Minnesota Independent » esme murphy

Bachmann outlines budget cuts

Andy Birkey — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:42:33 +0000

Rep. Michele Bachmann sat down with WCCO’s Esme Murphy on Sunday following a Face the Nation appearance in which she proclaimed that she lives “in the real world.” Asked where she would trim the federal budget, Bachmann said she wants to cut federal employees, stop stimulus spending and freeze unnamed federal accounts which have $20 billion.

Pressed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper in November about her plans for cutting the budget, Bachmann could offer no specifics, instead erroneously claiming that President Obama’s trip to India, which she said represented “over-the-top spending,” cost $200 million per day. On WCCO, she had more concrete, although still vague, plans.

Murphy asked, “Where would you slash? I mean if you could just go one two three what would be your top priorities?”

“I think mistakes were made in passing the stimulus in the first place and also in the TARP bailout” — which was signed into law by George W. Bush in 2008 — “so we do have quite a bit of money still left unspent stimulus funds. We shouldn’t spend that,” Bachmann said. “We have other accounts that have $20 billion in them that we haven’t spent we shouldn’t spend that. We need to take the federal employees that were added, an additional 10 percent, and we need to cut back on there as well.”

She added, “I don’t like the idea of just across the board cuts because some budgets might need to be increased.”

Coleman: Media ‘could have waited’ until after Nov. 4 to ask about money-funneling

Chris Steller — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:35:46 +0000

Photo: Star Tribune video

Norm Coleman told the Star Tribune editorial board Thursday that its reporters “could have waited” until after the Nov. 4 election to ask questions about charges that businessman Nasser Kazeminy funneled him money. Instead, Coleman charged, the reporters knowingly “inserted themselves” into a DFL Party TV ad by shouting questions to him as he left an Oct. 29 campaign event (video below).

Coleman’s statement that “it could have waited until afterwards” repeats a blame-the-messenger riff he first played in a Feb. 1 interview with WCCO-TV’s Esme Murphy, when he implied the reporters’ questions cost him crucial votes:

They could have asked those questions quietly. … They could have gone back and had a quiet conversation if that was the purpose. … That could have been a quiet story. It could have been a story that came out the day after the election. … And it’s unfortunate that those last-minute, eleventh-hour charges can have an impact on the race.

The reporters, Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe, shot back that they had repeatedly sought an interview with Coleman on the subject. When the campaign rebuffed those requests, Kennedy and McEnroe warned Coleman they intended to raise the issue at his Oct. 29 campaign stop in St. Cloud.

Video clips showing the reporters shouting questions to an unresponsive Coleman as he gets into a waiting car immediately appeared on the Web and soon were featured in a DFL Party TV ad.

When asked at the editorial board interview yesterday about the charges in a Texas civil lawsuit that Kazeminy ordered executives at Deep Marine Technology to send $100,000 to the St. Paul insurance firm where Coleman’s wife works, Coleman turned the question against the newspaper:

STRIB: Have you been contacted by the FBI in the Kazeminy investigation?

COLEMAN: I’ve made my point that we did nothing wrong. … I’ve made it clear that I’m just not going to comment about that. … You’ve got a business dispute between two guys who got fired and a guy who took over a company. And we’ve talked about this, and I’ll say this: You’ve got two reporters who inserted themselves into a Democrat campaign commercial four days before an election, which I found stunning.

STRIB: That’s not true, Senator. They didn’t insert themselves — they were there, they became part of that commercial, but they did not have anything to do with producing it.

COLEMAN: … That is true. … The trackers [from opposing campaigns] are there. Everything we do is tracked. So you’re telling me that two seasoned reporters who bring up an allegation four days before an election — it could have waited until afterwards — in the midst of, in front of which … the cameras weren’t hidden, were they? Were the cameras hidden?

STRIB: The reporters tried to contact you. …

COLEMAN: But get to the point of, they inserted themselves. Did they raise an allegation four days before an election in front of TV cameras that they know are filming? Is the answer to that yes or no? … You said they didn’t insert themselves. They did.

STRIB: I wouldn’t have been conscious of the cameras if it had been me and I’m guessing they weren’t either.

