Rowley on Immigration

One of the nicest new features of Coleen's new web-site is the "Issues" section. Rowley had been previously criticized by local Democrats for not having complete issue statements available, and this is a definite step forward. However, notably absent from her list of top issues are her thoughts on immigration.

To completely ignore immigration policy - probably the #1 issue of the 2006 election - says to me that she probably has something to hide. I seem to remember Rowley supporting amnesty on one of her earlier appearances on "Access to Democracy," but am not 100% sure. I'll look it up and post the video, if I can find it.

In the meantime, it's fairly safe to assume that Coleen's left-of-left position on immigration has been kept off of her web-site by Hillsman and some of her other strategists that realize that this position will not sit well with the Conservative 2nd District. I'm going to do some more research on this issue and it will all appear on the Rowley Watch ASAP.

A Rowley Makeover?

Hat tip to MDE for the news that Bill Hillsman has been hired by the Rowley campaign.

Hillsman is undoubtedly talented and this may be the first respectable political hire that Rowley has made. However, Hillsman's two notable victories came on the backs of the much easier sells of Wellstone and Venture. Whether or not he can put lipstick on this pig remains to be seen.

The Kline Record...Goodbye Credibility

So, Guy David Bailey (the writer of the Kline Record - an anti-John Kline blog) has now officially joined the Rowley for Congress team.

There are a lot of implications to this move, foremost amongst them is that the Kline Record now has lost whatever shreds of credibility they once had.

Bailey attempts to distance his blog from the campaign by saying, "None of my official acts pertain to publication of this blog. It is still the case that the ideas and opinions expressed on this site are exclusively my own. I do not take direction from the campaign about the content of this site, nor is publication of this site overseen by or coordinated with the campaign. In particular, I do not receive any monetary compensation from the campaign for maintaining this site."

To this I say, "nonsense." Mr. Bailey, if you are taking monetary compensation from the Rowley campaign for anything, then your actions in the blogosphere should be, and will be, treated as official commentary from the Rowley campaign. So, the way I see it, the only "ethical" thing to do - and we all know how much Coleen loves ethics - is to quit either the blog or the campaign.

You can't have it both ways...

This new revelation that Bailey has now joined the Rowley campaign has me wondering about something else. Was David Bailey responsible for the Nazi photo incident? Rowley said that the post was made by a campaign volunteer - who has yet to be publicly named - who was some sort of a blogging expert. Now, Rowley has hired Bailey (who admits to being a former Rowley volunteer and is somewhat of a blogging expert) for some yet-to-be-named campaign position.

I think the public deserves an answer to this question along with an ethical decision from Mr. Bailey on whether or not he will continue disparaging Congressman Kline in the blogosphere as an official Rowley Staffer.

The Rowley Watch will return tomorrow...

We've been on hiatus for the last few weeks, but now The Rowley Watch is back in the game with some new analyses of the "Agent for Change."

Challenging The Kline Record

So, I've been having a little discussion with Guy David Bailey who runs The Kline Record, a blog dedicated to throwing mud at Congressman John Kline (the guy who is going to beat Rowley by 20 points in November). Basically, he called out The Rowley Watch - and I'll have none of that.

So, I layed down the gauntlet and have already been looking over his blog for fallacious or misleading statements. Needless to say, they are in great supply and I'll start posting them soon. Stay tuned.

Here's the original conversation for background:

No Rowley said...
David,At what point do you realize that Rowley is a lost cause and sign up for a candidate who can win, like Tim Walz or Patty Wetterling. You're really wasting your time on this one.
4/17/2006 06:44:24 PM

David Bailey said...
Mr. No,The reason I'm supporting Coleen Rowley is simple: I live in Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District. If I lived in the 1st, I would be volunteering on Tim Walz' campaign and writing "The Gutknecht Record". But I would still be rooting for Coleen, as I'm currently rooting for Walz (I haven't bothered to pick a favorite among Wetterling and Tinklenberg).I've seen your site, Mr. No, and it's incredibly dishonest. In your very first post, you insist that you aren't going to "throw political mud", but you've already distorted Coleen's position on torture and used the tired old gambit of putting Coleen in the same radical category as Cindy Sheehan.I guess Kline supporters like you (and let's not try to fool anyone that you're anything but) have to resort to such dishonest tactics, because if you restricted yourself only to criticisms of Coleen which are based in fact, you wouldn't have much.Well, there's that whole thing about how she wore a "Coleen Rowley" sticker for her appearance on Almanac. Whoa. Devastating.
4/18/2006 09:50:19 PM

No Rowley said...
David,I did not distort her position on terror. I posted and judged Mrs. Rowley on exactly what she said in the interview. Go listen to the tape if you don't believe me. "[These people say]" was not added until afterwards, and it is absolutely not what she said in the interview. She was off on one of her tangential rants, and said something incredibly stupid. Is it now unacceptable to actually take a politician at their word?Despite your rhetoric, I challenge you to find one thing on The Rowley Watch that is untrue or intentionally misleading. That's not my game.In the meantime, I have already found several things on your blog that are flat untrue or intentionally misleading. I'll post them asap and look forward to your response.
4/24/2006 05:10:01 PM

Choose: Re-Elect Kline or Criticize Rowley

I would like to point out a little typo in the latest MNPact article on Coleen Rowley. Apparently, they mistakenly used the word "Defeat" where they meant to write "Re-Elect." Well, that's what they would have wrote if they lived in the real world of people who realize that the only way to beat Kline this year would be with a different candidate.

