These are impressions. Loosely edited. Not heavy on the issues. There was an amazing overlap on the stated views on issues. Olson was far more direct on Iraq. It was a mistake, he said, and we were lied into the morass and should get out quickly and show a willingness toward diplomatic solution rather than sabre-rattling - my term, not his.
Tinklenberg waffled, saying we should do what leadership says, and press the new executive administration for direction on its exit strategy. No. The legislature should instruct and control, not the executive. The legislature was intended when the Constitution was written to be the preeminent voice. "Commander in Chief" of armed forces has been stretched way too far already. One big Bush problem has been arrogation of power to the executive, and in that way the man resembles the imperial presidency of Lyndon Johnson and Nixon more than Harding, his intellectual guidepost.
There were prepared questions. There was the candidates confronting one another.
Tinklenberg wanted to read his endorsement statements from McCollum and Ellison, in answer to whether he'd inflated claims of being endorsed.
Clearly the question was about Walz and Wetterling, and Tinklenberg ducked it entirely.
Walz and Wetterling is where the man previously stretched the truth quite far, and reading nice things Kieth Ellison said about him was crass unresponsiveness by Tinklenberg.
In his total silence about Walz and Wetterling, it appears Tinklenberg is backhandedly backing down from earlier expansive claims, for now, by ignoring both of them and what he had earlier claimed. Flat out ducking the question and the apparent truth of things.
Anyway, hey, I vote on what I think.
Not on what Betty McCollum thinks.
I trust my judgment and not somebody's coattails.
I am generally unimpressed by this other politician endorses me.
Oh, McCollum said that? So?
Do you attribute much impact to such coattailing?
On the direct question of how much of your time, Elwyn, has been spent lobbying, Tinklenberg ducked that issue yet again by saying that there's a federal statute and under the statute he does not have to register.
That was unresponsive to the question Olson asked. It responded to a letter inquiry I cosigned with Jerry Hiniker, but Olson did not ask that.
Such glide-and-slide rhetorical responses suggest someone I would not be able to tolerate in Congress, because he insults my intelligence with answers phrased that way.
I have seen the same tendency to ignore a question and give a "speechlet" instead by in Michele Bachmann, and I equate the two, her and Tinklenberg, on that score.
And that's not meant as complimentary to either. Trust me. Not a compliment. Just as John Ashcroft, the man who did what Norm Coleman did not, lose an election to a dead man, was the only Attorney General in history to go from that office to being a revolving door registered lobbyist; Tinklenberg is equal in my mind to Ashcroft; without the registration but excuses for not doing it. Bachmann's peer. Ashcroft's.
Olson is direct and did not duck a single thing.
Olson did not glide and slide. He gave broad big-view thoughts and explanations. Tinklenberg wanted to talk about his this and that in Anoka County over the years, as if he were running again for mayor of Blaine.
To prove you'd be worthwhile in Congress, small moves in a small fish tank are unimpressive.
To me, if you run and gun for Congress, then you show something Congressional, not mayor of Blaine and what's been done in the north metro mayors' meetings.
Size your perspective to the job being sought.
One bottom line, I respect Alexandra House and what it does, and I respect Elwyn Tinklenberg's participation in its efforts. I regard much of what it does as a public responsibility of government and not a matter of discretionary private charity. I regard it as false for those who would say one can substitute for the other. However, I see parallel help to families in distress as positive, and I commend without qualification any time Elwyn Tinklenberg has dedicated that way.
Stylistically, Tinklenberg was the slicker by far, but Olson's answers were deeper and more reflective. I prefer the substance of a Bruce Vento, even if not smoothly delivered. Slick can be shallow, witness Bachmann, whereas reflective is seldom a bad sign.
Tinklenberg simply came across as not the kind that would ever have thought to say we need a Trumanesque Marshall Plan for the Middle East or we fail; something Olson said that made a lot of sense and showed a cleaner understanding of reality than anything I heard from Tinklenberg.