COLEMAN: Goodness gracious, we’re covered by cameras, OK? Then you’re thinking these guys are dumber than … OK? That’s an absurd proposition. In front of a bevy of cameras, they raised allegations of something — I’ll just end it again — no basis in fact. Not a single allegation made to date of anything done wrong by myself or my wife, because there was nothing. So I’m not going to comment on it, but I take great exception to the fact that you say two seasoned reporters didn’t insert themselves in front of cameras and the next day have a Democrat commercial running on that very issue. I take offense to that.

The Star Tribune is rolling out video and transcribed excerpts from the editorial board interview with Coleman. Video of this exchange is here. The newspaper endorsed Coleman last fall and this week ran an editorial supporting his bid to appeal a court ruling that Franken won the election to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Coleman’s charges came during a stop on what the newspaper termed a “media blitz” and “an all-out public relations campaign” that also included visits with the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial board and interviews with several local TV stations.

Here’s the video of the Strib reporters trying to get a comment from Coleman:

Bigger media weighs in on access issues at the Minnesota House

Paul Schmelzer — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:21:35 +0000

A group of online media outlets — including Checks & Balances, Radio Free Nation, the Minnesota Independent, The UpTake, Twin Cities Daily Planet and others — have been pressing the Minnesota House of Representatives to change rules that limit who gets to cover their proceedings. Now that the Sergeant-at-Arms proposed (now-ditched) restrictions on all media hoping to video- or audio-tape committee hearings, bigger media outlets are spreading the message:

• WCCO’s Pat Kessler raised the “who’s a journalist question” Monday night, noting that the access battle is a bipartisan issue. He interviews The UpTake’s Jason Barnett and Minnesota Democrats Exposed’s Michael Brodkorb about their disappointment that the DFL majority seems opposed to “more transparency, more bloggers in, more access to the process,” as Brodkorb put it.

• WCCO’s Esme Murphy strikes the same chord, then posts the Society of Professional Journalists’ statement on yesterday’s proceedings:

“It’s our understanding the first three of the proposed rules are already tossed out, which is a good thing since they triggered the strongest response. However, SPJ is concerned about the rules that continue to try to narrow the definition of what a journalist is and who should be allowed to document the workings of state government.

The Minnesota Legislature does the people’s work during committee meetings and formal House and Senate floor sessions. Minnesota SPJ understands the difficulty in maintaining decorum and a productive environment in such open, public forums. However, this is precisely the job legislators were elected to do. Public scrutiny comes with the office. SPJ takes the position that transparency is the only way elected representatives can maintain credibility with their constituents. As such, the best approach is one that adheres to the most noble aspects of the First Amendment that recognizes the need for openness and accountability from government.

It’s difficult to understand why the proposed rules place conditions on what should be a simple process of access. SPJ prefers to define ‘journalist’ in the broadest of terms and we believe it’s time for the legislature to do the same. The public loses whenever elected officials choose to exclude people who wish to document what happens in a public meeting, working on public policy in a public space. If there is an issue of decorum, safety or logistical space, elected leaders have appropriate methods in place. Rather than create additional rules that imply a person’s credentials will be issued based on where a person works or how long a person will be reporting at the Capitol, SPJ would encourage legislative leaders to lessen the rules to allow more people to report in new and innovative ways to reach more of the public. The Legislature should establish equitable rules for all media, with no bias awarded anyone based on medium, method or viewpoint. If this proposal reflects the Legislature’s attempt to do that, they have missed the mark.”

• TPT’s Mary Lahammer expresssed “great outrage” over the House rules that limit “where, when and what [the media] could record in a public building involving publically elected people.” She writes, “True the media landscape is changing and that makes a lot of us fearful too, but fear never leads to good decision making.”

• MPR’s Bob Collins writes of the “big chill at the Capitol,” noting that there’s “virtually no reasonable case to be made that inviting a few bloggers in to inspect the workings of elected officials would cause an undue burden on the lawmakers who, for the record, asked for the job.”

Coleman: Reporters’ questions — on-camera, not ‘quiet’ — cost him election

Chris Steller — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:47:20 +0000

No, he's not making a shadow-bird: Coleman shows how ballots could get counted twice.