I don't recommend reading their article, because it is absolute nonsense, but I will post the comment left by Kim Millman who seems to be the only remaining democrat with any common sense.

I was all ready to retire and not comment any further on Rowley, but now that you bring it up...

Your post seems to indicate that you have been listening to Ms. Black Helicopter way too much. It’s starting to effect your judgment and perception. Who exactly is the “establishment” in the DFL? Who are “they”? Who have “they” anointed? I have never heard of any candidate or supporters in the 2nd who was not going to abide by the endorsement? So what’s your beef?

If all the members of the DFL ever cared about was raising money, there would be quite a bit more money to fight about. So you’re losing credibility here.

Exactly who are the “money people”? Are these those people that show up to all the DFL meetings with their silver briefcases full of money and veto your suggestions? I must have missed all those “money people” meetings. The only people I’ve seen at the meetings are the same old people that rarely give money to anything or anyone. If there are any “money people” meetings that are coming up in the future, you’ll have to let me know - - give me a call on my cell phone so I can quickly get there.

Who is the “regular DFL?” Is that those who have been around for 30 years? Last I looked those were the people who were supporting Rowley. So what’s your beef?

You seem to be digging yourself deeper here. No she doesn’t fit any “typical candidate.” The problem is that she doesn’t act like any candidate, whether she intends to or not, she’s been acting like a queen who thinks this campaign is all about her. Rowley does not defy labels, I could come up with a few, but I won’t.

I am not aware of any one giving Rowley “marching orders” from anywhere on “high.” I do know that everybody and their brother created a chorus of the same advice from down low, politics 101 low.

But she knew better, because she’s got instincts? That has gotten her pretty far I’d say. She may want to rethink those instincts.

Rowley is definitely not a maverick. There is a fine line between a maverick and someone who appears like a crackpot. An online blog had a real good description of a “maverick” and a crackpot. The difference between a maverick and a crackpot is that a maverick is always in search of worthwhile, bold, new ideas, workable solutions along with good leadership, while a crackpot holds onto their first idea like grim death, despite the flaws pointed out by others. In other words a crackpot refuses to perform any type of critical analysis.

And sorry you just opened yourself up for this one. Sir, I knew Paul Wellstone, and Rowley aint no Paul Wellstone (or John McCain). Comparing Coleen Rowley to Paul Wellstone does an injustice to who Paul Wellstone was and it’s also in poor taste. I would say that about any candidate or supporter that wants to try and elevate a candidate by climbing on the back of a great, but dead man.

Paul Wellstone had a political soul, he knew who he was, he knew the issues, he knew how to energize people, he walked his talk, he had charisma, he knew how to talk to the media, and he knew that he had to run a campaign to gain the support of the voters. Rowley doesn’t have any of that going for her. In addition to having charisma, knowing the issues, energizing thousands of supporters, and phoning for money all day everyday, compromising and admitting when he was wrong then changing course in Wellstone’s first campaign, he also had a bit of luck that doesn’t come along too often. What people like to forget is that without the “bad jew” letter and without a naked Jon Grunseth jumping into a pool full of 13 year old girls, Wellstone never would have won.

To be honest, I don’t think a naked John Kline jumping into a pool full of 13 year olds and a bad Christian letter could even help Rowley at this point.

I haven’t heard anyone criticize Rowley’s fundraising this quarter - - it is mostly her spending on needless consultants and the like. If she doesn’t listen to anyone anyway, why pay consultants? But now that you mention it, she should have been able to easily raise over a million by now with her publicity, but she has refused to do what is necessary to raise the money.

If she is so “uncomfortable” with the way campaigns are financed then why is she running? Why doesn’t she step aside for someone else?

Tim Walz has earned a higher stature in the party because he has been doing what it takes to run a campaign and raise money to win. Unlike Ms. Time Magazine woman of the year, Walz is an unknown, and unknowns will always have trouble raising money. However, he has worked his tail off building coalitions, learning the issues, and yes on the phone all day raising money. He gets recognition because he has earned it by working damn hard and running a campaign to win.

Rowley on the other hand has not. She went into this race with everybody behind her and with much praise, but it appears that the only thing she worked hard at was alienating most people with the ability to help her and by assigning ill motives to them simply for being former candidates, large donors, campaign volunteers, or elected officials.

Tim Walz ........$245,414 UNKNOWN TO ANYONE
Coleen Rowley $269,186 KNOWN TO EVERYONE IN THE U.S.

Money raised for the 1st Quarter:
Tim Walz .........$127,259 HE WORKED HIS BUTT OFF
Coleen Rowley $ 98,877 SHE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE PAC

Money during the Quarter:
Tim Walz ......$ 25,000 HE GAINED THE SUPPORT OF COALITIONS
Coleen Rowley $ 2,373 SHE DID NOT

All Rowley’s supporters are the DFL 2nd Congressional District Officers and Central Committee members, if she can’t get money out of the district, that is her own fault.

