Category: Steve Sarvi

by Dave Mindeman

Steve Sarvi and Cong. John Kline held a direct debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters today. It was a short answer format and the challenger, Steve Sarvi, did much better in making his points.

One debate segment allowed the candidates to ask questions directly to each other and Sarvi chose to directly challenge Kline to respond to Michele Bachmann's "anti-American" charges against Senator Obama and well, the entire Democratic Congress for that matter.

Kline never responded directly. He brought up some vague references to negative dialogue on both sides....including a reference to Congressman John Lewis and his comments about the negativity of John McCain's campaign. He did not mention Michele Bachmann by name nor did he reference what she said.

I guess we are left to wonder about that. A simple repudiation would have sufficed.

Congressman Kline is always quick to pounce on what he perceives as improper conduct by his opponents or Democratic officials, but he seems to believe that his conduct can never be questioned. During this cycle, he increasingly avoids directly answering questions that don't fit into his memorized talking points.

He continues to weakly assert that his position on not requesting earmarks is a matter of principle.... although his principle on this issue continues to deprive this district of Federal dollars to help local projects. Money that we continue to contribute to in terms of gas tax dollars....while having a Congressman who refuses to fight to return some of those dollars to district projects. Items that our county commissioners and city mayors are desperately needing.

And he continues to distort the Employee Free Choice Act. Time after time he repeats the position of the business community while casting aspersions about "eliminating the secret ballot" as the union position. He knows that is not true -- unless maybe he simply regurgitates the talking points without even reading the bill. I might be inclined to believe the latter.

Kline may survive this election once again, but, quite frankly he doesn't deserve another term as our Congressman.

Category: Steve Sarvi

by Dave Mindeman

On Almanac, Steve Sarvi and John Kline had a debate. If I had to single out one obstacle that Sarvi has in this campaign, I would sum it up in one sentence:

Note to Steve...John Kline is not your superior officer.


I understand the need to respect Congressman Kline's service, but that doesn't mean being so deferential on policy matters.

Let's look at some issues that were discussed:

Earmarks: John Kline and Sarvi agree that the earmark system has some major problems. But Kline continues to believe that stopping them unilaterally is a solution. It is not and the harm it is doing to his district should be emphasized. Sarvi did have the right line of attack, but he brought it up so tentatively as to have no effect. He even offered Kline an excuse for not voting with the Democrats on their reform ..."maybe it didn't go far enought, John?" Sarvi should have gone through a long list of 2nd District projects that are not getting done...a comprehensive list that voters could identify with and realize how much they are being shortchanged. Kline is WRONG on this issue and should be exposed for the fraud he has become on earmarks.

Veteran's Issues: Sarvi has rightly made this a signature difference between them...but Steve keeps letting Kline off the hook. Kline needs to be challenged on the fact that war funding accountability is kept "off budget" while the resulting veteran's benefit needs that have obviously increased with waging two wars are pushed into contentious budget debates and often get shortchanged. Sure, there have been Veteran funding increases, but these are in comparison to peace time budgets. We now have a growing number of new veterans, many of them with complicated health and trauma issues. Budget needs for vets is growing exponentially but budget reality doesn't meet them. Kline is content to pass off his lack of support as a result of political posturing by special interest groups and that just does not cut it. Sarvi should be discussing the political division among older veterans, like the VFW, and the younger veteran coalitions like VoteVets and the Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans. Younger veterans are looking for more help and John Kline looks at the problem from a purely political perspective.

Steve Sarvi seems reluctant to make a forceful case on his differences with Kline -- I guess that is his choice.

But with a potential groundswell of Democratic support developing even Kline could be considered vulnerable. The DCCC is moving money and resources into the 3rd and 6th District. But there is still an opportunity in the 2nd. Sarvi is a good candidate on the issues even if unwilling to take Kline on directly. But Kline is not light years in front of Sarvi in fundraising and the DCCC could make that up in a heartbeat.