CLEAR AS A BELL, TINKLENBERG SAID "POSSIBLY, PROBABLY NOT," WITH REGARD TO WHETHER HE'D ABIDE BY THE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS AND NOT MOUNT A PRIMARY CHALLENGE.
NOT THOSE WORDS, BUT WHAT ELSE DID THE WORDS TINKLENBERG USED MEAN?
HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT OLSON WAS NOT NICE BY CONFRONTING TINKLENBERG WITH TINKLENBERG CREDIBILITY GAP DIFFICULTIES, AND THAT IS GROUNDS FOR A PRIMARY CHALLENGE, OR IF NOT GROUNDS, IT CERTAINLY IS EXCUSE ENOUGH IF YOU NEVER REALLY INTENDED TO HONOR ANY ENDORSEMENT BUT YOUR OWN, AFTER WETTERLING LAST CYCLE PROVED MORE APPEALING A CHOICE TO DELEGATES.
OLSON, CLEAR AS A BELL, SAID YES. "YES, I WILL ABIDE BY THE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS."
I capitalize all that because it is important to many DFL regulars, as is the endorsement question.
Myself, I don't judge Tinklenberg by Ellison putting out a statement, McCollum putting out a statement, or by whether he will mount a primary challenge.
It's his right to do so if he wants.
It hurts the endorsed candidate, but Tinklenberg's crony Town Center Tom Gamec did it to Amy Bodner, so, his circle of supporters has a precedent.
I judge Tinklenberg by his ongoing ties to Dan Erhart and James Norman. By the fact Tom Gamec likes him, likes his style, his approach to getting transportation funding.
To me that is mediocrity among close cronies. It says more to me than Kieth Ellison's endorsement.
Oberstar, Tinklenberg mentioned that tie but did not overdo it. Oberstar is not mediocre by any measure. I would not say or imply that. The man is very smart. He also appears capable of incisive action, and willing to test his seniority by throwing his weight around any time he chooses. I have not heard anyone say Oberstar backs down from confrontation.
The earmark garbage the GOP is trying to inflate and package, was largely a non-concern to either of the two. I don't recall the issue coming up and that was good to see.
Both said sane immigration policy is needed, and Olson was stronger on saying we will need to assure that the work force size later will be sufficient. But neither said directly that the demand for baby-boomer retirement and health funding would need to be sufficiently carried by a broad tax base, or by a few workers paying an awful lot each, so that boomer retirement is a driving force behind the immigration debate, yet a force that is often too conveniently ignored.
Olson at one point in college at Bethel Colleger read Biblical Greek.
Mastering that shows something. I never developed such a skill, but higher math is "Greek" to some, and I did okay with that.
Tinklenberg was confronted over being a pro-life individual who says now he would not act to overturn Roe v. Wade, nor favor any bill or measure to criminalize the relationship between a woman and her doctor. That's carefully crafted hairsplitting that should be cold comfort to anyone having a passionate belief in choice.
Both candidates unequivocally support stem cell research for whatever human progress it may yield. Each said he would go the full hundred yards on it.
Each voiced the opinion he could beat Michele Bachmann. What else would you expect?
Olson could.
Tinklenberg it he gets the endorsement, will lose.
He will go down in flames, Janet Robert style.
Tinklenberg falsely claimed that Olson's calling him on lobbying, on flip-flopping on positions, and on a Taconite-tailings indiference to the health issues was only helping the GOP. The man knows better than to give out that false rhetoric. The GOP has research capabilities to find out truth on its own. Exposure of weaknesses in Tinklenberg credibility now does nothing but trying to forestall a bad DFL choice and a bad DFL loss to a bad GOP incumbent who could be ousted by the right opponent. It shows Tinklenberg's candidacy, itself, plays to Bachmann's benefit by showing before regretable decisions might be made how Tinklenberg is vulnerable, for who he's been.
Tinklenberg falsely said that there had been a "certification" of some taconite tailings as safe and not a health hazard because some guy with a master's degree in geological engineering named Larry Zanko, from NRRI, said so. Zanko basically is a highway engineer-geologist tasked at NRRI to find market potential for the tailings. My understanding is he did no direct lab work of his own, has no epidemiology background, and he has not held any official position where he could certify the health aspects of taconite use in roadbed paving. More on that in another post.
