Strib article on the Sixth District Race

Pat Doyle, sent out to cover the race against Bachmann, comes back with this. Some good background on the upcoming race, some lovely pictures of the candidates.

And former candidates. Elwyn Tinklenberg's picture is there, but no picture of Bob Anderson--whose maverick, unendorsed Independence Party candidacy picked up ten per cent of the electorate last time and cost Tinklenberg the race.

Doyle reports that the district has "an independent streak" and that former candidate Tinklenberg received the Independence Party's endorsement. But Doyle doesn't report the fact that a maverick candidacy by someone running as "the Independence Party candidate" can keep Bachmann in office for another term, next time around. I don't know if Doyle leaves that out on purpose, or if Doyle just doesn't know, or if the people Doyle interviews are trying to keep Doyle "in the dark" about what's actually going on in the race Doyle's reporting on.

But the Strib has got to start reporting what readers and politicians already know about this race, if they want to stay "au courant" with the news. Tonight I'm going to email Pat Doyle Aubrey Immelman's profile of Sixth District voter demographics. This will be an attempt to supply Pat and Strib editors with some much needed information about why Bachmann wins. Apparently nobody else wants to tell the Strib this important news.

Here's the part that Doyle and the Strib editors need to learn (by heart):

For historical perspective on the strength of the IP in 6th District congressional races, Dan Becker won 7.5 percent of the vote in 2002; John Binkowski gained 7.8 percent in 2006; and in 2008 Bob Anderson got 10% of the vote. The performance of third-party candidates in the 6th appears to be trending upward. Realistically, it’s difficult to see any plausible scenario in which a Democrat beats Bachmann with a third-party name on the ballot.

Some Democrats have accused the IP of playing a “spoiler” role in 6th District congressional races, throwing the race to the Republican candidate. However, as long as the IP enjoys major-party status in Minnesota (winning at least 5 percent of the vote in statewide races), it’s easy to get ballot access on the IP line. Thus, it’s simply realistic to assume that someone will file as an IP candidate in the 2010 election, whether he or she has the IP endorsement or not – and prospective Democratic candidates should plan accordingly.

Human interest story, here.

Here's a story in the Strib that commenter Lady directed us to.

It's about this woman who runs a bakery with 65 employees, in St. Cloud (Bachmann's district.) She's a person of faith. She joined about five hundred other faith-based activists to go and push health care reform to Minnesota members of Congress, in D.C.

But guess what happens at the end of the story? The responses she gets from Minnesota legislators are "non-committal," including the response from the representative for her district--Michele Bachmann, who sells herself to the public as a "faith-based" legislator.

The part about Bachmann is at the very end of the story, and it's not much--because Bachmann apparently did not have much to say to these Catholics, Lutherans, etc. But the story is a very interesting read, anyway.

And another interesting thing *about* the story--is that this article about Christian efforts to get MN politicians to support real health care reform appeared in the "Faith and Values" section of the Star Tribune. And it was supplied to the Strib by a writer for "the Religion News Service," not a Strib staff reporter.

So a news reporting service that covers faith and values spotted a grassroots Christian attempt at supporting national health care reform as a "faith issue." The five hundred people of faith also believe that supporting national health care for all Americans is a "faith issue." Does Michele Bachmann think that making sure all Americans have affordable health care is a "faith issue?" All is it says in the article is that her response was "non-committal."

We do know that she supports the private sector health insurers, and takes quite a bit of dough from them, despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans have no health care plan when health care is left to these private sector insurers. And we do know that the private sector health insurers have spent over a half-billion dollars during the past decade, just for lobbying Congress. And it is likely that that half-billion of profit they spent on lobbying Congress, might have been put to better use subsidizing preventive health care for Americans who've lost their health care plans during the various economic downturns.

But if the private sector health care insurers had spent that half-billion on doing that, politicians like Bachmann would not have received the special interest money that makes their campaigns "go."

Question: how Jesus have spent the half-billion? On lobbying Congress to prevent health care reform, or on the preventive health care for American families that lost their health care plans during the economic downturn?

Strib: Bachmann among top recipients of $$$ from insurers against health care reform

From a Star Tribune report by Pat Doyle:

As the nation faces a political showdown over health insurance reform, insurers worried that an overhaul could hurt their bottom line are funneling a wave of cash to members of Congress.

That includes Minnesota, where Republicans are the biggest beneficiaries of the industry's largesse. Sixth District Rep. Michele Bachmann, an outspoken foe of a government insurance option, is among the top recipients this year in the entire U.S. House...

...Health and accident insurers and HMOs have spent more than $40 million on current members of Congress over the past 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzed Federal Election Commission data.

They've also spent an additional half-billion dollars lobbying during the decade.

A "half-billion" dollars on LOBBYING? Doyle points out that these private sector health insurers are scared that reforms proposed by President Obama and the Dems would place them in competition with the public option "and even drive some out of business."

That's undoubtedly true. Some would be driven out of business. And no one would ever miss the ones that provide less and worse health care than government reform would provide. But--despite all the GOP talking points to the contrary--others would continue in business, providing a private sector option to Americans who want to opt out of the "public option." The public option would not kill off private sector health care; it would remain available to those of you who are sitting on oodles of dough. Those of you who have that kind of wealth can afford to stick with private insurers who are currently making so much out of us that they have a half-billion in spare cash--just for LOBBYING.

Speaking of oodles of dough--look who's talking about "freedom" and "the virtues of the private sector" while she's raking in the big bucks from one of the biggest monied private sector interests in the country--in return for parroting their line. If she really believed that the private sector could out-perform a public health care option, she'd welcome "competition" from the federal government. The private sector health insurers who are paying her *don't* want that competition.

They've seen Medicare in action, and so has the public, and the public has decided that Medicare is better. So the private sector insurers know that an expanded federal health care program for all Americans will kick their asses, in terms of delivering better health care to more Americans.

Which is the point of health care policy--unless you happen to be one of the lucky few receiving oodles of dough from the private sector health insurers (for parroting their line.)