Norm Coleman suggested in a TV interview Sunday that reporters’ asking about charges of illegally funneled money cost him the Nov. 4 Senate election. “That could have been a quiet story,” Coleman said. “It could have been a story that came out the day after the election.”

The live interview on WCCO-TV’s “Sunday Morning” news program contained other intriguing Coleman quotes. About the Senate election: “It will end soon.” About the idea of taking his fight to federal court: “If somehow there’s a violation of equal protection, you think about that.” About a run for governor in 2010 if he loses and Gov. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t seek re-election: “I’m not looking to the next election.”

But the most interesting part was a 100-second exchange about charges that a campaign supporter funneled unreported funds to the former Republican senator. The exchange begins at the 5:30 mark in the seven-minute interview (video link). Anchor Esme Murphy’ asks about allegations in a pair of civil suits that Coleman benefactor Nasser Kazeminy directed $75,000 from a Texas business he controls to Coleman’s wife’s firm.

NORM COLEMAN: No money was ever funneled to my family. My wife has a job. She does a job. And there’s nothing that was illegally funneled to her. But you had two Star Tribune reporters appearing in a DFL ad on a story that came out four days –

WCCO-TV NEWS ANCHOR ESME MURPHY: But not of their own volition!

COLEMAN: Not of their own volition but they –

MURPHY: Because I was there, I mean when that was taped –

COLEMAN: But they put themselves in that ad. They put themselves. And so four days –

MURPHY: No, they didn’t.

COLEMAN: Esme, the cameras were there. They could have asked those questions quietly. They could have had a different conversation.

MURPHY: But they had no control over the cameras.

COLEMAN: But they knew the cameras were there. They could have gone back and had a quiet conversation if that was the purpose. My point being they appeared in a Democratic Party ad four days before an election on something that never happened.

And so in the end, I welcome — let’s take a full look at this. But, I can’t, you can’t recreate that. You can’t take that back. And so in the end it’s the nature of this business.

But no — you know, my wife never got any money that she didn’t earn. There was no money funneled to her. You had two guys involved in a lawsuit. And perhaps using that relationship, my relationship with that person to maybe squeeze more money out of him.

But that could have been a quiet story. It could have been a story that came out the day after the election. Instead you had two reporters in front of cameras confront a candidate on something they could have had a quiet conversation about if that was the purpose.

So, be that as it may. No question: Nothing ever happened there. And it’s unfortunate that those last-minute, eleventh-hour charges can have an impact on the race. I’m not lamenting anything. …

Those other issues will be dealt with. But emphatically, there’s nothing to that. And it’s a shame that those kind of charges can be thrown out. No one – There’s not a single allegation that my wife or I actually received any money. Not one. Not one. And no facts to back that up.

UPDATE: The Star Tribune reporters responded to Coleman’s charges at Braublog.

Video: Bachmann, on WCCO-TV, defends ‘anti-American’ remarks and withdrawn Vennes pardon letter

Steve Perry — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:38:15 +0000

In full-on damage control mode, Michele Bachmann sat down with WCCO’s Esme Murphy Sunday for an interview about the media firestorm occasioned by her claim on Hardball Friday that Barack Obama and unspecified members of Congress harbor views that Bachmann called “anti-American.”

Bachmann hewed to her official line that her comments were “misread,” but the most interesting segment of the interview concerned a subject that Bachmann wasn’t expecting — the recent disclosure that Bachmann wrote, and later withdrew, a presidential pardon request on behalf of convicted felon Frank Vennes Jr., who is implicated (though not yet charged) in the unfolding Tom Petters financial fraud scandal.

Now that Bachmann is eliciting heightened scrutiny from many quarters, will “Pardongate” crack the mainstream media news cycle too? Karl Bremer has written three pieces about the Bachmann/Vennes connection for MnIndy: Bachmann’s pardon-gate: More about her letter withdrawing pardon request for Petters associate Vennes; Michele Bachmann: Granting a pardon to campaign donor and ex-con Petters associate Vennes is ‘good for society’; Bachmann’s office claims she donated at least one Petters-tainted campaign contribution to charity.

