more problematic for me. I believe it is a human rights issue. I can’t parse on what is a manifest wrong. The Dems need to stand for something more than just winning. The Dems must stand for something to win. Making deals with the devil will not benefit anyone but the devil. This election will be about change. El is a good man but his candidacy is more about the past than the future. I believe Bob Olson offers a new way forward without sacrificing important principles.