Marko was in the race for 5 weeks. I was one of the many people who donated to the Marko campaign. So, as I see it, the difference between Marko and Rowley – is that Marko knew the issues- Rowley does not and refuses to educate herself; Marko knew where she stood on the issues- Rowley does not; Marko had a plan – Rowley does not; Marko ran a campaign with a strategy – Rowley thinks a strategy is beneath her; Marko called and asked for money, Rowley thinks that is beneath her; Marko would have won – If she continues down the same path Rowley does not have a chance.

I don’t know who the “big money Democrats” are, but it stands to reason that no matter a person’s net worth, there is only a finite amount of money and time that a person is willing to give to any cause or candidate. If there is a perception that the way the campaign is being run, the way the candidate is acting, what she is saying and not saying, what she is doing and not doing prohibits a win in the end, people will not donate or volunteer. It is the candidate who inspires or does not inspire support, not “big money Democrats.”

Unfortunately the percentage of delegates does not translate into voters. If Rowley doesn’t start to run a campaign to win, Kline will win. It’s as simple as that. I repeat my last few comments about Rowley supporters. Her supporters are doing her no favors by blindly worshipping her. They ought to be kicking her in the butt in order to get her to run a campaign to win, that means learning all the issues, knowing where she stands on all the issues, learning how to talk to the media, raising more money and not spending on useless consultants before she needs to.

Kim gets it...

The FEC Report is Here!

Coleen Rowley's FEC report for the 1st Quarter of 2006 is finally in and the results are about as pathetic as predicted.

Here are the bare numbers:

Money raised by Rowley (1/1/2006 - 3/31/2006): $98,867.89

Money raised by Kline (1/1/2006 - 3/31/2006): $189,833.73

Money spent by Rowley (1/1/2006 - 3/31/2006): $81,192.35

Money spent by Kline (1/1/2006 - 3/31/2006): $98,894.99

Rowley's cash on hand at the close of the reporting period: $101,778.67

Kline's cash on hand at the close of the reporting period: $552,318.68

There is a lot of stuff to dig into on her FEC report, but the initial reaction from this blogger is - How the heck can someone already be spending over 80% of the money they raise?

Don't believe me? Well, check this out, Rowley was outraised by 1st District DFL challenger Tim Walz by almost $30,000, but still outspent him by almost $40,000. Coleen is quickly becoming the #3 DFL challenger in Minnesota.

More later...

Rowley Responds...

Coleen Rowley has posted a response to our analysis of her torture statement on Democracy Now!

This post entirely distorts what I was saying, as you will note from the Democracy Now excerpt below, available at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/04/1420212.

Everything I have ever said and written confirms I am categorically opposed to reliance upon rendition, torture, or any other extra-constitutional measures.

I was paraphrasing the fallacious yet prevalent argument being made, NOT making an affirmative statement in support of such practices.

The excerpt is as follows:

"...again, I'm just really arguing the urgency of looking at these issues from the legal perspective right now, because so many people say we can't use our Constitution to investigate terrorists nor to deal with them after they're caught.

"[These people say] we need to do things like rendition and enemy combatant status and even torture, for instance, which is certainly outside the Constitution. We need to use those tools, because this is a new war."

Coleen Rowley - DFL Congressional Candidate MN- 02

Now Coleen, to be fair, that "[These people say]" part was not added until after I posted the original statement. The reason that part of the sentence is put in brackets is because...YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT! I know you're a new candidate, but you have to learn that the public takes politicians for what the say, not what they mean. Be more careful next time, and we won't have this type of misunderstanding again.

In the meantime, I've added a question mark to the title of the original post...just to be fair :)

Sensible Democrats Supported Marko

While Coleen Rowley's campaign has been run mostly by friends of Hugo Chavez and Deaniacs (including her husband, homemaker Ross Rowley) the majority of sensible Democrats - who remember how to win elections - were lining up behind Sharon Marko's campaign. The proof is in Marko's recent FEC report, where the following prominent DFL'ers had financially supported Marko:

• Teresa Daly
• Matt Entenza
• Sam Kaplan
• Ted Mondale
• Jim Pohlad
• Bill Sieben
• Harry Sieben
• Susan Vento
• Betty McCollum
• Bill Luther

Unfortunately, the radical liberals who run the 2nd District DFL organization ignored the people who remember how to win elections and decided to support a candidate who agreed with their plan for winning the War on Terror (impeaching a wartime President & withdrawing from the war's central conflict).

Still waiting for Rowley's FEC report ;)

Al Jazeera on Rowley

Take this for what you will, but the latest news update on Coleen Rowley is an article from Al Jazeera that uses Rowley's dealings with the Moussaoui case as an example of why the 9-11 attacks must have been organized and carried out by...Israel!

I'm not trying to fault or associate Rowley with this kind of madness. I just thought it was an interesting perspective. The scary thing is, short of the ultimate conclusion that Israel did it, I have read every other aspect of that article several times on DailyKos.