Two vids — the full interview, and the Vennes-related excerpt — below the jump.

Esme Murphy, WCCO-TV: Full Michele Bachmann interview (6:14)

Excerpt: Bachmann on her withdrawn pardon request for Frank Vennes Jr. (1:32)

Who’ll stop the rain of negative attacks in 3rd CD? No one, apparently

Chris Steller — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:24:00 +0000

In an interview with reporter Esme Murphy on WCCO-TV Sunday morning, Republican state Rep. Erik Paulsen commented for the first time on a line of attack that Republicans pushed hard last week: that Paulsen’s DFL opponent for the state’s 3rd Congressional District, Ashwin Madia, is less qualified than Paulsen because he’s unmarried, rents an apartment and doesn’t fit the district’s “demographic.” Paulsen, the argument goes, is “one of them.”

WCCO’s Esme Murphy: There were Republicans going around this week talking about the fact that Ashwin Madia is not married and doesn’t own a home. What do you think about those kinds of comments?

State Rep. Erik Paulsen: I can only speak to my own personal experience. As someone, again, who’s been a lifelong resident of the area and pays property taxes and understands the real difficulties that families are going through right now, I’m focused on how we’re going to help solve the difficulties that are facing Minnesota families and small businesses. We’ve got to keep things on track right now –

Murphy: Do you condemn that kind of criticism?

Paulsen: I think it’s inappropriate to have harsh attack ads that mischaracterize candidates’ positions or votes. And I’m sure we’re going to continue to see additional mudslinging. I hope that’s not the case because I expect to get vastly outspent by some significant special interest groups.

That exchange didn’t illuminate the question of whether Paulsen takes responsibility for his allies’ slams on Madia’s personal life at press conferences last week. But Paulsen’s dodging of Murphy’s questions suggests he doesn’t condemn them — a likelihood reinforced by the presence of his campaign staff at a Sept. 30 news conference called by state Sen. Geoff Michel (R-Edina) at which Michel called Madia a “carpetbagger.” At the end of his prepared comments that day, Michel referred reporters to Paulsen campaign staffers at the press conference.

State Sen. Geoff Michel: So that’s our main message today. There are Paulsen campaign staffers here for additional follow-up or questions.

While taking reporters’ questions, Michel asserted that Madia is the only current candidate for congress to have filed for office using his or her parents’ address.

Reporter: Do you know that for a fact? Or, how do you know that?

Michel: There are people in this room, including the Paulsen campaign, who know that as a fact.

When Michel couldn’t answer reporters’ questions about the details behind his charge that Madia is a “carpetbagger,” he again appeared to defer to Paulsen staffers in the room.

Michel: There are others here who can dive deeper into the details [of Madia's residential history].

On WCCO Sunday, Madia repeated his condemnation of ads by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) attacking Paulsen — “to the extent that they’re inaccurate” — but said federal law against candidates coordinating with outside groups prohibited him from communicating with the DCCC about the ads.

Murphy interviewed each candidate separately, including the Independence Party’s David Dillon, who disputed Madia’s version of his options: “You can pick up the phone and say that’s a bald-faced lie.” Dillon roundly criticized negative campaigning, particularly the DCCC’s, as a “new low” for the district. But he said that in any case his campaign — which he figures is now drawing support from around 20 percent of voters — would benefit from the other two candidates tearing each other down.

All three candidates said they supported the financial sector bailout bill signed into law at the end of the week, but not its earlier version — which Paulsen pointedly identified as the Bush administration’s, saying it amounted to a “blank check.” (Madia has said he would have supported the first bailout proposal only if it was the only alternative to inaction.)

Several questions went only to the two leading candidates. On Iraq, Madia said he would set withdrawal goals that would bring U.S. troops home within two years. Paulsen said he would go along with time horizons set by the Iraqi government. On energy, Paulsen endorsed domestic drilling for oil off the continental shelf, while Madia called for a comprehensive energy strategy that would include domestic drilling alongside exploration of alternative sources.

Dillon interview:

Paulsen interview:

Madia interview: