In the Sixth, editorialists avoid nuclear outrage by picking Tinklenberg. They weigh in for the first time on you-know-what; Bachmann’s “anti-America” paradigm “adds to the list of bizarre incidents and statements that undercut her credibility as a political leader.”
Even though the Star Tribune has gone far to the right, nobody in their right mind can endorse Bachmann. Interesting though, is that they absolutely destroy Erik Paulsen but cannot bring themselves to endorse Madia so they opt for a “non-endorsement“ instead:
But Paulsen’s endorsement interview was disappointing. His answers on energy, health care and foreign policy lacked depth, detail and vision. Paulsen performed better at debates, but did not make the case that he has the depth needed to be a strong, independent leader in Congress.
Paulsen was a fiscal and social conservative in the Legislature, voting for measures that this newspaper opposed. Why he’s casting himself as a moderate in this race is unclear. His conservative credentials are solid; he should have run on them.
Paulsen is farther right than the Star Tribune and they’re criticizing him for not running on his conservative credentials? They even point out how he’s trying to run as a moderate. While I am not at all surprised by the Star Tribune not endorsing Madia, the fact that they trash Paulsen so badly is rather telling.





People Are Shouting
RSS