Recent Posts


MN-03: Will Paulsen hang around?

by Dan Burns on June 22, 2017 · 0 comments

paulsenI certainly haven’t seen any indication that Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) could be thinking of leaving Congress at the end of this term. But conventional wisdom is that 2018 will be his toughest electoral challenge (as will be the case with a lot of GOP incumbents), and he’s certainly paid his dues to the rich man to the point that he will have his pick of lucrative lobbying gigs whenever he wants them.
On the other hand, he doesn’t have to beg for money; Big Device in particular will see to it that his campaign has plenty. And if I’m not mistaken he has always easily outperformed GOP presidential candidates, in the district. It’s certainly possible that he has little to fear unless Democrats can score an A+ list candidate to run against him, and I don’t know who that would be.
Anyway, this new practice of his at least borders on the pitiful. At the very least.

Erik Paulsen regularly issues a video Correspondence Corner in which he responds to constituent questions.
It is a great ploy — Congressman Paulsen determines what question is to be answered … thus, providing him an opportunity to portray himself as effectively responding to issues that he wishes to address as if they are the most critical issues that voters want addressed…
Later in the session, the House approved Amendment 90 offered by Congressman Don Young (R-AK) to H.R. 5538 to prevent use of funds to implement the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which recommended that Congress designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness. That vote was approved 237-191, Congressman Paulsen was one of twelve Republicans to vote NO. OK … that supports his stance but the Republican majority prevailed.
However, that amendment was just an amendment … would Congressman Paulsen retain that same opposition on the final vote ? No … while 15 Republicans voted NO on the bill, it was approved 231-196, with Congressman Paulsen voting YES.
Being able to cast a protest vote on amendments does little when you vote inline with Republican leadership orders on the final bill.
In summary, while Congressman Paulsen’s Correspondence Corner response to April of Edina may give some hope that he will reject Trump’s calls for more oil and gas drilling, his votes say that in the end, he will side with “the Boss” and his Big Oil donors.
(MN Political Roundtable)

There are more critiques of Rep. Paulsen’s “Correspondence Corner,” at the same blog.


Last Tuesday, the Star Tribune gave Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) a op-ed in which she complained that Obama is causing gas prices to rise amongst other bits of nonsense backed up by industry-funded junk science.  

Bachmann claimed that if we’d just start drilling in the ANWR reserve in Alaska and in the Gulf, we’d reduce gas prices.  She believes 30 to 50 years worth of oil is in Alaska alone.  She also used to believe that there was enough oil off of Virginia to replace the amount we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

I know you are going to be shocked by this revelation, but she’s lying again:

Doug Holtz-Eakin, the White House’s Chief Economist under Bush, joined MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Tuesday to discuss the problem of rising gas prices. When asked whether the conservative “dig, drill” mantra would actually lead to lower gas prices, Holtz-Eakin – who was also the cheif economic adviser for Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 2008 presidential campaign – offered a simple answer: “no”:
MATTHEWS: If we were taking apart the ANWR and drilling everywhere, would the price of gas be much different? In the world market, since this all fungible, if we were doing all that here in the United States, would the price of gas be much different? I’m just asking that question.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: No, he can’t change the price very much. So, I mean, he’s trying to do things-

MATTHEWS: But the conservatives are saying all you have to do is pump like-all you got to do is drill like-Pawlenty said, just got at this, dig, dig, and dig, drill, drill, and drill, and somehow the price of the gas is going to down on the world market. You’re saying that’s not true?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, I mean, you can’t change the oil price very much with the U.S. exploration. It certainly can’t change it quickly. We know that. And I think Republicans have been honest about that.

Watch it:


Star Tribune gives op-ed to Michele Bachmann

by The Big E on April 27, 2011 · 0 comments

The Minneapolis Star Tribune gave Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) an op-ed in which she blamed President Obama for the rising gas prices.  She also attacked him for cozying up to foreign countries over their oil.  She also cherry picks two studies that show renewable energy costs jobs.

As usual, the incompetent editors at the Strib allow Bachmann to post lies without fact-checking.  I don’t know why the Strib and it’s editors and journalists are so averse to fact-checking.  Maybe as Stephen Colbert suggested, stenography is just easier.  Sigh.

Bachmann cites a study by the King Juan Carlos University in Spain that has already been debunked.  She claims that this study warns us we’ll lose 2.2 jobs for every green job created.  The only problem is it isn’t true:

According to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) the Juan Carlos University report fails to account for numerous important factors when reaching its conclusion. The NREL concluded that the study has little predictive validity for the introduction of green jobs in the United States. The report has been questioned by media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal and Reuters and the author of the study is linked to the climate change denying Heartland Institute and the heavily Exxon-Mobil funded Center for New Europe.

The other study was just released and has not yet been debunked.  It was most likely funded by the climate change deniers from all I can tell.  Give it time, it’ll be debunked.

Bachmann also claims that 30 to 50 years worth of oil may be in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserver (ANWR).  But keep in mind that this is the same woman who claimed that there was as enough oil off the coast of Virginia to replace what we import from Saudi Arabia.  She’s not exactly credible on this topic.
Bachmann tries to pretend that gas prices were really, really low under her loverboy’s administration.  Strangely, I seem to remember gas prices over $4 back then.  I also recall that prices plummeted as the 2008 election approached.  That couldn’t be a coincidence.

Furthermore, she complains that the Obama Administration isn’t approving enough drilling permits in the Gulf.  The only problem with this claim is that oil companies are sitting on thousands of permits which they aren’t using.  Her original lie about Obama only granting one license was already debunked.  At least she’s stopped using that lie.

The problem is that Bachmann and her ilk deny that climate change is a problem.

In Bachmann’s alternate reality, all we need to do is just Drill, Baby, Drill!  She doesn’t take into account the fact that the US oil production peaked in the 70s and it’s far too costly to produce the amount of oil our oil-addicted society demands.

Bachmann denies the reality that we need to reduce our demand and find alternatives.  So she uses oil industry-funded, junk science to back up her assertions.

And the Strib just goes along with it.  

Don’t expect any counterpoint to get the same high visibility.