Thursday, August 06, 2009

Maureen Reed Waffles

Nope, IHOP has not endorsed a new dish after Dr. Marueen Reed's performance in a recent Eric Black MinnPost interview.

The headline says enough...almost!

Maureen Reed offers vague positions on abiding and abortion

Bob Olson was many things, vague was not one of them.

I'll say this...based on my experiences in DFL endorsement races, being vague on issues is bad. The last thing we need is someone who cannot clearly articulate a rational position on the issues important to us. It doesn't matter that a member of Congress has little influence on the issue of choice, people want to know where they stand on the issue.

On the endorsement:
“We’re going to get the endorsement. That is the plan. That is what we’re aiming at and that is where we’re focused... You can say that we’re planning to get the endorsement. All of our efforts are focused on that.”
Awesome. Bob Olson said the same thing, although he used 4 times as many words.

Newsflash to the Reed for Congress Campaign:

Senator Clark gaining the support of AFSCME and the SCSU College Democrats is merely the tip of the iceberg. I predict Clark will secure every labor endorsement available.

I admit to be impressed with Dr. Reeds fundraising figures. However...

I see this all the time at my work. A new salesperson comes in and cleans house for the first month or so, completely destroying their quota and quickly becoming the newest Tom Hopkins in our area. I always suggest that we check out the sales figures AFTER they've finished selling stuff to their friends and family. 9 times out of 10, the third and subsequent months are dismal.

I want to see Reed do that at least one more quarter before I believe it to be an actual movement and not the personal Rolodex, impressive as that may be.
"In terms of whether or not she will abide -- this is being pushed by supporters of Clark and Tinklenberg who want Maureen to make a statement on abiding by the endorsement. Why? Well, only they can really answer that question, but we believe the fact that Maureen has raised funds far north of $230,000 has made the other campaigns stop and realize she is an extremely viable candidate."
When you put this quote with the following quote, things get really interesting.
“I would not run on the IP line. I’m DFL. And that’s the line that I’ll be on.”
Wow! Paxil Bob just breathed a sigh of relief.

Having been the IP Lt Gov candidate in 2006, the IP ticket would have been a great fall back position.

Seriously.

If I were a woman, running for Congress in the 6th, and running against Senator Tarryl Clark and Congresswoman Bachmann, the middle ground of the IP would seemingly be the BEST place for me, wouldn't it?

And with $230,000 to spend in the 6th? Perhaps the ability to tap into some Ron Paul supporters and raise a cool $500k for the race?

Keep in mind, I bet the DFL candidate will need in excess of $4 million for this race, and with all due respect to Reed's folks, Clark will have an easier time approaching this number with the support of labor and a strong netroots presence.

But most disturbing to me is Dr. Reed's lack of an answer on the biggest issue facing us today, health care.

I know it's pretty complicated, BUT if I were a health care professional AND had this as a hallmark of MY campaign...my answer would be anything but non-committal.
“The goals that I would have are that we have to get expenses under control, cut the cost of administration and care. And we have to cover everybody. We need universal coverage and we need lower costs. And there are a lot of ways to accomplish those goals.

"People get so wedded to a particular method that they forget about the goal that we’re trying to achieve. People wind up with their feet in wet cement on their method, that my method trumps your method. To me the only thing that counts is that we fix it.”
It's not like asking Bob Olson about taxes...

Or is it?

4 comments:

heisenberg said...

Unlike victor, I'm not running a commercial on your blog.

Reed obviously is smart. Gaining an MD, practicing for years, and then being a high placed HealthPartners administrator, heading the U.Minn Board of Regents, all backs that up.

So, obviously, her ambiguity is deliberate and not inadvertent.

With the IP resume item, it's incumbent to define who you are, or others will be skeptical.

I hope she breaks this ill-planned stragey. Clark on the other hand has a clear legislative record, and speaks on issues consistent with that record.

If you look at a Ford and a Chevy, and have the full CarFax [Carfacts.com] history on the Ford, and nothing on the Chevy but its general quality - it looks good - which would you buy?

Bob Anderson said...

Thanks Blueman, I did enjoy that statement.“I would not run on the IP line. I’m DFL. And that’s the line that I’ll be on.” I also got a kick out of your line, Wow! Paxil Bob just breathed a sigh of relief.
I do appreciate Senator Tarryl Clarks confidence in only seeking one parties endorsement. I think if you need the endorsements of two parties you are not the strongest candidate. I enjoy following your coverage, keep up the good work. Thanks, Bob Anderson

taxpaying liberal said...

So Bob,
Are you going to stick to your statement to Black that if you didn’t get endorsed at the IP party convention and there was no cross endorsement you would not file to run?

G.P. said...

I suspect she'll be more clear in the near future. This district is full of "black and white thinkers" and the abortion issue is maddeningly complicated.