Taconite tailings use in paving statewide is a medical science qustion, a public health question, and the epidemiological proof would all be statistical rather than definitive.
In Ramsey where I live, the lead civil engineering head of public works admits it use of Taconite tailings is neither specified for road work nor banned; and he has no knowledge whether it's been used in Ramsey or not.
He is aware of no precautions needed, in the event it were to be used. He did not say none were needed, only he is not aware. And he is a first rate civil engineer, who is competent, honest and direct - without obfuscation.
So, does that make you comfortable?
No definitive medical science Tinklenberg can point to, yet he says it's up there in Oberstar's district, in piles, so we should use it. Huh?
That simply is risk-taking of a kind I do not want or think wise. Not when MY health is at stake. Go use the stuff in YOUR home driveway for several years, Elwyn, let the grandchildren play with it like a sand pile, and then I might be more receptive to your saying it's perfectly safe -- for ME.
Tinklenberg falsely claimed the Olson campaign had issued the letter seeking official inquiry into his federal lobbying status. I cowrote it. Jerry Hiniker, to my knowledge, is not involved with Olson's campaign. I am not connected to that campaign. I had never met Bob Olson until yesterday, at the debate.
I had the chance to discuss with him after the event, in the back of the hall, how he and Tinklenberg both missed my question and my sister's related question about the sensitive maintenance of postgraduate research excellence in the Twin Cities U.Minn. campus - the sensitivity to inconsistent feast and famine, drought and flood funding, and the troubling trend of a nationwide decline in basic research funding.
Olson said it was not his core expertise, and suggested a follow-up with his staff on the issue and its dimensions.
The ability to say, "I do not know, help me form an understanding" is the mark of a very, very intelligent and self-confident person.
The tendency to not admit limitations is false, since we each must specialize and cannot be all things on all issues.
I did not bother to follow up that question of assurances of maintainance of the U.Minn. Twin Cities campus as a first rate postgraduate research institution with Tinklenberg. The research is the seed corn of our future question. I really don't care what he understands. He's glib, and I find that offensive. He's shallow, from all I have seen.
Forget trying to discuss research funding with him. Leave it to the Bob Olsons, the Rush Holts.
I did confront Tinklenberg personally, after the session, on his saying my complaints were part of the Olson campaign. The simple fact is I dislike his actions and style wholly independent of Bob Olson. I told him I judged him in large measure by his ties to James Norman. He replied he regarded that as "guilt by association." I regard it as birds of a feather flocking together.
And more. He prospered by James Norman's decison making while Norman was a Ramsey administrative official. He was awarded contracts aiding his cash flow and needs, with James Norman instrumental in shepherding things. He allegedly then helped Norman, as a Tinklenberg Group associate, after Norman's leaving Ramsey. Each helped the other prosper. Was it quid pro quo or coincidence? They would have to say. I was not privy to planning or discussions so I can only form my opinions by guesswork, and what, for me inspires trust and confidence.
To a large measure it is an intangible, and I see in Bob Olson something that, in my experience, rings the trust and confidence bell in my mind, in a way Elwyn Tinklenberg fails to ring that bell.
Wholly a personal judgment thing. Something every voter understands, in chosing to cast a vote. This is NOT saying whether I have any factual basis to tell you to not trust Elwyn Tinklenberg. I have never said that. I have stated the factual patterns that I have found personally troubling and which raise doubts in my own mind. I have suggested there is some objective basis for skepticism.
Yet, my initial reaction to the Bob Olson candidacy was, "Owning a bank and being a tax lawyer, he's running in the wrong party." I learned that was too prompt a thought, and a misjudgment of the man.
Clearly, the more I learned, the more I saw of the courage to tell the unvarnished truth, the more I came to fully understand Olson, by far, is the better man.
But everyone makes a personal decision, and there's reason for putting the curtains around the voting booth.