Here is why it might work:

1) Democratic tide is developing. If there ever were a year to invest in a long shot Democratic candidate, now is the time. Minnesota seems especially ripe.

2) Kline is overconfident. Kline has not raised money in the same manner as he has previously. The Republican House caucus is not worried about Kline either so the GOP money in the district will probably be minimal.

3) Demographics are turning. Many legislative seats have turned. People in the 2nd don't have the aversion to voting Democratic like they used to.

4) Kline's Yes Vote on Bailout. There were grumblings about Kline's Yes votes on both bailout bills. Conservatives have come to expect a reliable vote from Kline on their issues. He surprised them on this one -- trading loyalty to Boehner over principle. It might hurt him with his base.

The 2nd District is still a long shot, but opportunities like this do not come often. A solid advertising campaign in the final two weeks might pull off the surprise of the year.....

Just thinking out loud.

Category: Steve Sarvi

by Dave Mindeman

Newspapers have editorial pages to give opinions.... and that's fine. But when they give that opinion, you would expect that they would at least abide by some journalistic principle.

In a September 25th, 2008 editorial, the Faribault Daily News doesn't give an opinion, they give political cover for John Kline while denigrating assertions made by Steve Sarvi.

They call it "politics at its worst". Well, they evidently haven't been paying attention to John Kline's methods. But as long as they are going to critcize the Sarvi campaign, let's examine the charge.

From the Editorial:

In his effort to unseat U.S. House Rep. John Kline, challenger Steve Sarvi (DFL) is alleging through interviews with various media outlets, on his Web site and through television advertisements that the congressman doesn?t truly care about veterans. As evidence, Sarvi says Kline has suggested the military is spending too much on researching post-traumatic stress disorder. ...It?s also one that the evidence shows is patently false.

Patently false?

The "evidence" refers to this Kline assertion:

As the Daily News Put It: Asking the question of whether spending so much money on PTSD is pulling too much focus ? and money ? away from the huge number of leg and arm injuries being suffered in the current campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As Sarvi put it: While suicides among veterans were approaching all-time highs, John Kline participated in a hearing held by the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and asked if ?we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort??

Sarvi took exception to Kline's comments as being a real commitment to veterans.

But here is the Faribault Daily News Editorial defense:

That was a fair question to ask considering the variety of serious wounds ? mental and physical ? our troops are coming home with and have come home with from all our country?s wars.

Tell me editorial board, you actually consider that acceptable? Are you telling us that the injuries our soldiers suffer in a time of war should be "triaged" according to what we can afford?

Are you?

I don't care if there is a huge number of leg and arm injuries coming out of these campaigns -- TREAT THEM!

I also don't care how many PTSD cases are out there -- TREAT THEM!

And I also don't care if Wall Street bailouts or Auto Industy loans or propping up AIG is the crisis of the moment.... you still treat ALL our veterans injuries...PTSD or otherwise.

I don't care what it costs. Raise my damn taxes if you must...really I mean it. Every veteran that comes home from those wars (and I am thankful for every one that does) deserves the best medical treatment the richest country on earth can afford.

If John Kline thinks that "fiscal conservatism" has anything, ANYTHING, to do with which wounded soldiers get treated, then Kline deserves Sarvi's criticism and the additional criticism of any fair minded American citizen.

There was nothing unfair or untruthful about Steve Sarvi's criticism of John Kline's record. And the Disabled American Veterans agree... they gave John Kline a zero rating in 2004 and 2005 -- yes, zero.

So.. to the editorial board of the Faribault Daily News, I say this. Do you agree that health care for our veterans should be only what we can afford? Should injuries be prioritized based on cost? Should we send our young men and women off to war and then tell them we can't afford to help you when they come home?

John Kline's military service is not being questioned. He served honorably and well. Steve Sarvi also served his country honorably and well.

Sarvi has every right to question John Kline's commitment and the commitment of this administration to the coming home soldier.

You can claim Sarvi's opinion on the matter may be wrong (and opinions, by definition, cannot be "patently false" ), but the end result of the health outcomes for our veterans begs to differ.