The Cage Match

Substance versus style was on display yesterday, at Anoka City Hall. Neither side won.

I’ll admit it; I’m not a big Tinklenberg fan. I’ve seen him a lot, but I’ve never talked to him, even though the last four times I’ve seen him are: a fundraiser for a Minnesota Congressman in January in a small room; standing in line for “refreshments” at the Blue State Ball; at the SD 56 Convention; and yesterday at The Cage Match. I've never had a discussion with El Tinklenberg. Yesterday, I was sitting two chairs away from Bob Olson’s wife, and prior to the “debate” Tinklenberg was working the crowd in Tinklenberg fashion – greeting those he apparently knows. Well, and ignoring some he knows, too: He ignored Bob’s wife, even though he was but two feet away and looking in her direction. So, when I attribute Tinklenberg to the “style” side in this story, I use the term loosely.

I’ve met and talked to Bob Olson several times. I’ve seen him speak, publicly, a few times. Yesterday was not his “A” Game, and several questions I’d be hard pressed for a “C”. That said, Bob represented “substance”. He was consistent, dogged, and determined – usually. A couple of answers he rambled; he rambled on his intro. Tinklenberg was smooth to the point of slick. He started out using Sunday’s Strib as a prop, and the story by Larry Jacobs as the point: “Whatever happened to starting small”? about Mike Ciresi as an attack on Bob Olson and his lack of previous electoral experience. Tinklenberg later took a shot at Olson, who by profession is a tax lawyer and banker. Olson talked about taxes and those making over 300K a year; in his rebuttal Tinklenberg suggested Olson has a LOT more experience with making more than 300 grand than he did.

Which I found ironic, coming from a lobbyist. What was more ironic was Tinklenberg, later in the debate, decrying the lack of civility, and then immediately going back to the Strib to take another shot at Olson.

And let’s be frank – for all his waffling, Tinklenberg is a lobbyist. As I understand it, lobbying is the essence of his firm. There are plenty of documents from various cities discussing hiring Tink to lobby for them. When asked by Olson about this, Tinklenberg stated there’s the general meaning of words, and there’s the legal meaning of words, and legally, he’s not a lobbyist.

So, I guess Tinklenberg is not a lobbyist, depending upon what the meaning of “lobbyist” is.

Tink waffled on the issue of a primary, too. In closing claimed he’d abide by the endorsement only if the process was honorable and fair. “Honorable”??!? By whose standards? His?

The question of endorsements came up. Tinklenberg became visibly angry. Quite frankly, his answer was misleading. A Tinklenberg staffer clearly stated in an e-mail blast, and I quote:

We are so proud to count Rep. McCollum as a supporter, and we have now received endorsements (emphasis added) from every Democratic member of the Minnesota delegation. From Tim Walz and Keith Ellison down South to Colin Peterson and Jim Oberstar up North, Democrats in Minnesota are working to send El Tinklenberg to Washington and send Michele Bachmann home.

Folks, there’s an “endorsement” in there, that Tinklenberg flat-out did not receive.

Tinklenberg shouldn’t have gotten angry. Embarrassed, perhaps? Contrite? Time to offer on up a Mea Culpa or two is more like it.

And this wasn't the first time Tinklenberg would become visibly angry, at questions and in challenging rulings of the moderator and challenging the debate rules his campaign agreed to. All in all, Tinklenberg reacted angrily to questions 4 times, in addition to his closing.

Quite frankly, it’s apparent that Tinklenberg will get the endorsement. Whether he’s earned it, is subjective. However, the delegate counts speak for themselves, and the math is fairly simple. Fortunately for Tinklenberg, a Bachmann Tracker wasn’t there taking video – at least, not that I could tell.

If quoting Tinklenberg’s previous statements, and then comparing them to later statements is an “attack” in Team Tink’s view, they ain’t seen nuthin’. If questioning Tink’s lobbying background is an “attack”, wait until "real" lobbyists, working on Bachmann’s behalf, take aim at Tinklenberg. If questioning taconite tailings in roadbeds and embankments is an attack, wait until some Karl Rove protégé jumps on this one.

I personally believe the questioning I’ve heard from Team Olson is, without a doubt, legitimate campaign questioning; and part of the normal vetting process.

Be that as it may, it’s apparent this race is all but over, and Team Tinklenberg will be carrying the DFL Standard for CD-6. What remains to be seen, is who they can rally to march behind it.