Check out the lede on the Star Tribune’s story about Erik Paulsen’s announcement.
Declaring himself an heir to the common-sense political tradition of Jim Ramstad and Bill Frenzel, GOP state Rep. Erik Paulsen officially announced his candidacy Sunday for the Third Congressional District seat held by the two Republicans for nearly 40 years.
Bah! Paulsen a moderate? Don’t be silly.
How is Erik Paulsen an out-of-the-mainstream conservative? Let me count the ways:
- In 2003, while House Majority Leader (so this would be before he lost to Marty Siefert), Paulsen led the effort to make what the Pioneer Press called the “Deepest cuts in state history”. These cuts eliminated health coverage for 68,000 Minnesotans and cut child care assistance by $87 million.
- In 2005, Paulsen continued in his dastardly ways and voted to eliminate coverage for 24,000 Minnesotans.
- In the words of one state legislator I spoke to, Paulsen “led the charge” in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
- During this last session (so after he lost to Seifert and was no longer Republican Leader) he was one of only 43 members (out of 134) to oppose the bipartisan transportation plan when it was initially passed by the House.
I could go on and on (and over the next few months I will, trust me). The point is this: Paulsen is not a moderate. Never has been, never will be. Belatedly trying to seize the mantle of centrist politics didn’t work for Mark Kennedy in 2006 and it won’t work for Erik Paulsen in 2008.
*Please note that I do not know Jim Ramstad personally, nor would I consider him a friend per se, but I did take a picture with him once and he seemed like a nice guy.
Zack: You did a great job of using the DFL’s press release about Paulsen to create this post.
Why is Erik Paulsen suddenly afraid of talking about his strong conservative values on abortion?
Jim Ramstad has had a 44% anti-choice career voting record according to National Right to Life.
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/bio/keyvotes/?id=334
Erik Paulsen has had 100% anti-choice voting record for nearly every year he’s been in office according to Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life.
http://www.mccl.org/archives/index.htm
I hope Mr. Paulsen will enlighten us on how he’s planning to vote on these issues in Congress. Will he flip-flop or stick with the right wing ideologues he’s helped for so many years in St. Paul?
Michael - Well, I could have just reprinted the whole release, but that is really your domain.
OH SNAP!
“The point is this: Paulsen is not a moderate. Never has been, never will be.”
BOTH parties would be well served to choose a moderate for the general election. Once you get past the party nomination, which is controlled by a small minority of voters, it comes down to which candidate resonates the best with your average voter.
And history has shown, with the electoral success of Frenzel and Ramstad, that the average voter in the 3rd is neither a right wing conservative nor a left wing liberal.
I was at Erik “New! And Improved!!” Paulsen’s “announcement”.
What a joke.
1:30, on a Sunday afternoon??!?
Why didn’t he just send out a press release saying: “ignore us!!!”
The LAST thing Paulsen wants is scruitiny.
But that’s the first thing he’ll be getting.
And starting right out of the blocks by trying to claim something the record clearly shows he’s not, only goes to show why you simply cannot trust Erik Paulsen.
If you’re looking for proof of the republiCon “Collapse Of Credibility”, look no further than Erik “New! And Improved!!” Paulsen.
This is where Madia gets off easy. No prior record to draw inconsistencies with, so he can say whatever he wants. Hovland, Bonoff, or Paulsen change their tune at all, and they get called on it.
Didn’t Madia have a reputation for a Neo-Con at the UofM? That talk was sure squashed on these boards, but Paulsen’s transition to the middle will be dissected to no end.
DTM, that’s because Erik “New! And Improved!!” Paulsen’s “transition” is as phony as he is.
Paulsen claiming to be “moderate” and “bi-partisan” simply doesn’t pass the “smell test”, because it isn’t credible.
Team “New! And Improved!!” makes a BIG TIME mistake, right out of the chute.
Paulsen’s toast, because he lacks credibility.
“Paulsen’s toast, because he lacks credibility.”
That, and the fact he has the charisma of your proctologist.
Any way you cut it, Democrats can run on the following platform, while Republicans cannot.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The right in this country has a long and ugly history of opposing the union, hostility to justice, campaigning on wedge issues, starting wars of choice, promoting corporate welfare, prostituting their elective positions to the wealthy elite at the cost of the rest of us and trampling on liberty.
To paraphrase an older and wiser man than I, the problem with Republicans is not what they don’t know, but what they know for sure that just ain’t so.
Rhus,
While I agree that the current batch of Republicans resembles most of your comments you might want to check out history a little before invoking it.
Republicans were the first “progressives” and also were not the ones that got us into such wonderful conflicts such as Korea and Viet Nam. You can lay those on Truman(D), Kennedy(D),especially Johnson(D) and Nixon’s(R) mishandling of the U.S. leaving Viet Nam.
Democrats were also the enforcers of southern segregation from the Civil War until the late seventies. If anything Democrats are recent trying to distance themselves from a “long and ugly history of opposing the union, hostility to justice, campaigning on wedge issues, starting wars of choice, promoting corporate welfare, prostituting their elective positions to the wealthy elite at the cost of the rest of us and trampling on liberty.” with exceptions the union part and that they still campaigning on wedge issues.
The neocons learned their methods and ideology from Democrats, especially Johnson. They stopped fighting for limited government and started playing the demographics game to get elected. Reagan was the first to sell out by inviting the southern Democrats into the Republican party along with the evangelicals.
And unless you have been hiding under a log you would know that both Democrats and Republicans are funded mainly by “special interests” that include all types of businesses. Any difference between them on that account is purely superficial.
Not gonna nitpick what you said, KH - well, except to point out that those “southern democrats” you mention, are today’s “southern republicans.”
I was stationed in the south; I went to college in the south, and a kid now goes to college in the south.
I know what I speaketh of.
Those segregationists didn’t change; they just changed parties.
Here’s what the locals, in Erik “New! And Improved!!” Paulsen’s hometown, are reading on-line in The Eden Prairie News, today:
***
At the end of his speech, Erik Paulsen stated:
“I will not be out-hustled in this campaign.”
Clearly, those that look into Erik Paulsen’s past - his verifiable record - and compare that to what Erik Paulsen said on Sunday, can only conclude that Erik Paulsen is indeed a hustler.
Because he certainly isn’t believable.
***
http://www.edenprairienews.com/news/national-politics/its-official-4132#comment-1172
Kerosene Hat,
“exceptions the union part and that they still campaigning on wedge issues”
I am surprised that you will admit that the conservatives were the secessionists in the Civil War and that they still campaign on wedge issues. But I agree that those factual statements about conservatives in this country.
Gee commong ground with a flaming red who would have thunk it.
Rhus