The Schultz Report: Some Minnesota Dems said to be eyeing primary run against Franken
Friday, May 02, 2008 at 10:44 am
- 6 Comments
In this week’s Schultz Report, we discuss increasingly heated rumors that the turmoil surrounding tax-troubled, poll-challenged US Senate candidate Al Franken has some Minnesota Democrats weighing last-minute runs against Franken in this fall’s primary. Schultz names three names that are on a lot of observers’ lips in recent days: Mike Ciresi, who suspended his own campaign a couple of months ago; Second District US Rep. Tim Walz, currently mounting his first re-election bid for that seat; and little-known Minnesota Senate tax committee chair Tom Bakk.
“Ciresi decided to drop out mostly because people said that it looked like Franken had the nomination all wrapped up,” notes Schultz. “Of all the possible candidates, he probably has the biggest star power and the biggest pockets. One’s going to have to have a lot of money to challenge Norm Coleman in a race that’s going to cost $10-15 million.
“Tim Walz is sort of the new darling of the Democrats. Normally people wouldn’t think a freshman would try to move from the House to the Senate. But the rumors about him running or being interested in running or being pushed to run were strong enough that he had to go on Minnesota Public Radio to deny that he was going to run for the Senate.
“Thomas Bakk is not a household name. He chairs the Senate Tax Committee. Most people probably have no idea who he is. The most important thing he seems to be doing right now is carrying a major bill that would give Mall of America multi-, multi-million dollar tax breaks to expand into the area right next to Ikea. He has said that he’s being encouraged by some people to enter the [US] Senate race. Whether that’s accurate, I don’t know. But that’s at least what he seems to be saying at this point.”
More: In the second half of today’s audiocast, Schultz reviews the collateral damage to the Obama campaign from Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s latest 15 minutes of fame, and questions the likelihood that DNC chair Howard Dean can bring Obama/Clinton to a close by the end of June.
Listen: David Schultz talks about the Franken campaign’s challenges — and potential challengers (15:48)
6 Comments
Comment posted May 2, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
So Many Wrongs First all, the other major candidate in the DFL senate race is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, which you don’t mention.
Second of all, it would be practically impossible for another candidate to join the DFL senate race at this point. We are not interested in a primary.
Third, Tim Watz has said “Not interested” on many different occasions quite clearly.
If the Schultz report is saying this, it is clearly and completely wrong and you should not quote it. And your article should be about very wrong it is!
Comment posted May 3, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
“had to” go on MPR? It’s worse than that.
Schlutz’s commentary is simply wrong about Walz.
Walz was not on MPR denying the rumor. He did not “have to” (as Schlutz writes) do anything about the rumor.
The only time the information about Walz not running anywhere on MPR (broadcast or web) is a brief post on Polinaut on Thursday morning:
“DFL Rep. Tim Walz held a conference call this morning. MPR’s Sea Stachura says he is not considering a run for the U.S. Senate. His name popped up after Democrat Al Franken said he owed $70,000 in taxes to 17 states.”
That conference call? Was it about the Senate rumors?
Here’s the media advisory the Walz office sent out for that call:
(Washington, D.C.) – Please join Rep. Tim Walz TOMORROW, Thursday, May 1 for his weekly call with the Minnesota media.
No RSVP is required to participate in this call. Call-in details are below. Entrance and exit tones will be silenced for optimal radio recording.
WEEKLY PRESS CALL
WITH REP. TIM WALZ
THURSDAY, May 1
10:00 AM Central/11:00 AM Eastern
Call-in number: [redacted]
Access code: [redacted]
This week’s call will focus on the 2007 Farm Bill.
*****
I contacted MPR. The Polinaut post was based on information from the weekly press call, which was indeed focused on the Farm Bill (I participated).
Schlutz simply invented the tale in which “But the rumors about him running or being interested in running or being pushed to run were strong enough that he had to go on Minnesota Public Radio to deny that he was going to run for the Senate.”
But, hey, anything except due diligence to get in a little cheap shot about a “darling”, right? This isn’t even hip cyncism–it’s just plain old fashioned being wrong.
Comment posted May 4, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Qualities needed in a U.S. Senator Honestly, I had never heard of Minnesota Senator Tom Bakk before. Neither had anyone I have talked to,. Yet here is his name being floated as a potential latecomer for the U.S. Senate race.
So I did some research. His most recent claim to fame is apparently getting $370 million of public money to a couple of billionaire Canadian brothers who own the Mall of America. I have to say, that seems like a very strange priority for these hard times. And I have to say, it seems like an unusual qualification in a U.S. Senate candidate.
Unless you are really looking hard for a more corporate candidate. And unless you would prefer to completely ignore some college professor who is less likely to redistribute our national treasure, so that more of our nation’s wealth ends up in the pockets of the very wealthiest.
Comment posted May 2, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
So Many Wrongs First all, the other major candidate in the DFL senate race is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, which you don't mention.
Second of all, it would be practically impossible for another candidate to join the DFL senate race at this point. We are not interested in a primary.
Third, Tim Watz has said “Not interested” on many different occasions quite clearly.
If the Schultz report is saying this, it is clearly and completely wrong and you should not quote it. And your article should be about very wrong it is!
Comment posted May 3, 2008 @ 10:41 am
“had to” go on MPR? It's worse than that.
Schlutz's commentary is simply wrong about Walz.
Walz was not on MPR denying the rumor. He did not “have to” (as Schlutz writes) do anything about the rumor.
The only time the information about Walz not running anywhere on MPR (broadcast or web) is a brief post on Polinaut on Thursday morning:
“DFL Rep. Tim Walz held a conference call this morning. MPR's Sea Stachura says he is not considering a run for the U.S. Senate. His name popped up after Democrat Al Franken said he owed $70,000 in taxes to 17 states.”
That conference call? Was it about the Senate rumors?
Here's the media advisory the Walz office sent out for that call:
(Washington, D.C.) – Please join Rep. Tim Walz TOMORROW, Thursday, May 1 for his weekly call with the Minnesota media.
No RSVP is required to participate in this call. Call-in details are below. Entrance and exit tones will be silenced for optimal radio recording.
WEEKLY PRESS CALL
WITH REP. TIM WALZ
THURSDAY, May 1
10:00 AM Central/11:00 AM Eastern
Call-in number: [redacted]
Access code: [redacted]
This week's call will focus on the 2007 Farm Bill.
*****
I contacted MPR. The Polinaut post was based on information from the weekly press call, which was indeed focused on the Farm Bill (I participated).
Schlutz simply invented the tale in which “But the rumors about him running or being interested in running or being pushed to run were strong enough that he had to go on Minnesota Public Radio to deny that he was going to run for the Senate.”
But, hey, anything except due diligence to get in a little cheap shot about a “darling”, right? This isn't even hip cyncism–it's just plain old fashioned being wrong.
Comment posted May 3, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Qualities needed in a U.S. Senator Honestly, I had never heard of Minnesota Senator Tom Bakk before. Neither had anyone I have talked to,. Yet here is his name being floated as a potential latecomer for the U.S. Senate race.
So I did some research. His most recent claim to fame is apparently getting $370 million of public money to a couple of billionaire Canadian brothers who own the Mall of America. I have to say, that seems like a very strange priority for these hard times. And I have to say, it seems like an unusual qualification in a U.S. Senate candidate.
Unless you are really looking hard for a more corporate candidate. And unless you would prefer to completely ignore some college professor who is less likely to redistribute our national treasure, so that more of our nation's wealth ends up in the pockets of the very wealthiest.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
